Patients fear impact of ‘discriminatory’ proposed Medicare rebate cut for telehealth appointments
- Replies 5
Telehealth services became very popular during COVID-19, offering an important way for patients, especially those who live far away or can't leave their homes, to get medical care from their own homes.
However, there are concerns among doctors and advocates about potential changes to Medicare reimbursements for telehealth consultations.
A government committee has suggested that Medicare should only cover the cost of a patient's first in-person appointment with a specialist.
If adopted, it means that only subsequent telehealth appointments with a specialist would be financially supported.
This change would require patients to physically visit a specialist, which can be challenging and expensive for people living in rural and remote areas of the country.
For regional patients like Martha Barnard-Rae from Denmark, WA, telehealth services were revolutionary. Martha has a heart condition that requires six-monthly check-ups with her Perth-based cardiologist—a gruelling 840km round trip.
'Telehealth is something that makes medical care more accessible for people with disabilities, for people who have transportation issues, for people who live in the regions,' she said.
'For a government to make the choice to cut that, it doesn't seem like a fair and equitable choice to make. It's discriminatory, but also it disincentivises people to access health care.'
Likewise, when Jess* (name withheld for privacy) moved from Sydney to North Queensland for work, she struggled to find a local psychologist or psychiatrist to work with her depression and PTSD.
Telehealth allowed her to continue sessions with her established doctors down south, which she describes as 'absolutely essential' for her health.
She recounted, 'When I didn't have access to it [telehealth], I ended up in hospital because I had no access to any care at all when nobody would take me on.'
'It means that I do have someone that I can connect with through the phone, someone that is listening to me, someone that can provide that point of contact of care, even though they are 1,000 kilometres away,' she added.
'It's better than nothing.'
Stories like Martha’s and Jess's are common in regional areas, where accessing specialist care often requires travelling long distances or waiting months to be seen. For vulnerable groups like the seniors, disabled or chronically ill, it can be near impossible.
Telehealth has been a game-changer in improving access to care. But proposed changes threaten to undo its benefits.
Doctors warn care could suffer
Doctors working with regional and vulnerable patients warn the changes could seriously impact care.
'It means less travel for the patients. It also means that patients don't have to take half a day or a day out of work,' said Dr Justin Teng, a Perth cardiologist with regional patients like Martha.
'I have patients in other regional areas as well, and that would mean loss of access to specialist care for a lot of these patients who either would have to travel long distances to see a specialist, will have to wait a long time or both.'
Government: Is cutting costs the real agenda?
Steve Robson, President of the Australian Medical Association (AMA), argued the recommendation is driven by cost-cutting and not patient care.
'The person you're really penalising is the patient, not the specialist. They're going to be seeing the patient one way or the other,' he said.
'The cost always falls back on patients, and the most vulnerable patients do end up paying for it.'
So, what's the reason for this proposal? According to the government committee's report, it suggests that certain medical appointments are more suitable for telehealth, while others benefit more from in-person consultations.
The report mentioned that initial diagnoses and assessments might be conducted better face-to-face, while telehealth is well-suited for treatment-based or follow-up consultations.
The report also emphasised the importance of an 'established clinical relationship' for specialist telehealth consultations to ensure patients receive consistent and high-value care.
It's worth noting that the report is not final, and the Medicare Benefits Schedule Review Advisory Committee (MRAC) will consider feedback from stakeholders during its review.
While telehealth offers flexibility for patients, the government's main focus is on maintaining high standards of care, as stated by a spokesperson for Health Minister Mark Butler.
Telehealth has proven to be a valuable tool for many patients, offering a convenient way to maintain a safe and efficient connection with their healthcare providers. It's not just about the vital link with your doctors but also about the potential savings of time, money, and resources it provides.
Members, what are your thoughts on the proposed changes to abolish the rebates? Please let us know in the comments below!
However, there are concerns among doctors and advocates about potential changes to Medicare reimbursements for telehealth consultations.
A government committee has suggested that Medicare should only cover the cost of a patient's first in-person appointment with a specialist.
If adopted, it means that only subsequent telehealth appointments with a specialist would be financially supported.
This change would require patients to physically visit a specialist, which can be challenging and expensive for people living in rural and remote areas of the country.
A government committee has recommended scrapping Medicare rebates for initial telehealth appointments with specialists. Credit: Shutterstock.
For regional patients like Martha Barnard-Rae from Denmark, WA, telehealth services were revolutionary. Martha has a heart condition that requires six-monthly check-ups with her Perth-based cardiologist—a gruelling 840km round trip.
'Telehealth is something that makes medical care more accessible for people with disabilities, for people who have transportation issues, for people who live in the regions,' she said.
'For a government to make the choice to cut that, it doesn't seem like a fair and equitable choice to make. It's discriminatory, but also it disincentivises people to access health care.'
Likewise, when Jess* (name withheld for privacy) moved from Sydney to North Queensland for work, she struggled to find a local psychologist or psychiatrist to work with her depression and PTSD.
Telehealth allowed her to continue sessions with her established doctors down south, which she describes as 'absolutely essential' for her health.
She recounted, 'When I didn't have access to it [telehealth], I ended up in hospital because I had no access to any care at all when nobody would take me on.'
'It means that I do have someone that I can connect with through the phone, someone that is listening to me, someone that can provide that point of contact of care, even though they are 1,000 kilometres away,' she added.
'It's better than nothing.'
Stories like Martha’s and Jess's are common in regional areas, where accessing specialist care often requires travelling long distances or waiting months to be seen. For vulnerable groups like the seniors, disabled or chronically ill, it can be near impossible.
Telehealth has been a game-changer in improving access to care. But proposed changes threaten to undo its benefits.
Doctors warn care could suffer
Doctors working with regional and vulnerable patients warn the changes could seriously impact care.
'It means less travel for the patients. It also means that patients don't have to take half a day or a day out of work,' said Dr Justin Teng, a Perth cardiologist with regional patients like Martha.
'I have patients in other regional areas as well, and that would mean loss of access to specialist care for a lot of these patients who either would have to travel long distances to see a specialist, will have to wait a long time or both.'
Government: Is cutting costs the real agenda?
Steve Robson, President of the Australian Medical Association (AMA), argued the recommendation is driven by cost-cutting and not patient care.
'The person you're really penalising is the patient, not the specialist. They're going to be seeing the patient one way or the other,' he said.
'The cost always falls back on patients, and the most vulnerable patients do end up paying for it.'
So, what's the reason for this proposal? According to the government committee's report, it suggests that certain medical appointments are more suitable for telehealth, while others benefit more from in-person consultations.
The report mentioned that initial diagnoses and assessments might be conducted better face-to-face, while telehealth is well-suited for treatment-based or follow-up consultations.
The report also emphasised the importance of an 'established clinical relationship' for specialist telehealth consultations to ensure patients receive consistent and high-value care.
It's worth noting that the report is not final, and the Medicare Benefits Schedule Review Advisory Committee (MRAC) will consider feedback from stakeholders during its review.
While telehealth offers flexibility for patients, the government's main focus is on maintaining high standards of care, as stated by a spokesperson for Health Minister Mark Butler.
Telehealth has proven to be a valuable tool for many patients, offering a convenient way to maintain a safe and efficient connection with their healthcare providers. It's not just about the vital link with your doctors but also about the potential savings of time, money, and resources it provides.
Members, what are your thoughts on the proposed changes to abolish the rebates? Please let us know in the comments below!
.png){kind=icon}
