Save Search
    Prev   Next   Return to results listPrint ListEmail Document Link

Title

Main Committee

STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS

Private Health Insurance

Database

House Hansard

Date

29-08-2001

Source

House of Reps

Parl No.

39

Electorate

Bruce

Interjector

 

Main Committee/Federation Chamber

Yes

Page

30584

Party

ALP

Presenter

 

Status

Final

Question No.

 

Questioner

 

Responder

 

Speaker

Griffin, Alan, MP

Stage

Private Health Insurance

Type

 

Context

Statements by Members

System Id

chamber/hansardr/2001-08-29/0175


Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
 Download Current HansardDownload Current Hansard    View Or Save XMLView/Save XML

Previous Fragment    Next Fragment
Wednesday, 29 August 2001
Page: 30584


Mr GRIFFIN (9:40 AM) —I would like to acquaint the House today with the detail of a letter regarding a very tragic case with respect to private health insurance and some constituents in my electorate, the Jack family. I read from Mrs Jack's letter:

I am writing to inform you of what I believe to be a miscarriage of justice. The matter concerns the Government's decision to encourage people to join private Health Fund prior to 30 June 2000. My husband and I joined the fund in May. In June, my husband was diagnosed with a form of cancer, Lymphoma type B, which according to his Doctor has a sudden onset of just weeks. Before he began treatment he rang the Fund to make sure he was covered and he told them he needed treatment for cancer. He was assured he could go ahead at Cabrini, a Private Hospital and so we booked in. Had we been given a negative response by the Fund we would not have sought treatment as a private patient.

My husband died as the result of the quick growing Lymphoma cancer on the 20th January 2001. The Health Fund, Australian Unity, now refuses to accept our claims for the medical bills claiming the cancer was a pre-existing condition. I am following this up with the Ombudsman at present and am hoping you may be able to help me also.

I believe that Australian Unity and the Government have a responsibility to look more carefully at my case. We have been caught up in a series of circumstances brought about by the changes in the government policy, which encouraged everyone to join a medical fund. However, had we not joined Australian Unity I would not now be in this predicament. My husband would have been treated under the public system and I would not now be responsible for such an unbelievable amount of money to pay—

over $21,000. She raises other issues:

· We believed Australian Unity when they told us in my husband's phone call that we were covered and with the additional letter they sent on August 28 2000: “Relax you are covered”. We have not had medical cover before, always find the cost prohibitive.

· The Government encouraged people to join and considering we were getting older and would be penalised for every year we waited, we decided to join. If we had not joined at the time we did, I would not now be in this predicament since we would have been covered under the public system.

· A special offer was made with the Victorian Teachers Credit Union (my husband was a schoolteacher until his retirement at 55) to join Australian Unity and since we belonged to the VTU we decided to join through them.

· We were informed in a letter dated 3rd August 2000 that the Fund regretted that benefits could not be paid because the condition was `pre-existing' to joining the Fund.

· The Doctors had not yet diagnosed Peter's condition nor did we know that the condition was in existence when we joined. At that time no medical records been passed on to Australian Unity. So how was this diagnosis made independently by a Medical Fund without seeing my husband?

· It seems grossly unfair that in the case of an accident a claim can be made immediately no matter how costly, but being diagnosed with cancer, after joining, Australian Unity can decide it was pre-existing without a diagnosis and then not have to pay.

And there is a range of other points made. The circumstances of the Jack family are exceptionally unfair. In the circumstances this matter needs to be looked at very seriously. The bills that have been racked up in what they believed in all honesty was a reasonable situation with respect to utilisation of the policy they then held are in the thousands of dollars and the circumstances of Mrs Jack, in terms of being able to maintain her living standards and deal with those debts, are just appalling. I urge the government to look at this matter seriously. I will certainly be trying to take it further.