属实

评分: 7.0/10

Coalition
C0689

声明内容

“未能对拟议的全科医生收费对医院急诊室等候时间的影响进行建模。”
原始来源: Matthew Davis

原始来源

事实核查

gāi gāi 说法shuō fǎ shuō fǎ 声称shēng chēng shēng chēng CoalitionCoalition Coalition GovernmentGovernment Government 未能wèi néng wèi néng duì duì 拟议nǐ yì nǐ yì de de 全科quán kē quán kē 医生yī shēng yī shēng 共付额gòng fù é gòng fù é duì duì 医院yī yuàn yī yuàn 急诊科jí zhěn kē jí zhěn kē 等候děng hòu děng hòu 时间shí jiān shí jiān de de 影响yǐng xiǎng yǐng xiǎng 进行jìn xíng jìn xíng 建模jiàn mó jiàn mó
The claim asserts that the Coalition Government failed to model the impact of the proposed GP co-payment on hospital emergency department waiting times.
这一zhè yī zhè yī 说法shuō fǎ shuō fǎ shì shì ** * ** * 部分bù fèn bù fèn 真实zhēn shí zhēn shí ** * ** * de de
This claim is **PARTIALLY TRUE**.
yóu yóu TonyTony Tony AbbottAbbott Abbott 领导lǐng dǎo lǐng dǎo de de CoalitionCoalition Coalition GovernmentGovernment Government zài zài 20142014 2014 nián nián 55 5 yuè yuè de de 预算yù suàn yù suàn zhōng zhōng 宣布xuān bù xuān bù le le 77 7 澳元ào yuán ào yuán de de 全科quán kē quán kē 医生yī shēng yī shēng 共付额gòng fù é gòng fù é 政策zhèng cè zhèng cè [[ [ 11 1 ]] ]
The Coalition Government, led by Tony Abbott, announced a $7 GP co-payment policy in the May 2014 budget [1].
gāi gāi 政策zhèng cè zhèng cè jiāng jiāng 适用shì yòng shì yòng 所有suǒ yǒu suǒ yǒu 患者huàn zhě huàn zhě 包括bāo kuò bāo kuò 持有chí yǒu chí yǒu 优惠卡yōu huì kǎ yōu huì kǎ de de 患者huàn zhě huàn zhě 儿童ér tóng ér tóng 每年měi nián měi nián qián qián 十次shí cì shí cì 就诊jiù zhěn jiù zhěn 封顶fēng dǐng fēng dǐng [[ [ 22 2 ]] ]
The policy would have applied to all patients, including concession card holders and children (capped at the first ten annual visits) [2].
政府zhèng fǔ zhèng fǔ wèi wèi gāi gāi 政策zhèng cè zhèng cè 提供tí gōng tí gōng le le 多项duō xiàng duō xiàng 理由lǐ yóu lǐ yóu 包括bāo kuò bāo kuò 减少jiǎn shǎo jiǎn shǎo MedicareMedicare Medicare 支出zhī chū zhī chū wèi wèi 预算yù suàn yù suàn 底线dǐ xiàn dǐ xiàn 做出zuò chū zuò chū 贡献gòng xiàn gòng xiàn 以及yǐ jí yǐ jí 建立jiàn lì jiàn lì "" " 价格jià gé jià gé 信号xìn hào xìn hào "" " 提高tí gāo tí gāo 医疗yī liáo yī liáo 服务fú wù fú wù 交付jiāo fù jiāo fù de de 效率xiào lǜ xiào lǜ [[ [ 33 3 ]] ]
The government provided several justifications for the policy, including: reducing Medicare expenditure, contributing to the budget bottom line, and establishing a "price signal" to increase efficiency of healthcare service delivery [3].
然而rán ér rán ér 多个duō gè duō gè 权威quán wēi quán wēi 来源lái yuán lái yuán 证实zhèng shí zhèng shí 卫生部wèi shēng bù wèi shēng bù 没有méi yǒu méi yǒu 提供tí gōng tí gōng duì duì 急诊科jí zhěn kē jí zhěn kē 影响yǐng xiǎng yǐng xiǎng de de 任何rèn hé rèn hé 建模jiàn mó jiàn mó
