❓ Hon Barry House asks about the State Government's support for repatriation private patient principles for war widows, specifically at Busselton District Hospital. The government confirms its support for the RPPS but clarifies it's different from private health insurance.
AnsweredQoN 909Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
(1) Do the State Government and Minister for Health support the repatriation private patient principles to provide care for war widows on a private patient basis? (2) If not, why not? (3) Does the Busselton District Hospital honour these principles and treat gold card carrying war widows on a private patient basis? (4) If not, what are the Government and the Minister for Health doing to see that these principles are being honoured? Hon KEN TRAVERS
AnswerView source ↗
On behalf of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health, I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. I note that it was originally asked on 9 April. The question has been updated and is current as at 7 May; therefore, I assume that it is correct. I say that so that people understand the history of it in case any issues arise in the future. (1) Yes. Eligible veteran beneficiaries who choose to access public hospital services under the repatriation private patient schemes - RPPS - which the Department of Veterans’ Affairs reimburses to the State, are entitled to a choice of public hospital with a minimum shared-ward accommodation and a choice of doctor, provided the doctor has admitting rights to the hospital. However, the private patient status under the RPPS is not the same as receiving treatment on a private patient basis under private health insurance such as Medibank or HBF. A private patient may have a private room and the patient may have to pay some gap if health insurance does not cover it in full. It is important to note that all public hospitals provide services to patients on the basis of clinical need and available resources at the hospital, regardless of the patient’s insurance status. (2) Not applicable. (3) Yes. The Busselton District Hospital honours the RPPS principles. However, as previously indicated, the hospital does not treat those patients on a private patient basis as though they are covered by private health insurance. (4) Not applicable. The PRESIDENT: I call Hon Alan Cadby, followed by Hon Bill Stretch. I indicate to Hon Alan Cadby that if he wishes to ask two questions, I will allow him to ask two questions today. It appears that I have ignored him twice during the course of the week.
(2) If not, why not? (3) Does the Busselton District Hospital honour these principles and treat gold card carrying war widows on a private patient basis? (4) If not, what are the Government and the Minister for Health doing to see that these principles are being honoured? Hon KEN TRAVERS replied: On behalf of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health, I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. I note that it was originally asked on 9 April. The question has been updated and is current as at 7 May; therefore, I assume that it is correct. I say that so that people understand the history of it in case any issues arise in the future. (1) Yes. Eligible veteran beneficiaries who choose to access public hospital services under the repatriation private patient schemes - RPPS - which the Department of Veterans’ Affairs reimburses to the State, are entitled to a choice of public hospital with a minimum shared-ward accommodation and a choice of doctor, provided the doctor has admitting rights to the hospital. However, the private patient status under the RPPS is not the same as receiving treatment on a private patient basis under private health insurance such as Medibank or HBF. A private patient may have a private room and the patient may have to pay some gap if health insurance does not cover it in full. It is important to note that all public hospitals provide services to patients on the basis of clinical need and available resources at the hospital, regardless of the patient’s insurance status. (2) Not applicable. (3) Yes. The Busselton District Hospital honours the RPPS principles. However, as previously indicated, the hospital does not treat those patients on a private patient basis as though they are covered by private health insurance. (4) Not applicable. The PRESIDENT: I call Hon Alan Cadby, followed by Hon Bill Stretch. I indicate to Hon Alan Cadby that if he wishes to ask two questions, I will allow him to ask two questions today. It appears that I have ignored him twice during the course of the week.
(3) Does the Busselton District Hospital honour these principles and treat gold card carrying war widows on a private patient basis? (4) If not, what are the Government and the Minister for Health doing to see that these principles are being honoured? Hon KEN TRAVERS replied: On behalf of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health, I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. I note that it was originally asked on 9 April. The question has been updated and is current as at 7 May; therefore, I assume that it is correct. I say that so that people understand the history of it in case any issues arise in the future. (1) Yes. Eligible veteran beneficiaries who choose to access public hospital services under the repatriation private patient schemes - RPPS - which the Department of Veterans’ Affairs reimburses to the State, are entitled to a choice of public hospital with a minimum shared-ward accommodation and a choice of doctor, provided the doctor has admitting rights to the hospital. However, the private patient status under the RPPS is not the same as receiving treatment on a private patient basis under private health insurance such as Medibank or HBF. A private patient may have a private room and the patient may have to pay some gap if health insurance does not cover it in full. It is important to note that all public hospitals provide services to patients on the basis of clinical need and available resources at the hospital, regardless of the patient’s insurance status. (2) Not applicable. (3) Yes. The Busselton District Hospital honours the RPPS principles. However, as previously indicated, the hospital does not treat those patients on a private patient basis as though they are covered by private health insurance. (4) Not applicable. The PRESIDENT: I call Hon Alan Cadby, followed by Hon Bill Stretch. I indicate to Hon Alan Cadby that if he wishes to ask two questions, I will allow him to ask two questions today. It appears that I have ignored him twice during the course of the week.
