Under current legal arrangements, insurers are not permitted to fund rehabilitation services or medical treatments for people with mental illness; AIA first called for a repeal of these laws in January this year.
Speaking at a conference in Sydney on Thursday, AIA Australia and New Zealand managing director Damien Mu once again challenged the current legal arrangements.
“The current legislative barriers that restrict life insurers from funding medical treatments for mental health condition represent a breakdown of Australia’s health care system to keep up with one of the fastest growing issues we are confronting as a community,” he said.
“Change is long overdue.”
Mr Mu said he was hopeful an investigation into early intervention by life insurers currently being led by the parliamentary joint committee may catalyse a shift in policy.
“This inquiry is a positive first step and the government and industry must work together to remove this anomaly from the health system so life insurers are allowed to pay for rehabilitation services and medical treatments for people who suffer from a mental illness,” he said.
“There is currently a gap in the health system where people may be unable to receive or afford the support they need, at the time they need it most. We believe life insurers can help to fill this void through funding medical treatments.”
Firstly, mental health is not a “problem”, it is an illness just like any other. Show respect. Secondly, if you allow AIA to “treat” people with mental illness, it means you are going to allow doctors to be paid by insurers to say whatever the insurer wants.
That is, AIA are not advocacting because they are concerned citizens, it is because they have been stone-walled by the system and kept at arm’s length. This does not please them.
While I strongly wish for more mental health funding be spent by government to address the growing issue, giving AIA and others the green card to target vulnerable Australians and exploit the system is bullshit.
Let me clarify further: a person with mental illness may not be deemed “compliant” if say they reject lithium based treatment. A person may also be non-compliant if they fail to attend visits due to depression or anxiety.. . So the psych would write a letter saying “this person is not going to be rehabilitated because they have not attended the prescribed amount of visits”. AIA cuts off payment.
You can also take the view that the insurer is entitled to do whatever it is in their power to get the claimant back to work. But this is open for abuse, and this gives more power to the insurer. Power that has been purposely limited by legislation as to protect the consumer.
You do like to argue against just about everything though
If you mean fight for those at risk of being marginalised by systems that include regulatory and in this case product wanting more power then sure.
William, I am assuming from the article that AIA can assist with rehabilitation for people with back injuries for example. The same concerns can be applied in these instances (obviously adjusting for the different medical treatments). I believe mental health conditions should be treated like any other illness and therefore the scope for an insurer to assist in rehabilitation is important. A current example is a client who has been diagnosed with Bi Polar who has stopped seeing his psychologist, who is also a client of mine, on the basis he has used up his “free” consultations available under his mental health plan. The psychologist he is currently seeing is extremely good and therefore has a long waiting list so charges a fee in addition to the standard fee to reflect his education and experience which my client does not believe he can afford (I disagree with him on that since he is receiving an income protection benefit). The current psychologist is the fourth one my client has seen as the first three were not working but this one was working and I believe it would be worth the cost for the insurer to assist in the rehabilitation process by paying for these consultations. At the same time there needs to be safeguards as the insurer in question was considered by my client to be “forcing” him back to work and this is currently being dealt with and obviously you don’t want the situation where the insurer can adversely impact on a clients health treatments (just as you wouldn’t for a back issue).
You’re bloody awesome dude. Keep up the good work.
William, I agree 100%.