However, multiple authoritative sources confirm that the Department of Health did not provide any modelling of the impact on emergency departments: - Researchers from Flinders University, University of Melbourne, Monash University, and other institutions published modelling in The Conversation (July 2014) explicitly stating: "the Department of Health hasn't provided any modelling of its impact" [4]. - This independent academic modelling showed that the GP co-payment could increase average emergency department visits by between six minutes and almost three hours, as patients would opt for free hospital care rather than paying to see their GP [4]. - The research team had developed a patient flow simulation model for a large Adelaide hospital and applied it to analyze the consequences of shifting patient activity from community GPs to hospital emergency departments [4].
-- - 来自lái zì lái zì FlindersFlinders Flinders UniversityUniversity University UniversityUniversity University ofof of MelbourneMelbourne Melbourne MonashMonash Monash UniversityUniversity University děng děng 机构jī gòu jī gòu de de 研究yán jiū yán jiū 人员rén yuán rén yuán 20142014 2014 nián nián 77 7 yuè yuè zài zài TheThe The ConversationConversation Conversation shàng shàng 发表fā biǎo fā biǎo de de 建模jiàn mó jiàn mó 明确míng què míng què chēng chēng "" " 卫生部wèi shēng bù wèi shēng bù 没有méi yǒu méi yǒu 提供tí gōng tí gōng 任何rèn hé rèn hé 影响yǐng xiǎng yǐng xiǎng 建模jiàn mó jiàn mó "" " [[ [ 44 4 ]] ]
-- - 这项zhè xiàng zhè xiàng 独立dú lì dú lì de de 学术xué shù xué shù 建模jiàn mó jiàn mó 显示xiǎn shì xiǎn shì 由于yóu yú yóu yú 患者huàn zhě huàn zhě huì huì 选择xuǎn zé xuǎn zé 免费miǎn fèi miǎn fèi de de 医院yī yuàn yī yuàn 护理hù lǐ hù lǐ ér ér fēi fēi 付费fù fèi fù fèi kàn kàn 全科quán kē quán kē 医生yī shēng yī shēng 全科quán kē quán kē 医生yī shēng yī shēng 共付额gòng fù é gòng fù é 可能kě néng kě néng 使shǐ shǐ 急诊科jí zhěn kē jí zhěn kē 平均píng jūn píng jūn 就诊jiù zhěn jiù zhěn 时间shí jiān shí jiān 增加zēng jiā zēng jiā 66 6 分钟fēn zhōng fēn zhōng 至近zhì jìn zhì jìn 33 3 小时xiǎo shí xiǎo shí [[ [ 44 4 ]] ]
-- - gāi gāi 研究yán jiū yán jiū 团队tuán duì tuán duì wèi wèi 阿德莱德ā dé lái dé ā dé lái dé 一家yī jiā yī jiā 大型dà xíng dà xíng 医院yī yuàn yī yuàn 开发kāi fā kāi fā le le 患者huàn zhě huàn zhě 流量liú liàng liú liàng 模拟mó nǐ mó nǐ 模型mó xíng mó xíng bìng bìng 用于yòng yú yòng yú 分析fēn xī fēn xī jiāng jiāng 患者huàn zhě huàn zhě 活动huó dòng huó dòng cóng cóng 社区shè qū shè qū 全科quán kē quán kē 医生yī shēng yī shēng 转移zhuǎn yí zhuǎn yí dào dào 医院yī yuàn yī yuàn 急诊科jí zhěn kē jí zhěn kē de de 后果hòu guǒ hòu guǒ [[ [ 44 4 ]] ]