(4) If not, what are the Government and the Minister for Health doing to see that these principles are being honoured? Hon KEN TRAVERS replied: On behalf of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health, I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. I note that it was originally asked on 9 April. The question has been updated and is current as at 7 May; therefore, I assume that it is correct. I say that so that people understand the history of it in case any issues arise in the future. (1) Yes. Eligible veteran beneficiaries who choose to access public hospital services under the repatriation private patient schemes - RPPS - which the Department of Veterans’ Affairs reimburses to the State, are entitled to a choice of public hospital with a minimum shared-ward accommodation and a choice of doctor, provided the doctor has admitting rights to the hospital. However, the private patient status under the RPPS is not the same as receiving treatment on a private patient basis under private health insurance such as Medibank or HBF. A private patient may have a private room and the patient may have to pay some gap if health insurance does not cover it in full. It is important to note that all public hospitals provide services to patients on the basis of clinical need and available resources at the hospital, regardless of the patient’s insurance status. (2) Not applicable. (3) Yes. The Busselton District Hospital honours the RPPS principles. However, as previously indicated, the hospital does not treat those patients on a private patient basis as though they are covered by private health insurance. (4) Not applicable. The PRESIDENT: I call Hon Alan Cadby, followed by Hon Bill Stretch. I indicate to Hon Alan Cadby that if he wishes to ask two questions, I will allow him to ask two questions today. It appears that I have ignored him twice during the course of the week.
Hon KEN TRAVERS replied: On behalf of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health, I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. I note that it was originally asked on 9 April. The question has been updated and is current as at 7 May; therefore, I assume that it is correct. I say that so that people understand the history of it in case any issues arise in the future. (1) Yes. Eligible veteran beneficiaries who choose to access public hospital services under the repatriation private patient schemes - RPPS - which the Department of Veterans’ Affairs reimburses to the State, are entitled to a choice of public hospital with a minimum shared-ward accommodation and a choice of doctor, provided the doctor has admitting rights to the hospital. However, the private patient status under the RPPS is not the same as receiving treatment on a private patient basis under private health insurance such as Medibank or HBF. A private patient may have a private room and the patient may have to pay some gap if health insurance does not cover it in full. It is important to note that all public hospitals provide services to patients on the basis of clinical need and available resources at the hospital, regardless of the patient’s insurance status. (2) Not applicable. (3) Yes. The Busselton District Hospital honours the RPPS principles. However, as previously indicated, the hospital does not treat those patients on a private patient basis as though they are covered by private health insurance. (4) Not applicable. The PRESIDENT: I call Hon Alan Cadby, followed by Hon Bill Stretch. I indicate to Hon Alan Cadby that if he wishes to ask two questions, I will allow him to ask two questions today. It appears that I have ignored him twice during the course of the week.
On behalf of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health, I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. I note that it was originally asked on 9 April. The question has been updated and is current as at 7 May; therefore, I assume that it is correct. I say that so that people understand the history of it in case any issues arise in the future. (1) Yes. Eligible veteran beneficiaries who choose to access public hospital services under the repatriation private patient schemes - RPPS - which the Department of Veterans’ Affairs reimburses to the State, are entitled to a choice of public hospital with a minimum shared-ward accommodation and a choice of doctor, provided the doctor has admitting rights to the hospital. However, the private patient status under the RPPS is not the same as receiving treatment on a private patient basis under private health insurance such as Medibank or HBF. A private patient may have a private room and the patient may have to pay some gap if health insurance does not cover it in full. It is important to note that all public hospitals provide services to patients on the basis of clinical need and available resources at the hospital, regardless of the patient’s insurance status. (2) Not applicable. (3) Yes. The Busselton District Hospital honours the RPPS principles. However, as previously indicated, the hospital does not treat those patients on a private patient basis as though they are covered by private health insurance. (4) Not applicable. The PRESIDENT: I call Hon Alan Cadby, followed by Hon Bill Stretch. I indicate to Hon Alan Cadby that if he wishes to ask two questions, I will allow him to ask two questions today. It appears that I have ignored him twice during the course of the week.
