From the introduction of Australia's national health insurance scheme (Medicare) in 1984 until recently, the proportion of the population covered by private health insurance declined steadily. Following an Industry Commission inquiry into the private health insurance industry in 1997, a number of policy changes were effected in an attempt to reverse this trend. The main policy changes were of two types: "carrots and sticks" financial incentives that provided subsidies for purchasing, or tax penalties for not purchasing, private health insurance; and lifetime community rating, which aimed to revise the community rating regulations governing private health insurance in Australia. This paper argues that the membership uptake that has occurred recently is largely attributable to the introduction of lifetime community rating which goes some way towards addressing the adverse selection associated with the previous community rating regulations. This policy change had virtually no cost to government. However, it was introduced after subsidies for private health insurance were already in place. The chronological sequencing of these policies has resulted in substantial increases in government expenditure on private health insurance subsidies, with such increases not being a cause but rather an effect of increased demand for private health insurance. The paper also considers whether the decline in membership that has occurred since the implementation of lifetime community rating presages the re-emergence of an adverse selection problem in private health insurance. Much of the decline to date may be attributable to failure on the part of some members to honour premium payments when they first fell due. However, the changing age composition of the insured pool since September 2000, resulting in an increasing average age of those insured, suggests the possible reappearance of an adverse selection dynamic. Thus the 'trick' delivered by lifetime community ratings may not be maintained in the longer term.

In most societies resources are insufficient to provide everyone with all the health care they want. In practice, this means that some people are given priority over others. On what basis should priority be given? In this paper we are interested in the general public's views on this question. We set out to synthesis what the literature has found as a whole regarding which attributes or factors the general public think should count in priority setting and what weight they should receive. A systematic review was undertaken (in August 2014) to address these questions based on empirical studies that elicited stated preferences from the general public. Sixty four studies, applying eight methods, spanning five continents met the inclusion criteria. Discrete Choice Experiment (DCE) and Person Trade-off (PTO) were the most popular standard methods for preference elicitation, but only 34% of all studies calculated distributional weights, mainly using PTO. While there is heterogeneity, results suggest the young are favoured over the old, the more severely ill are favoured over the less severely ill, and people with self-induced illness or high socioeconomic status tend to receive lower priority. In those studies that considered health gain, larger gain is universally preferred, but at a diminishing rate. Evidence from the small number of studies that explored preferences over different components of health gain suggests life extension is favoured over quality of life enhancement; however this may be reversed at the end of life. The majority of studies that investigated end of life care found weak/no support for providing a premium for such care. The review highlights considerable heterogeneity in both methods and results. Further methodological work is needed to achieve the goal of deriving robust distributional weights for use in health care priority setting.

BRCA testing in women with breast cancer is cost-effective and is associated with reduced risk of cancer and improved survival. Extending testing to cover family members of affected women who test positive improves cost-effectiveness beyond restricting testing to affected women only.

Malaria's relationship with socioeconomic status at the macroeconomic level has been established. This is the first study to explore this relationship at the microeconomic (household) level and estimate the direction of association. Malaria prevalence was measured by parasitemia, and household socioeconomic status was measured using an asset based index. Results from an instrumental variable probit model suggest that socioeconomic status is negatively associated with malaria parasitemia. Other variables that are significantly associated with parasitemia include age of the individual, use of a mosquito net on the night before interview, the number of people living in the household, whether the household was residing at their farm home at the time of interview, household wall construction, and the region of residence. Matching estimators indicate that malaria parasitemia is associated with reduced household socioeconomic status.

Background Recent avoidable mortality trends in Australia suggest that health care has made a substantial contribution to reducing mortality. This study investigates if the benefits of health care have been distributed equally by comparing declines in avoidable with non-avoidable mortality over time by socioeconomic status (SES). MethodsWe calculated avoidable and non-avoidable mortality rates in Australia by small areas for 1986, 1991, 1997 and 2002. We performed pooled cross-sectional trend analysis of indirectly standardized mortality rates by SES and year, modelling using Poisson regression with over-dispersion. Socioeconomic inequalities were quantified using the relative (RII) and slope (SII) index of inequality. ResultsThe annual percentage decline in avoidable mortality at the higher end of the socioeconomic continuum (5.0%; 95% CI: 4.7-5.4%) was larger than at the lower end (3.5%; 3.2-3.8%), with increasing relative inequality between 1986 (RII ¼ 1.54; 1.46-1.63) and 2002 (RII ¼ 2.00; 1.95-2.06), greater than that in non-avoidable mortality (P ¼ 0.036). In absolute terms, avoidable deaths fell annually by 7.4 (6.9-7.8) and 8.4 (7.9-8.9) deaths per 100 000 at the higher and lower end of the spectrum, respectively, with absolute inequality decreasing between 1986 (SII ¼ 97.8; 87.6-107.9) and 2002 (SII ¼ 81.5; 74.6-88.5).Conclusions Health care has contributed to decreasing the absolute SES mortality gap. However, advantaged people have obtained a disproportionate benefit of health care, contributing to widening relative health inequalities. A universal heath care system does not guarantee equality in health-care-related outcomes.