缺失背景

gāi gāi 说法shuō fǎ shuō fǎ 遗漏yí lòu yí lòu le le 几个jǐ gè jǐ gè 重要zhòng yào zhòng yào de de 背景bèi jǐng bèi jǐng 要素yào sù yào sù
The claim omits several important contextual elements: 1. **Policy Never Implemented**: The GP co-payment policy was announced in May 2014 but was ultimately abandoned in March 2015 after failing to gain Senate support [1].
11 1 .. . ** * ** * 政策zhèng cè zhèng cè 从未cóng wèi cóng wèi 实施shí shī shí shī ** * ** * 全科quán kē quán kē 医生yī shēng yī shēng 共付额gòng fù é gòng fù é 政策zhèng cè zhèng cè 20142014 2014 nián nián 55 5 yuè yuè 宣布xuān bù xuān bù dàn dàn zài zài 20152015 2015 nián nián 33 3 yuè yuè yīn yīn 未能wèi néng wèi néng 获得huò dé huò dé 参议院cān yì yuàn cān yì yuàn 支持zhī chí zhī chí ér ér 最终zuì zhōng zuì zhōng bèi bèi 放弃fàng qì fàng qì [[ [ 11 1 ]] ]
The government went through multiple revisions, including reducing the fee to $5 and making it optional for doctors, before finally scrapping it entirely [1]. 2. **Policy Rationale**: The government provided multiple justifications for the co-payment, including creating a Medical Research Future Fund (with $5 of each $7 fee going to research) and making Medicare financially sustainable for future generations [5].
政府zhèng fǔ zhèng fǔ 经历jīng lì jīng lì le le 多次duō cì duō cì 修订xiū dìng xiū dìng 包括bāo kuò bāo kuò jiāng jiāng 费用fèi yòng fèi yòng 降至jiàng zhì jiàng zhì 55 5 澳元ào yuán ào yuán bìng bìng 允许yǔn xǔ yǔn xǔ 医生yī shēng yī shēng 自愿zì yuàn zì yuàn 选择xuǎn zé xuǎn zé 最终zuì zhōng zuì zhōng 完全wán quán wán quán 废除fèi chú fèi chú [[ [ 11 1 ]] ]
These policy objectives, while controversial, were not unreasonable from a fiscal perspective. 3. **Complexity of Health Policy**: The government faced genuine challenges with rising healthcare costs and Medicare sustainability - issues that have confronted governments of all political persuasions [3]. 4. **Broader Consultation Gap**: The lack of modelling wasn't specific to emergency department impacts - the policy was developed with limited consultation with the medical profession and health economists more broadly [6].
22 2 .. . ** * ** * 政策zhèng cè zhèng cè 理由lǐ yóu lǐ yóu ** * ** * 政府zhèng fǔ zhèng fǔ 为共付wèi gòng fù wèi gòng fù é é 提供tí gōng tí gōng le le 多项duō xiàng duō xiàng 理由lǐ yóu lǐ yóu 包括bāo kuò bāo kuò 创建chuàng jiàn chuàng jiàn 医疗yī liáo yī liáo 研究yán jiū yán jiū 未来wèi lái wèi lái 基金jī jīn jī jīn 77 7 澳元ào yuán ào yuán zhōng zhōng de de 55 5 澳元ào yuán ào yuán 用于yòng yú yòng yú 研究yán jiū yán jiū 以及yǐ jí yǐ jí 使shǐ shǐ MedicareMedicare Medicare duì duì 后代hòu dài hòu dài 具有jù yǒu jù yǒu 财务cái wù cái wù 可持续性kě chí xù xìng kě chí xù xìng [[ [ 55 5 ]] ]
这些zhè xiē zhè xiē 政策zhèng cè zhèng cè 目标mù biāo mù biāo 虽然suī rán suī rán yǒu yǒu 争议zhēng yì zhēng yì dàn dàn cóng cóng 财政cái zhèng cái zhèng 角度jiǎo dù jiǎo dù 来看lái kàn lái kàn 并非bìng fēi bìng fēi 不合理bù hé lǐ bù hé lǐ
33 3 .. . ** * ** * 卫生wèi shēng wèi shēng 政策zhèng cè zhèng cè de de 复杂性fù zá xìng fù zá xìng ** * ** * 政府zhèng fǔ zhèng fǔ 面临miàn lín miàn lín zhe zhe 医疗yī liáo yī liáo 成本上升chéng běn shàng shēng chéng běn shàng shēng MedicanyMedicany Medicany 可持续性kě chí xù xìng kě chí xù xìng de de 真正zhēn zhèng zhēn zhèng 挑战tiǎo zhàn tiǎo zhàn 这些zhè xiē zhè xiē 问题wèn tí wèn tí 一直yì zhí yì zhí 困扰kùn rǎo kùn rǎo zhe zhe 政治派别zhèng zhì pài bié zhèng zhì pài bié de de 政府zhèng fǔ zhèng fǔ [[ [ 33 3 ]] ]
44 4 .. . ** * ** * gèng gèng 广泛guǎng fàn guǎng fàn de de 咨询zī xún zī xún 缺失quē shī quē shī ** * ** * 缺乏quē fá quē fá 建模jiàn mó jiàn mó 并非bìng fēi bìng fēi 特定tè dìng tè dìng 急诊科jí zhěn kē jí zhěn kē 影响yǐng xiǎng yǐng xiǎng gāi gāi 政策zhèng cè zhèng cè shì shì zài zài 医学界yī xué jiè yī xué jiè 卫生wèi shēng wèi shēng 经济学家jīng jì xué jiā jīng jì xué jiā de de 有限yǒu xiàn yǒu xiàn 协商xié shāng xié shāng xià xià 制定zhì dìng zhì dìng de de [[ [ 66 6 ]] ]