(1) Yes. Eligible veteran beneficiaries who choose to access public hospital services under the repatriation private patient schemes - RPPS - which the Department of Veterans’ Affairs reimburses to the State, are entitled to a choice of public hospital with a minimum shared-ward accommodation and a choice of doctor, provided the doctor has admitting rights to the hospital. However, the private patient status under the RPPS is not the same as receiving treatment on a private patient basis under private health insurance such as Medibank or HBF. A private patient may have a private room and the patient may have to pay some gap if health insurance does not cover it in full. It is important to note that all public hospitals provide services to patients on the basis of clinical need and available resources at the hospital, regardless of the patient’s insurance status. (2) Not applicable. (3) Yes. The Busselton District Hospital honours the RPPS principles. However, as previously indicated, the hospital does not treat those patients on a private patient basis as though they are covered by private health insurance. (4) Not applicable. The PRESIDENT: I call Hon Alan Cadby, followed by Hon Bill Stretch. I indicate to Hon Alan Cadby that if he wishes to ask two questions, I will allow him to ask two questions today. It appears that I have ignored him twice during the course of the week.
(2) Not applicable. (3) Yes. The Busselton District Hospital honours the RPPS principles. However, as previously indicated, the hospital does not treat those patients on a private patient basis as though they are covered by private health insurance. (4) Not applicable. The PRESIDENT: I call Hon Alan Cadby, followed by Hon Bill Stretch. I indicate to Hon Alan Cadby that if he wishes to ask two questions, I will allow him to ask two questions today. It appears that I have ignored him twice during the course of the week.
(3) Yes. The Busselton District Hospital honours the RPPS principles. However, as previously indicated, the hospital does not treat those patients on a private patient basis as though they are covered by private health insurance. (4) Not applicable. The PRESIDENT: I call Hon Alan Cadby, followed by Hon Bill Stretch. I indicate to Hon Alan Cadby that if he wishes to ask two questions, I will allow him to ask two questions today. It appears that I have ignored him twice during the course of the week.
(4) Not applicable. The PRESIDENT: I call Hon Alan Cadby, followed by Hon Bill Stretch. I indicate to Hon Alan Cadby that if he wishes to ask two questions, I will allow him to ask two questions today. It appears that I have ignored him twice during the course of the week.
The PRESIDENT: I call Hon Alan Cadby, followed by Hon Bill Stretch. I indicate to Hon Alan Cadby that if he wishes to ask two questions, I will allow him to ask two questions today. It appears that I have ignored him twice during the course of the week.
(2) If not, why not? (3) Does the Busselton District Hospital honour these principles and treat gold card carrying war widows on a private patient basis? (4) If not, what are the Government and the Minister for Health doing to see that these principles are being honoured? Hon KEN TRAVERS replied: On behalf of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health, I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. I note that it was originally asked on 9 April. The question has been updated and is current as at 7 May; therefore, I assume that it is correct. I say that so that people understand the history of it in case any issues arise in the future. (1) Yes. Eligible veteran beneficiaries who choose to access public hospital services under the repatriation private patient schemes - RPPS - which the Department of Veterans’ Affairs reimburses to the State, are entitled to a choice of public hospital with a minimum shared-ward accommodation and a choice of doctor, provided the doctor has admitting rights to the hospital. However, the private patient status under the RPPS is not the same as receiving treatment on a private patient basis under private health insurance such as Medibank or HBF. A private patient may have a private room and the patient may have to pay some gap if health insurance does not cover it in full. It is important to note that all public hospitals provide services to patients on the basis of clinical need and available resources at the hospital, regardless of the patient’s insurance status. (2) Not applicable. (3) Yes. The Busselton District Hospital honours the RPPS principles. However, as previously indicated, the hospital does not treat those patients on a private patient basis as though they are covered by private health insurance. (4) Not applicable. The PRESIDENT: I call Hon Alan Cadby, followed by Hon Bill Stretch. I indicate to Hon Alan Cadby that if he wishes to ask two questions, I will allow him to ask two questions today. It appears that I have ignored him twice during the course of the week.
