Page 2308 - Week 11 - Wednesday, 1 November 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The health for all document announced national goals and targets for population groups, major causes of illness and death and risk factors. Included in these goals and targets is the target of a 25 per cent reduction in current differences in health status among population groups, most notably between Aborigines and other Australians, and between high and low socioeconomic groups.
Through the report, the Minister also announced a cost shared Commonwealth-State-territories program, the national better health program, which focuses on five priority areas: preventable cancer - lung cancer, cervical cancer, breast cancer and skin cancer; nutrition; injury; hypertension; and the elderly.
The national better health program is an innovative program in the area of health promotion. It is the first time such an initiative has been attempted on such a scale and with State-Commonwealth cooperation at all levels. It is the practical expression of our contribution to an international effort under the auspices of the World Health Organisation.
This Government supports an approach to health care delivery which contains a balance between treatment and services on the one hand and prevention on the other. Like all governments in developed Western countries, we are also rightly concerned with the spiralling costs of health care. In Australia, for instance, the total cost of health care has been rising due to increased use of medical services and the increased use of technological aids in both the diagnosis and treatment areas. In 1969-70 there were 4.39 medical services per person. By 1986-87 this had increased by almost 95 per cent to 8.54 services per person - almost double.
This blowout of spending on medical services and technological aids can be seen clearly when we look at how the total health budget is divided between different health services. As you would expect, the lion's share, 55.6 per cent, goes to health facilities - hospitals, nursing homes and other institutions. After that, 38.7 per cent goes to other non-institutional services, such as medical, dental, community health and other professional services; pharmaceuticals; and aids or appliances.
And what of health promotion and illness prevention? What proportion of the health budget do you think is set aside for the longer-term changes necessary to promote good health in our communities? I am sure you will be shocked to learn that as a nation we put aside only 0.8 per cent for spending in this area. I am sure you will agree that spending on health promotion and illness prevention represents a minuscule amount of the overall health dollar.
The human and financial costs of an inadequate prevention focus are high. The trouble is, it is easier to
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .