Thursday, April 15, 2010

Health

There has been a lot of spin and political games being played by all members of the Media and by OUR elected representatives. There is no arguing that the health system throughout the various States and Territories of Australia is in need of structural reform. However I am a little dismayed that our Prime Minister, Mr Rudd, appears to be more concerned with political point scoring than he does with a consultative solution.

I have tried to seek clarity in the dust cloud of spin, yet have been unable to get the answers I need to make an informed decision. Can anyone provide guidance or point me in the direction that will provide the answers to the following?

  1. NSW spend how much on health at present? What proportion of the budget does this consume? what percentage of total health spending is this?
  2. The federal government spend how much? what percentage of the federal budget is this? what percentage of the total spend in NSW is this?
  3. The 30% of the GST revenue which will be withheld will that be coming from the total GST pool or after the allocation to each state/territory?
  4. If it comes after the allocation to the states, does that mean that NSW, which is a net contributor under the current GST allocation system, will be paying for the health care in other states with our GST money?
  5. The 40% NSW will have to pay under the new system and the 30% of GST being withheld equal how much in dollar terms? What proportion of the NSW budget is that? (leave the 30% GSt in the budget fugure for calculation purposes as it is NSW money being re-branded)
  6. What will be the size reduction in the NSW Health bureaucracy? The increase in size/cost of the federal bureaucracy? is there a net gain or loss in size/cost?
  7. Will there be a net increase in the funds flowing to the front line services for: hospitals? Aged Care? Disability services? mental health?
  8. What effect will the new system have on the ability of states to reduce other taxes over time? i.e Payroll and stamp duty?
I think these questions are important and really should be considered before any rash decisions are made.
Posted by at
Labels: , , , , , ,

5 comments:

  1. CrocoduckApril 15, 2010 at 4:22 PM

    1.

    In 2009-10 the NSW Government will spend $15.1 billion in health services and health infrastructure. This represenents approximately 28% of the total expenditure. (Source: NSW Budget Overview - http://www.budget.nsw.gov.au/budget_by_portfolio)

    ReplyDelete
  2. KiloApril 15, 2010 at 5:01 PM

    Thanks Crocoduck! Now follow me as this point evolves.

    Table 6.2 (http://www.budget.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0014/14360/bp2_6.pdf)shows the federal government is spending $3.711 Billion on health in NSW at present. So I will assume this amount continues to be spent.

    So I will add that to the $15.1Billion to get the total amount spent in NSW on health by the two governments, $18.811 billion. Now if we break that up the way Mr Rudd is proposing to do down the track, 60% (11.2866billion) for the feds and 40% (7.5244 billion) for NSW.

    From table 6.1 of, http://www.budget.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0014/14360/bp2_6.pdf the estimated GST revenue in 2009/2010 allocated to NSW will be $12.481 Billion. If Mr Rudd takes back 30% he will take $3.7443 Billion leaving NSW with $8.7367 billion.

    Does this mean the break up of money now spent would be:
    NSW $7.5244
    Feds $3.7110
    GST $3.7443
    Total $14.9797 Billion

    Are there $3.8 billion in efficiencies to be made? (the difference between total spend 18.811 billion and 14.9797) or do I have a totally flawed understanding?

    Is NSW expected to maintain the $15.1billion? obviously that would change things.

    ReplyDelete
  3. KiloApril 15, 2010 at 5:07 PM

    Sorry I should clarify that.

    From the above the federal government is responsible for $11.2866 billion, from what they are currently spending ($3.7110) the 30% GST ($3.7443) there is a gap of $3.8313 Billion. Is Mr Rudd proposing that amount will be the extra he would invest into the system?

    ReplyDelete
  4. UnknownApril 15, 2010 at 11:32 PM

    Certainly the math’s and general economics is important but one would hope the boffins can at least sort that out. One issue I see as important is the ongoing take over of state responsibilities by the remote ivory tower feds. Is this a good thing? They have failed miserably in climate policy, water policy, industrial relations, education, all stimulus spending programmes, most macro economic policies, to name a recent few. The federal government has no experience in hospital administration. Its past contribution in health has been less than spectacular. In my view John Brumby has it right. Kevin Rudd has no form what so ever in health. If he was serious he would stop playing bully boy, stump the money required and work cooperatively with the existing system to help improve outcomes. Health is to important to be used for political grandstanding.

    Ordinary Man

    ReplyDelete
  5. CrocoduckApril 19, 2010 at 5:08 PM

    What?! Carl Williams murdered? That's money saved.

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)