(3) Does the Busselton District Hospital honour these principles and treat gold card carrying war widows on a private patient basis? (4) If not, what are the Government and the Minister for Health doing to see that these principles are being honoured? Hon KEN TRAVERS replied: On behalf of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health, I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. I note that it was originally asked on 9 April. The question has been updated and is current as at 7 May; therefore, I assume that it is correct. I say that so that people understand the history of it in case any issues arise in the future. (1) Yes. Eligible veteran beneficiaries who choose to access public hospital services under the repatriation private patient schemes - RPPS - which the Department of Veterans’ Affairs reimburses to the State, are entitled to a choice of public hospital with a minimum shared-ward accommodation and a choice of doctor, provided the doctor has admitting rights to the hospital. However, the private patient status under the RPPS is not the same as receiving treatment on a private patient basis under private health insurance such as Medibank or HBF. A private patient may have a private room and the patient may have to pay some gap if health insurance does not cover it in full. It is important to note that all public hospitals provide services to patients on the basis of clinical need and available resources at the hospital, regardless of the patient’s insurance status. (2) Not applicable. (3) Yes. The Busselton District Hospital honours the RPPS principles. However, as previously indicated, the hospital does not treat those patients on a private patient basis as though they are covered by private health insurance. (4) Not applicable. The PRESIDENT: I call Hon Alan Cadby, followed by Hon Bill Stretch. I indicate to Hon Alan Cadby that if he wishes to ask two questions, I will allow him to ask two questions today. It appears that I have ignored him twice during the course of the week.
(4) If not, what are the Government and the Minister for Health doing to see that these principles are being honoured? Hon KEN TRAVERS replied: On behalf of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health, I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. I note that it was originally asked on 9 April. The question has been updated and is current as at 7 May; therefore, I assume that it is correct. I say that so that people understand the history of it in case any issues arise in the future. (1) Yes. Eligible veteran beneficiaries who choose to access public hospital services under the repatriation private patient schemes - RPPS - which the Department of Veterans’ Affairs reimburses to the State, are entitled to a choice of public hospital with a minimum shared-ward accommodation and a choice of doctor, provided the doctor has admitting rights to the hospital. However, the private patient status under the RPPS is not the same as receiving treatment on a private patient basis under private health insurance such as Medibank or HBF. A private patient may have a private room and the patient may have to pay some gap if health insurance does not cover it in full. It is important to note that all public hospitals provide services to patients on the basis of clinical need and available resources at the hospital, regardless of the patient’s insurance status. (2) Not applicable. (3) Yes. The Busselton District Hospital honours the RPPS principles. However, as previously indicated, the hospital does not treat those patients on a private patient basis as though they are covered by private health insurance. (4) Not applicable. The PRESIDENT: I call Hon Alan Cadby, followed by Hon Bill Stretch. I indicate to Hon Alan Cadby that if he wishes to ask two questions, I will allow him to ask two questions today. It appears that I have ignored him twice during the course of the week.
Hon KEN TRAVERS replied: On behalf of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health, I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. I note that it was originally asked on 9 April. The question has been updated and is current as at 7 May; therefore, I assume that it is correct. I say that so that people understand the history of it in case any issues arise in the future. (1) Yes. Eligible veteran beneficiaries who choose to access public hospital services under the repatriation private patient schemes - RPPS - which the Department of Veterans’ Affairs reimburses to the State, are entitled to a choice of public hospital with a minimum shared-ward accommodation and a choice of doctor, provided the doctor has admitting rights to the hospital. However, the private patient status under the RPPS is not the same as receiving treatment on a private patient basis under private health insurance such as Medibank or HBF. A private patient may have a private room and the patient may have to pay some gap if health insurance does not cover it in full. It is important to note that all public hospitals provide services to patients on the basis of clinical need and available resources at the hospital, regardless of the patient’s insurance status. (2) Not applicable. (3) Yes. The Busselton District Hospital honours the RPPS principles. However, as previously indicated, the hospital does not treat those patients on a private patient basis as though they are covered by private health insurance. (4) Not applicable. The PRESIDENT: I call Hon Alan Cadby, followed by Hon Bill Stretch. I indicate to Hon Alan Cadby that if he wishes to ask two questions, I will allow him to ask two questions today. It appears that I have ignored him twice during the course of the week.
