Prime Minister Julia Gillard indicated that politics should not stop National Disability Insurance Scheme. The PM, Julia Gillard urged the Liberal premiers to “do the right thing” and find extra money for a national disability insurance scheme (Hudson & AAP, 2012). This statement indicates the level of influences on health systems notable from various factors. Australia provides a typical example of a health system. It experiences significant influences from diverse factors (Carrin, 2009). Notably, some of these include the economic, political and social elements. These vital processes manipulate the health needs. Consequently, they also support the dispersion of these services to the general community. This paper discusses the socio-political and economic factors. Notably, these have significant manipulation on the Australian health care system. In achieving this, the paper examines the “national disability insurance scheme” in Australia.
Policy Issues in the Australian Health Care System
The Australian national disability insurance scheme is timely. The introduction of this scheme overhauled the general health care system. Many reiterations are eminent from different quarters within the economy. Particularly, this is due to the adoption and implementation of this policy (Johnson & Stoskopf, 2010). The basic purpose of the scheme is to provide a comprehensive and adequate cover for all the disabled personalities. Previously, the existing health policy never embodied the observation of the special needs of the disabled. Due to this marginalization, the disabled persons remained to suffer.
Initially, the general political will never championed for this policy. There was no adequate involvement of these personalities into a comprehensive health insurance system (Salusinszky, 2012). Generally, this indicates the level of political interference in the development of effective policies for health financing. The institution of this disability health care bill is important. The engagement of personalities such as Julia Gillard is also crucial. This is because it reflects the importance of political processes in the shaping and transformation of health care systems. It is obvious that during the development and inception of this health care bill, there was an eminent need for positive political intrusion. “The productivity Commission” experienced a tough time in the development and communication of this policy (Hacker & O’Leary, 2012). However, success was inevitable. This was following the indulgence of political motivation from various sources within the economy. The socio-economic factors within Australia compromise the capacities of the disabled persons. Historically, this is also notable within their families. The positive political indulgence in the process of formulation of this bill is essential.
Notably, political factors also had significant influences on other supporting operations. The socio-economic elements include some of these important factors. There is a positive identification and inclusion of vital economic elements within the regulatory framework (O’Connor-Fleming & Parker, 2008). Indicatively, these factors are remarkably unaddressed in the previous health policies. The inclusion of these elements is crucial. This is due to many reasons. For instance, the increasing legal and social liberalization within Australia is one of the potential contributory factors. In this context, there is an eminent role of social factors in the transformation and development of the Australian health care system. There is an evident likelihood of the state to engage in funding the operations of this health policy.
The federal administration has reportedly waged significance obstacles. These relate to the initiation and operation of this health policy. For instance, there are federal delays in the design of critical operational timeframes (Jamieson, 2011). There are notable delays in the funding for the policy. Moreover, there are no explicit timeframes established to execute or integrate this program. This is despite the fact that the relevant Productivity Commission already provided a roll out recommendation for 2014. There is an eminent inability of the federal government to provide an effective implementation timeframe. The Productivity Commission engages in a constant plea with other relevant agencies. This is with an aim to counteract the notable delays. The government is intends to assume a federal model towards this policy. In this approach, the federal government intends to preserve maximum dictatorial dominion over the policy. There are political insinuations that empathize on the gross failure of this health policy.
There are different perceptions on the health policy. These are notable within diverse states. In fact, some states view this policy as a basic imposition from the federal administration. Some of these states also doubt the economic viability of this health policy (Flannery, 2012). This explains the reason why some states are yet to integrate the policy within their health systems. From these observations, it is vital to note the magnitude of influences. These are eminent from the political and other socio-economic factors. Potential reactions are notable from various affected disability groups. Generally, these groups, together with other advocacy unions have reiterated positive sentiments for this initiative. An analysis of their presentations and arguments indicate that they attribute the policy to potential benefits. These indicated benefits relate both to the socio-economic and political backgrounds within the entire population.
There are other positive suggestions on the new health policy. This is despite substantial critics from different sectors (Healy, 2011). For example, most people indicate the likely benefits of the health care policy to the disabled persons. Apart from this, there are notifications concerning huge gains. These are capable of extending to various sectors within the Australian economy. Some of these include the finance industry, the general workforce and all other health systems within the federal government. The huge resistances noted in the development and implementation of the health policy from other states is indicative. According to most analysts, these rebellions remain significant. This is because they reflect on the federal administration’s capacity to stir or steer the reform agenda. There are other vital lessons attached to this observation.
Various analysts presently gauge the federal government’s capacity to deliver highly transformative and effective health policies. The terming of this policy as a “cruel lottery” remains very indicative (Forrester & Griffiths, 2010). Particularly, this is notable when the federal administration refuses to provide a dependable outline and schedule for the implementation. The initiative remains as a means of social mobility for political personalities. This ideology causes convictions within the social scenario. There is a wider examination of the economic implications of this policy in Australia. This may be through various personalities. Although some people indicate the positive economic gains, there are also other notable negative outcomes (Farr, 2011). Consequently, most personalities and organizations are reluctant to adopt this noble health policy. There is a widespread belief that the sustainability of this policy largely remains at stake.
There are notable flexibilities within most global health care systems. Some of the areas that face remarkable transformations include the allocation of resources. There is also an emergent need to provide adequate health care services to the marginalized population. Most disabled persons are highly marginalized. The introduction of the “National Disability Insurance Plan” is important. There are significant debates that still dwell on this important concept in Australia. Notably, these debates are progressively gaining recognition. These are notable within other vital domains of health care system. Some of these include the general health care financing and policy formulation processes. It is vital to examine the critical elements that influence policy and performance issues within the health care system. Socio-political and economic elements are crucial in this process.
Barraclough, S. & Gardner, H. (2008). Analysing health policy: A problem-oriented approach. Sydney: Churchill Livingstone/Elsevier.
Carrin, G. (2009). Health systems policy, finance, and organization. Amsterdam: Academic Press.
Farr, M. (2011). Julia Gillard announces $10m plan for National Disability Insurance Scheme. Web.
Flannery, J. (2012). COAG drops the ball on National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS). Web.
Forrester, K.& Griffiths, D. (2010). Essentials of law for health professionals. Chatswood, N.S.W: Elsevier Australia.
Hacker, J. S. & O’Leary, A. (2012). Shared responsibility, shared risk: Government, markets and social policy in the twenty-first century. New York: Oxford University Press.
Healy, J. (2011). Improving health care safety and quality: Reluctant regulators. Farnham: Ashgate.
Hudson, P. & AAP (2012). Prime Minister Julia Gillard says politics should not stop National Disability Insurance Scheme. Web.
Jamieson, A. (2011). Disability insurance: a monumental day for all. Web.
Johnson, J. A. & Stoskopf, C. H. (2010). Comparative health systems: Global perspectives. Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett Publishers.
O’Connor-Fleming, M. L. & Parker, E. A. (2008). Introduction to public health. Sydney, N.S.W: Elsevier Churchill Livingstone.
Salusinszky, I. (2012). NSW to trial National Disability Insurance Scheme. Web.