The Australian health system is characterised by high quality care by international standards, produced by a mix of public and private provision and funding of healthcare services. Despite good overall results, three issues are of concern. The first issue relates to the public procurement of healthcare, whose flaws have impacted individuals' access to care, and the high out-of-pocket spending. The second issue concerns the sustainability of the private health insurance market, given the government's goal of relieving cost and capacity from the public scheme, incentivising participation. Third, there are existing inefficiencies and inequities related to the duplication resulting from the interaction between public and private schemes. To ensure a sustainable, efficient and equitable health system, structural reforms are necessary to achieve long-term performance improvements. Using a framework for mixed public–private health systems, we assess the extent to which the Australian healthcare system achieves preconditions for efficiency and affordability in competitive healthcare markets.

Studies of health care expenditure often exclude explanatory variables measuring wealth, despite the intuitive importance and policy relevance. We use the Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia Survey to assess impacts of income and wealth on health expenditure. We investigate four different dependent variables related to health expenditure and use three main methodological approaches. These approaches include a first difference model and introduction of a lagged dependent variable into a cross-sectional context. The key findings include that wealth tends to be more important than income in identifying variation in health expenditure. This applies for health variables which are not directly linked to means testing, such as spending on health practitioners and for being unable to afford required medical treatment. In contrast, the paper includes no evidence of different impacts of income and wealth on spending on medicines, prescriptions or pharmaceuticals. The results motivate two novel policy innovations. One is the introduction of an asset test for determining rebate eligibility for private health insurance. The second is greater focus on asset testing, rather than income tests, for a wide range of general welfare payments that can be used for health expenditure. Australia's world-leading use of means testing can provide a test case for many countries.

The privatisation of provision and the emerging privatisation of funding, manifested in the rapid rise of private health insurance, are the most obvious signs that the universal, Swedish health system is gradually weakened. Meanwhile, the private welfare industry creates a neoliberal Newspeak where the burdening effects of the private insurance system on public healthcare are said to be unburdening, and where every step away from the principles of a universal welfare model is said to be in line with the principles of a universal welfare model. The language spoken by the private welfare industry spills over into authorities, journalists and scholars. In this article, I discuss, problematise and partially reject two research questions – Does VHI unburden the public health care system? and Are VHI holders less supportive of funding public health care? – where the authors fail to place development in the context of increased inequality and declining tax ratio, and where they use the welfare industry's definitions invented to blur the consequences of a parallel health system.

Voluntary private health insurance (VHI) has generally been of limited importance in national health service-type health care systems, especially in the Nordic countries. During the last decades however, an increase in VHI uptake has taken place in the region. Critics of this development argue that voluntary health insurance can undermine support for public health care, while proponents contend that increased private funding for health services could relieve strained public health care systems. Using data from Sweden, this study investigates empirically how voluntary health insurance affects the public health care system. The results of the study indicate that the public Swedish health care system is fairly resilient to the impact of voluntary health insurance with regards to support for the tax-based funding. No difference between insurance holders and non-holders was found in willingness to finance public health care through taxes. A slight unburdening effect on public health care use was observed as VHI holders appeared to use public health care to a lesser extent than those without an insurance. However, a majority of the insurance holders continued to use the public health care system, indicating only a modest substitution effect.

This article sheds light on a policy area where the notion of the active citizen has gained prominence as part of the transformation of the welfare state: purchasing private health services and private health insurance for children in Finland. Although the country’s universal health care system offers free primary health care for children, 40 per cent of children now have private insurance. Drawing on interviews with parents who seek private solutions, we examine what they perceive to be good health care. Our analysis reveals that parents are looking for certain practices – in Finland available only in the private sector – that they see as signs of good care. The unavailability of these practices in public health care calls into question the access, quality and efficiency of the public system. Based on these findings, we discuss the possible consequences of the disparity between parents’ expectations and the universal health care system.

The lack of clarity as to the scope of the health insurance exception enshrined in Article 206 of the Solvency II Directive has created uncertainties surrounding the implications for government intervention in the private health insurance market. A contentious interpretation of the health insurance exception, offered by former EU Commissioner Bolkestein, and the approach subsequently taken by the Commission and the Court of Justice of the European Union in assessing the compatibility of Member State intervention in private health insurance have led to a divergence in the application of EU law, which further increases uncertainties around the legality of Member State intervention. This article proposes an alternative interpretation of the health insurance exception that draws on a contemporary understanding of private health insurance as a socio-economic institution aimed at achieving a highly competitive social market economy. This alternative interpretation extends the applicability of the health insurance exception from substitutive private health insurance to complementary private health insurance that covers statutory user charges and thus improves the compliance of national health insurance systems in several Member States with EU law and enhances the coherence of EU law.

In this article, we investigate differences in the profiles of patients within the Australian mixed public-private maternal health system to examine the extent of adverse selection. There are conflicting influences on adverse selection within the private health sector in Australia due to government regulations that incentivise lower risk segments of the population to purchase community-rated private health insurance. We use a two-phase modelling methodology that incorporates statistical learning and logistic regression on a dataset that links administrative and longitudinal survey data for a large cohort of women. We find that the key predictor of private patient status is having private health insurance, which itself is largely driven by sociodemographic factors rather than health-or pregnancy-related factors. Additionally, transitioning between the public-private systems for a subsequent pregnancy is uncommon; however, it is primarily driven by changes in private health insurance when it occurs. Other significant factors when transitioning to the private system for a second pregnancy are hypertension, increased access to specialists and stress related to previous motherhood experiences. Consequently, there is limited evidence of adverse selection in this market, with targeted financial incentives likely outweighing the impact of community rating even during childbearing years where private health service use increases.

This article examines privacy threats arising from the use of data mining by private Australian health insurance companies. Qualitative interviews were conducted with key experts, and Australian governmental and nongovernmental websites relevant to private health insurance were searched. Using Rationale, a critical thinking tool, the themes and considerations elicited through this empirical approach were developed into an argument about the use of data mining by private health insurance companies. The argument is followed by an ethical analysis guided by classical philosophical theories—utilitarianism, Mill’s harm principle, Kant’s deontological theory, and Helen Nissenbaum’s contextual integrity framework. Both the argument and the ethical analysis find the use of data mining by private health insurance companies in Australia to be unethical. Although private health insurance companies in Australia cannot use data mining for risk rating to cherry-pick customers and cannot use customers’ personal information for unintended purposes, this article nonetheless concludes that the secondary use of customers’ personal information and the absence of customers’ consent still suggest that the use of data mining by private health insurance companies is wrong.