On behalf of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health, I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. I note that it was originally asked on 9 April. The question has been updated and is current as at 7 May; therefore, I assume that it is correct. I say that so that people understand the history of it in case any issues arise in the future. (1) Yes. Eligible veteran beneficiaries who choose to access public hospital services under the repatriation private patient schemes - RPPS - which the Department of Veterans’ Affairs reimburses to the State, are entitled to a choice of public hospital with a minimum shared-ward accommodation and a choice of doctor, provided the doctor has admitting rights to the hospital. However, the private patient status under the RPPS is not the same as receiving treatment on a private patient basis under private health insurance such as Medibank or HBF. A private patient may have a private room and the patient may have to pay some gap if health insurance does not cover it in full. It is important to note that all public hospitals provide services to patients on the basis of clinical need and available resources at the hospital, regardless of the patient’s insurance status. (2) Not applicable. (3) Yes. The Busselton District Hospital honours the RPPS principles. However, as previously indicated, the hospital does not treat those patients on a private patient basis as though they are covered by private health insurance. (4) Not applicable. The PRESIDENT: I call Hon Alan Cadby, followed by Hon Bill Stretch. I indicate to Hon Alan Cadby that if he wishes to ask two questions, I will allow him to ask two questions today. It appears that I have ignored him twice during the course of the week.
(1) Yes. Eligible veteran beneficiaries who choose to access public hospital services under the repatriation private patient schemes - RPPS - which the Department of Veterans’ Affairs reimburses to the State, are entitled to a choice of public hospital with a minimum shared-ward accommodation and a choice of doctor, provided the doctor has admitting rights to the hospital. However, the private patient status under the RPPS is not the same as receiving treatment on a private patient basis under private health insurance such as Medibank or HBF. A private patient may have a private room and the patient may have to pay some gap if health insurance does not cover it in full. It is important to note that all public hospitals provide services to patients on the basis of clinical need and available resources at the hospital, regardless of the patient’s insurance status. (2) Not applicable. (3) Yes. The Busselton District Hospital honours the RPPS principles. However, as previously indicated, the hospital does not treat those patients on a private patient basis as though they are covered by private health insurance. (4) Not applicable. The PRESIDENT: I call Hon Alan Cadby, followed by Hon Bill Stretch. I indicate to Hon Alan Cadby that if he wishes to ask two questions, I will allow him to ask two questions today. It appears that I have ignored him twice during the course of the week.
(2) Not applicable. (3) Yes. The Busselton District Hospital honours the RPPS principles. However, as previously indicated, the hospital does not treat those patients on a private patient basis as though they are covered by private health insurance. (4) Not applicable. The PRESIDENT: I call Hon Alan Cadby, followed by Hon Bill Stretch. I indicate to Hon Alan Cadby that if he wishes to ask two questions, I will allow him to ask two questions today. It appears that I have ignored him twice during the course of the week.
(3) Yes. The Busselton District Hospital honours the RPPS principles. However, as previously indicated, the hospital does not treat those patients on a private patient basis as though they are covered by private health insurance. (4) Not applicable. The PRESIDENT: I call Hon Alan Cadby, followed by Hon Bill Stretch. I indicate to Hon Alan Cadby that if he wishes to ask two questions, I will allow him to ask two questions today. It appears that I have ignored him twice during the course of the week.
(4) Not applicable. The PRESIDENT: I call Hon Alan Cadby, followed by Hon Bill Stretch. I indicate to Hon Alan Cadby that if he wishes to ask two questions, I will allow him to ask two questions today. It appears that I have ignored him twice during the course of the week.
The PRESIDENT: I call Hon Alan Cadby, followed by Hon Bill Stretch. I indicate to Hon Alan Cadby that if he wishes to ask two questions, I will allow him to ask two questions today. It appears that I have ignored him twice during the course of the week.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.