来源可信度评估

提供tí gōng tí gōng de de 原始yuán shǐ yuán shǐ 来源lái yuán lái yuán shì shì 20142014 2014 nián nián 66 6 yuè yuè SBSSBS SBS NewsNews News de de 一篇yī piān yī piān 评论píng lùn píng lùn // / 观点guān diǎn guān diǎn 文章wén zhāng wén zhāng 标题biāo tí biāo tí wèi wèi "" " hǎo hǎo zài zài 成年人chéng nián rén chéng nián rén 回来huí lái huí lái 掌权zhǎng quán zhǎng quán le le "" " [[ [ 77 7 ]] ]
The original source provided (SBS News article from June 2014) is a commentary/opinion piece titled "Good thing the adults are back in charge" [7]. **SBS News Assessment**: - SBS (Special Broadcasting Service) is a publicly funded Australian broadcaster with a mandate to serve multicultural communities [8] - Media Bias/Fact Check rates SBS as having a left-leaning editorial bias while reporting news factually [8] - The specific article is a commentary piece (opinion), not straight news reporting - SBS is generally considered a credible mainstream media outlet, though this particular piece is opinion rather than factual reporting The original source provided appears to be a general political commentary rather than specific factual reporting on the GP co-payment modelling issue.
** * ** * SBSSBS SBS NewsNews News 评估píng gū píng gū ** * ** *
-- - SBSSBS SBS SpecialSpecial Special BroadcastingBroadcasting Broadcasting ServiceService Service shì shì 一家yī jiā yī jiā 公共gōng gòng gōng gòng 资助zī zhù zī zhù de de 澳大利亚广播公司ào dà lì yà guǎng bō gōng sī ào dà lì yà guǎng bō gōng sī 使命shǐ mìng shǐ mìng shì shì 服务fú wù fú wù 多元duō yuán duō yuán 文化wén huà wén huà 社区shè qū shè qū [[ [ 88 8 ]] ]
-- - MediaMedia Media BiasBias Bias // / FactFact Fact CheckCheck Check jiāng jiāng SBSSBS SBS 评为píng wèi píng wèi 具有jù yǒu jù yǒu 左倾zuǒ qīng zuǒ qīng 编辑biān jí biān jí 偏见piān jiàn piān jiàn dàn dàn 新闻报道xīn wén bào dào xīn wén bào dào 事实shì shí shì shí 准确zhǔn què zhǔn què [[ [ 88 8 ]] ]
-- - gāi gāi 特定tè dìng tè dìng 文章wén zhāng wén zhāng shì shì 一篇yī piān yī piān 评论píng lùn píng lùn 文章wén zhāng wén zhāng 观点guān diǎn guān diǎn ér ér fēi fēi 直接zhí jiē zhí jiē 新闻报道xīn wén bào dào xīn wén bào dào
-- - SBSSBS SBS 通常tōng cháng tōng cháng bèi bèi 认为rèn wéi rèn wéi shì shì 可信kě xìn kě xìn de de 主流zhǔ liú zhǔ liú 媒体méi tǐ méi tǐ 尽管jǐn guǎn jǐn guǎn 这篇zhè piān zhè piān 特定tè dìng tè dìng 文章wén zhāng wén zhāng shì shì 观点guān diǎn guān diǎn ér ér fēi fēi 事实shì shí shì shí 报道bào dào bào dào
提供tí gōng tí gōng de de 原始yuán shǐ yuán shǐ 来源lái yuán lái yuán 似乎sì hū sì hū shì shì 一般yì bān yì bān de de 政治zhèng zhì zhèng zhì 评论píng lùn píng lùn ér ér fēi fēi 关于guān yú guān yú 全科quán kē quán kē 医生yī shēng yī shēng 共付额gòng fù é gòng fù é 建模jiàn mó jiàn mó 问题wèn tí wèn tí de de 具体jù tǐ jù tǐ 事实shì shí shì shí 报道bào dào bào dào
⚖️

