@pharmerfour @theMJA The review was into the government rebate for these services, it is mixed public/private funding.
-
-
Replying to @pharmerfour
@pharmerfour@theMJA It is a complex question, but generally without the govt subsidy it is not profitable for PHF to fund services.1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @pharmerfour
@pharmerfour@theMJA Well probably not if the procedures are ineffective, hence the review.1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @pharmerfour
@pharmerfour@theMJA In theory? Perhaps. In practice PHI is more of a political golf ball. Everyone wants a hit but v. little progress made.1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @pharmerfour
@pharmerfour@theMJA Yes. But that is not how it has worked out; costs have increased with little benefit https://theconversation.com/should-taxpayers-subsidise-extras-for-private-health-insurance-holders-39504 …6 replies 0 retweets 1 like
@pharmerfour @theMJA 5) Sufficient proof of effect+safety data; CAM should be treated like any drug/intervention ideally.
-
-
Replying to @pharmerfour
@pharmerfour@GidMK Great conversation, guys, thank you! (Keep going) :)0 replies 0 retweets 1 like
End of conversation
New conversation
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.