Log in with your email address username.


Important notice

doctorportal Learning is on the move as we will be launching a new website very shortly. If you would like to sign up to dp Learning now to register for CPD learning or to use our CPD tracker, please email support@doctorportal.com.au so we can assist you. If you are already signed up to doctorportal Learning, your login will work in the new site so you can continue to enrol for learning, complete an online module, or access your CPD tracker report.

To access and/or sign up for other resources such as Jobs Board, Bookshop or InSight+, please go to www.mja.com.au, or click the relevant menu item and you will be redirected.

All other doctorportal services, such as Find A Doctor, are no longer available.

Copayments and the evidence-base paradox

- Featured Image

In reply: I thank Lexchin for citing the Saskatchewan natural experiment, but we do need to exercise caution when extrapolating the findings of this study to the current copayment debate.

The Saskatchewan copayments were higher ($10 to $13 in today’s money1), and broader (covering general practice, emergency department and outpatient visits). The study population was “essentially agrarian”,2 life expectancy was less than 70 years for men,3 and information-sharing technology was completely different from what we have today. The study analysed the effect of a copayment only on the poorest of families,2 defined as having incomes (in 2014 dollars1) of up to $11 500 for individuals and $32 000 for a family of five. People on such incomes might be holders of concession cards today in Australia, and would be exempt from the proposed copayment.

Furthermore, “It is, of course, not possible to infer whether the reduction in these services represents a decline in ‘abuse’ through overservicing or overutilization, or an increase in ‘unmet needs’.”2 This is a recurring theme in the copayment debate, but could not be determined in the Saskatchewan analysis.2