工党对比

** * ** * LaborLabor Labor 是否shì fǒu shì fǒu 做过zuò guò zuò guò 类似lèi sì lèi sì de de 事情shì qíng shì qíng
**Did Labor do something similar?** Search conducted: "Labor government GP co-payment history Medicare bulk billing changes" **Finding**: Labor governments have historically taken a different approach to GP funding: - The Hawke/Keating Labor governments established Medicare's universal bulk-billing system in the 1980s and 1990s [9] - In 2013, the Rudd Labor government actually sought to remove existing GP co-payments for pathology and diagnostic imaging [10] - The 2025 Labor government (Albanese) announced an $8.5 billion investment to increase GP bulk-billing incentives [9] - AAP FactCheck noted that bulk billing rates actually increased during the 2013-2022 Coalition government period [9] **No direct equivalent found**: Labor governments have generally opposed GP co-payments as policy, preferring to strengthen universal healthcare access rather than introduce user-pays elements.
** * ** *
This represents a genuine policy divergence between the parties on healthcare funding philosophy.
搜索sōu suǒ sōu suǒ 内容nèi róng nèi róng "" " LaborLabor Labor 政府zhèng fǔ zhèng fǔ 全科quán kē quán kē 医生yī shēng yī shēng 共付额gòng fù é gòng fù é 历史lì shǐ lì shǐ MedicareMedicare Medicare 批量pī liàng pī liàng 账单zhàng dān zhàng dān 变更biàn gēng biàn gēng "" "
However, Labor governments have faced their own healthcare challenges: - The 2011-2012 Labor government faced criticism over hospital waiting times and emergency department performance [11] - Both parties have struggled with the National Emergency Access Target (90% of patients admitted/discharged within 4 hours), with only 66% meeting the target in 2013 [4]
** * ** * 发现fā xiàn fā xiàn ** * ** * LaborLabor Labor 政府zhèng fǔ zhèng fǔ 历来lì lái lì lái duì duì 全科quán kē quán kē 医生yī shēng yī shēng fundingfunding funding 采取cǎi qǔ cǎi qǔ 不同bù tóng bù tóng de de 方法fāng fǎ fāng fǎ
-- - HawkeHawke Hawke // / KeatingKeating Keating LaborLabor Labor 政府zhèng fǔ zhèng fǔ zài zài 19801980 1980 年代nián dài nián dài 19901990 1990 年代nián dài nián dài 建立jiàn lì jiàn lì le le MedicareMedicare Medicare de de 全民quán mín quán mín 批量pī liàng pī liàng 账单zhàng dān zhàng dān 系统xì tǒng xì tǒng [[ [ 99 9 ]] ]
-- - 20132013 2013 nián nián RuddRudd Rudd LaborLabor Labor 政府zhèng fǔ zhèng fǔ 实际上shí jì shàng shí jì shàng 寻求xún qiú xún qiú 取消qǔ xiāo qǔ xiāo 病理学bìng lǐ xué bìng lǐ xué 诊断zhěn duàn zhěn duàn 成像chéng xiàng chéng xiàng de de 现有xiàn yǒu xiàn yǒu 全科quán kē quán kē 医生yī shēng yī shēng 共付额gòng fù é gòng fù é [[ [ 1010 10 ]] ]
-- - 20252025 2025 nián nián LaborLabor Labor 政府zhèng fǔ zhèng fǔ AlbaneseAlbanese Albanese 宣布xuān bù xuān bù 投资tóu zī tóu zī 8585 85 亿澳元yì ào yuán yì ào yuán 增加zēng jiā zēng jiā 全科quán kē quán kē 医生yī shēng yī shēng 批量pī liàng pī liàng 账单zhàng dān zhàng dān 激励jī lì jī lì [[ [ 99 9 ]] ]
-- - AAPAAP AAP FactCheckFactCheck FactCheck 指出zhǐ chū zhǐ chū 批量pī liàng pī liàng 账单zhàng dān zhàng dān zài zài 20132013 2013 -- - 20222022 2022 nián nián CoalitionCoalition Coalition 政府zhèng fǔ zhèng fǔ 期间qī jiān qī jiān 实际上shí jì shàng shí jì shàng 有所增加yǒu suǒ zēng jiā yǒu suǒ zēng jiā [[ [ 99 9 ]] ]
** * ** * 未找到wèi zhǎo dào wèi zhǎo dào 直接zhí jiē zhí jiē 等同děng tóng děng tóng 做法zuò fǎ zuò fǎ ** * ** * LaborLabor Labor 政府zhèng fǔ zhèng fǔ 通常tōng cháng tōng cháng 反对fǎn duì fǎn duì 全科quán kē quán kē 医生yī shēng yī shēng 共付额gòng fù é gòng fù é 政策zhèng cè zhèng cè gèng gèng 倾向qīng xiàng qīng xiàng 加强jiā qiáng jiā qiáng 全民quán mín quán mín 医疗yī liáo yī liáo 准入zhǔn rù zhǔn rù ér ér fēi fēi 引入yǐn rù yǐn rù 用户yòng hù yòng hù 付费fù fèi fù fèi 要素yào sù yào sù
zhè zhè 代表dài biǎo dài biǎo le le 双方shuāng fāng shuāng fāng zài zài 医疗yī liáo yī liáo fundingfunding funding 哲学zhé xué zhé xué shàng shàng de de 真正zhēn zhèng zhēn zhèng 政策zhèng cè zhèng cè 分歧fēn qí fēn qí
然而rán ér rán ér LaborLabor Labor 政府zhèng fǔ zhèng fǔ 面临miàn lín miàn lín 自己zì jǐ zì jǐ de de 医疗yī liáo yī liáo 挑战tiǎo zhàn tiǎo zhàn
-- - 20112011 2011 -- - 20122012 2012 nián nián LaborLabor Labor 政府zhèng fǔ zhèng fǔ yīn yīn 医院yī yuàn yī yuàn 等候děng hòu děng hòu 时间shí jiān shí jiān 急诊科jí zhěn kē jí zhěn kē 表现biǎo xiàn biǎo xiàn 受到shòu dào shòu dào 批评pī píng pī píng [[ [ 1111 11 ]] ]
-- - 双方shuāng fāng shuāng fāng dōu dōu zài zài NationalNational National EmergencyEmergency Emergency AccessAccess Access TargetTarget Target 90%90% 90% de de 患者huàn zhě huàn zhě zài zài 44 4 小时xiǎo shí xiǎo shí nèi nèi 入院rù yuàn rù yuàn // / 出院chū yuàn chū yuàn shàng shàng 遇到困难yù dào kùn nán yù dào kùn nán 20132013 2013 nián nián jǐn jǐn yǒu yǒu 66%66% 66% 达到目标dá dào mù biāo dá dào mù biāo [[ [ 44 4 ]] ]
🌐

平衡视角

虽然suī rán suī rán 政府zhèng fǔ zhèng fǔ 未能wèi néng wèi néng duì duì 急诊科jí zhěn kē jí zhěn kē 影响yǐng xiǎng yǐng xiǎng 进行jìn xíng jìn xíng 建模jiàn mó jiàn mó de de 说法shuō fǎ shuō fǎ zài zài 事实上shì shí shàng shì shí shàng shì shì 准确zhǔn què zhǔn què de de dàn dàn 完整wán zhěng wán zhěng de de 故事gù shì gù shì 需要xū yào xū yào 关于guān yú guān yú 政策zhèng cè zhèng cè 制定zhì dìng zhì dìng 过程guò chéng guò chéng de de 背景bèi jǐng bèi jǐng 比较bǐ jiào bǐ jiào 分析fēn xī fēn xī
While the claim that the government failed to model emergency department impacts is factually accurate, the full story requires context about policy development processes and comparative analysis: **Criticism of the Coalition**: The lack of modelling was a legitimate criticism.
** * ** * duì duì CoalitionCoalition Coalition de de 批评pī píng pī píng ** * ** * 缺乏quē fá quē fá 建模jiàn mó jiàn mó shì shì 合理hé lǐ hé lǐ de de 批评pī píng pī píng
Independent research demonstrated that even small shifts in patient behavior (0.036% to 0.143% of GP consultations shifting to emergency departments) could result in dramatic increases in waiting times - from six minutes to nearly three hours [4].
独立dú lì dú lì 研究yán jiū yán jiū 表明biǎo míng biǎo míng 即使jí shǐ jí shǐ 患者huàn zhě huàn zhě 行为xíng wéi xíng wéi de de 微小wēi xiǎo wēi xiǎo 转变zhuǎn biàn zhuǎn biàn 0.036%0.036% 0.036% zhì zhì 0.143%0.143% 0.143% de de 全科quán kē quán kē 医生yī shēng yī shēng 咨询zī xún zī xún 转向zhuǎn xiàng zhuǎn xiàng 急诊科jí zhěn kē jí zhěn kē 可能kě néng kě néng 导致dǎo zhì dǎo zhì 等候děng hòu děng hòu 时间shí jiān shí jiān 急剧jí jù jí jù 增加zēng jiā zēng jiā cóng cóng 66 6 分钟fēn zhōng fēn zhōng dào dào jìn jìn 33 3 小时xiǎo shí xiǎo shí [[ [ 44 4 ]] ]
The policy was developed with what the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners (RACGP) described as a "confused rationale" - three different justifications were offered at different times [3]. **Government's Position**: The Coalition argued the co-payment was necessary for Medicare sustainability and would establish appropriate price signals in the healthcare system [5].
gāi gāi 政策zhèng cè zhèng cè bèi bèi RoyalRoyal Royal AustralianAustralian Australian CollegeCollege College ofof of GeneralGeneral General PractitionersPractitioners Practitioners RACGPRACGP RACGP 描述miáo shù miáo shù wèi wèi 具有jù yǒu jù yǒu "" " 混乱hùn luàn hùn luàn de de 理由lǐ yóu lǐ yóu "" " zài zài 不同bù tóng bù tóng 时间shí jiān shí jiān 提出tí chū tí chū le le 三种sān zhǒng sān zhǒng 不同bù tóng bù tóng de de 理由lǐ yóu lǐ yóu [[ [ 33 3 ]] ]
Health Minister Peter Dutton stated the policy would "set Medicare up as a great system for generations to come" [5].
** * ** * 政府zhèng fǔ zhèng fǔ de de 立场lì chǎng lì chǎng ** * ** * CoalitionCoalition Coalition 认为rèn wéi rèn wéi 共付额gòng fù é gòng fù é duì duì MedicareMedicare Medicare 可持续性kě chí xù xìng kě chí xù xìng shì shì 必要bì yào bì yào de de bìng bìng jiāng jiāng zài zài 医疗系统yī liáo xì tǒng yī liáo xì tǒng zhōng zhōng 建立jiàn lì jiàn lì 适当shì dàng shì dàng de de 价格jià gé jià gé 信号xìn hào xìn hào [[ [ 55 5 ]] ]
The government eventually acknowledged the policy's unpopularity and abandoned it after consulting with crossbenchers and medical professionals [1]. **Comparative Context**: This was a genuinely contested policy issue where the Coalition took a different approach than Labor would have.
卫生部长wèi shēng bù zhǎng wèi shēng bù zhǎng PeterPeter Peter DuttonDutton Dutton 表示biǎo shì biǎo shì gāi gāi 政策zhèng cè zhèng cè jiāng jiāng "" " wèi wèi 后代hòu dài hòu dài 建立jiàn lì jiàn lì 一个yí gè yí gè 伟大wěi dà wěi dà de de MedicareMedicare Medicare 系统xì tǒng xì tǒng "" " [[ [ 55 5 ]] ]
Unlike some criticisms that apply similarly to both major parties, GP co-payments represented a distinct philosophical difference in healthcare funding.
政府zhèng fǔ zhèng fǔ 最终zuì zhōng zuì zhōng 承认chéng rèn chéng rèn gāi gāi 政策zhèng cè zhèng cè 受欢迎shòu huān yíng shòu huān yíng zài zài 中立zhōng lì zhōng lì 议员yì yuán yì yuán 医疗yī liáo yī liáo 专业zhuān yè zhuān yè 人员rén yuán rén yuán 协商xié shāng xié shāng hòu hòu 放弃fàng qì fàng qì le le gāi gāi 政策zhèng cè zhèng cè [[ [ 11 1 ]] ]
Labor's approach has consistently favored strengthening bulk-billing and universal access [9]. **Key context**: While the lack of modelling was a valid criticism, the policy itself was abandoned before implementation due to political and medical profession opposition.
** * ** * 比较bǐ jiào bǐ jiào 背景bèi jǐng bèi jǐng ** * ** * 这是zhè shì zhè shì 一个yí gè yí gè 双方shuāng fāng shuāng fāng genuinelygenuinely genuinely 存在cún zài cún zài 争议zhēng yì zhēng yì de de 政策zhèng cè zhèng cè 问题wèn tí wèn tí CoalitionCoalition Coalition 采取cǎi qǔ cǎi qǔ le le LaborLabor Labor 不同bù tóng bù tóng de de 方法fāng fǎ fāng fǎ
The government's willingness to ultimately scrap the policy demonstrates responsive governance, even if the initial policy development was criticized for inadequate analysis.
适用shì yòng shì yòng 两大党liǎng dà dǎng liǎng dà dǎng de de 某些mǒu xiē mǒu xiē 批评pī píng pī píng 不同bù tóng bù tóng 全科quán kē quán kē 医生yī shēng yī shēng 共付额gòng fù é gòng fù é 代表dài biǎo dài biǎo le le 医疗yī liáo yī liáo fundingfunding funding de de 明显míng xiǎn míng xiǎn 哲学zhé xué zhé xué 差异chā yì chā yì
LaborLabor Labor de de 方法fāng fǎ fāng fǎ 始终shǐ zhōng shǐ zhōng 倾向qīng xiàng qīng xiàng 加强jiā qiáng jiā qiáng 批量pī liàng pī liàng 账单zhàng dān zhàng dān 全民quán mín quán mín 准入zhǔn rù zhǔn rù [[ [ 99 9 ]] ]
** * ** * 关键guān jiàn guān jiàn 背景bèi jǐng bèi jǐng ** * ** * 虽然suī rán suī rán 缺乏quē fá quē fá 建模jiàn mó jiàn mó shì shì 合理hé lǐ hé lǐ de de 批评pī píng pī píng dàn dàn gāi gāi 政策zhèng cè zhèng cè 本身běn shēn běn shēn zài zài 实施shí shī shí shī qián qián jiù jiù yīn yīn 政治zhèng zhì zhèng zhì 医学界yī xué jiè yī xué jiè de de 反对fǎn duì fǎn duì ér ér bèi bèi 放弃fàng qì fàng qì
政府zhèng fǔ zhèng fǔ 最终zuì zhōng zuì zhōng 放弃fàng qì fàng qì gāi gāi 政策zhèng cè zhèng cè de de 意愿yì yuàn yì yuàn 证明zhèng míng zhèng míng le le 响应xiǎng yìng xiǎng yìng shì shì 治理zhì lǐ zhì lǐ 即使jí shǐ jí shǐ 最初zuì chū zuì chū de de 政策zhèng cè zhèng cè 制定zhì dìng zhì dìng yīn yīn 分析fēn xī fēn xī 不足bù zú bù zú ér ér 受到shòu dào shòu dào 批评pī píng pī píng

属实

7.0

/ 10

CoalitionCoalition Coalition GovernmentGovernment Government 未能wèi néng wèi néng duì duì 拟议nǐ yì nǐ yì de de 全科quán kē quán kē 医生yī shēng yī shēng 收费shōu fèi shōu fèi duì duì 医院yī yuàn yī yuàn 急诊室jí zhěn shì jí zhěn shì 等候děng hòu děng hòu 时间shí jiān shí jiān de de 影响yǐng xiǎng yǐng xiǎng 进行jìn xíng jìn xíng 建模jiàn mó jiàn mó de de 说法shuō fǎ shuō fǎ zài zài 事实上shì shí shàng shì shí shàng shì shì 准确zhǔn què zhǔn què de de
The claim that the Coalition Government failed to model the impact on hospital emergency room waiting times due to the proposed GP fee is factually accurate.
多个duō gè duō gè 独立dú lì dú lì 学术xué shù xué shù 来源lái yuán lái yuán 证实zhèng shí zhèng shí 卫生部wèi shēng bù wèi shēng bù 没有méi yǒu méi yǒu 提供tí gōng tí gōng duì duì 急诊科jí zhěn kē jí zhěn kē 影响yǐng xiǎng yǐng xiǎng de de 建模jiàn mó jiàn mó [[ [ 44 4 ]] ]
Multiple independent academic sources confirm the Department of Health did not provide modelling on emergency department impacts [4].
政府zhèng fǔ zhèng fǔ 自己zì jǐ zì jǐ duì duì gāi gāi 政策zhèng cè zhèng cè de de 理由lǐ yóu lǐ yóu suí suí 时间shí jiān shí jiān 变化biàn huà biàn huà 预算yù suàn yù suàn 节约jié yuē jié yuē vsvs vs 价格jià gé jià gé 信号xìn hào xìn hào vsvs vs 研究yán jiū yán jiū fundingfunding funding 表明biǎo míng biǎo míng 前期qián qī qián qī 政策zhèng cè zhèng cè 分析fēn xī fēn xī 不足bù zú bù zú [[ [ 33 3 ]] ]
The government's own rationale for the policy shifted over time (budget savings vs. price signals vs. research funding), suggesting inadequate upfront policy analysis [3].
然而rán ér rán ér 这应zhè yīng zhè yīng 理解lǐ jiě lǐ jiě wèi wèi aa a gāi gāi 政策zhèng cè zhèng cè 从未cóng wèi cóng wèi 实际shí jì shí jì 实施shí shī shí shī 20152015 2015 nián nián 33 3 yuè yuè bèi bèi 放弃fàng qì fàng qì [[ [ 11 1 ]] ] bb b 政府zhèng fǔ zhèng fǔ 最终zuì zhōng zuì zhōng 通过tōng guò tōng guò 完全wán quán wán quán 废除fèi chú fèi chú gāi gāi 政策zhèng cè zhèng cè 回应huí yìng huí yìng le le 批评pī píng pī píng cc c zhè zhè 代表dài biǎo dài biǎo le le LaborLabor Labor de de 真正zhēn zhèng zhēn zhèng 政策zhèng cè zhèng cè 差异chā yì chā yì ér ér fēi fēi 治理zhì lǐ zhì lǐ de de 普遍pǔ biàn pǔ biàn 失败shī bài shī bài
However, this should be understood in the context that: (a) the policy was never actually implemented, being abandoned in March 2015 [1]; (b) the government eventually responded to criticism by scrapping the policy entirely; and (c) this represented a genuine policy difference with Labor rather than a universal failing of governance.

📚 来源与引用 (11)

  1. 1
    abc.net.au

    abc.net.au

    As the Government confirms the scrapping of the GP co-payment, look back at the policy's rise and fall.

    Abc Net
  2. 2
    PDF

    Putting the 7 co payment in context Australias increasingly financialised system of healthcare

    Ppesydney • PDF Document
  3. 3
    medaxs.com.au

    medaxs.com.au

    Medaxs Com

  4. 4
    theconversation.com

    theconversation.com

    The introduction of a GP co-payment could see average emergency department visits increase by between six minutes and almost three hours, new modelling shows, as more patients opt for free hospital care…

    The Conversation
  5. 5
    abc.net.au

    abc.net.au

    Follow the latest headlines from ABC News, Australia's most trusted media source, with live events, audio and on-demand video from the national broadcaster.

    Abc Net
  6. 6
    racgp.org.au

    racgp.org.au

    RACGP Media releases

    Government report undermines its own attempt to justify $7 co-payment
  7. 7
    sbs.com.au

    sbs.com.au

    When it comes to this week in politics, were you distracted by sexism, invective and the distant rumbling of leadership speculation? Well, here's what you missed.

    SBS News
  8. 8
    mediabiasfactcheck.com

    mediabiasfactcheck.com

    LEFT-CENTER BIAS These media sources have a slight to moderate liberal bias.  They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording

    Media Bias/Fact Check
  9. 9
    findanexpert.unimelb.edu.au

    findanexpert.unimelb.edu.au

    Findanexpert Unimelb Edu

  10. 10
    aap.com.au

    aap.com.au

    Mark Butler claims bulk billing was in

    Aap Com
  11. 11
    pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

    pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

    PubMed Central (PMC)

评分方法

1-3: 不实

事实错误或恶意捏造。

4-6: 部分属实

有一定真实性,但缺乏背景或有所偏颇。

7-9: 基本属实

仅有微小的技术性或措辞问题。

10: 准确

完全经过验证且客观公正。

方法论: 评分通过交叉参照政府官方记录、独立事实核查机构和原始文件确定。