Debates over health policy often get bogged down in details about who is responsible for what. That's partly why Labor seems happy with its health policy as it stands while the Liberals would prefer to talk about the carbon tax and boats, writes Greg Jericho.

This is one of a series of articles looking at issues relating to care in our communities in the lead up to the 2013 federal election. More coverage can be found at the ABC's election website Australia Votes.

A funny thing happened on the way to this year's election: health and hospitals stopped being an issue.

In pretty much every survey done on the issues voters are most concerned about, health gets in the top three (usually with the economy and education).

As such, you would expect multiple visits to hospitals by the leaders. And yet, apart from the NDIS, it has hardly raised its head.

Think back to 2007, when health was so vital that then prime minister John Howard's decision for the Federal Government to take over the Mersey Hospital in Tasmania was seen as either a political masterstroke or a sign of desperation. Mr Howard even tried to get social-media friendly by announcing the takeover on YouTube.

Back then Kevin Rudd as leader of the opposition was pledging to fix the health system or have a referendum on federal control of hospitals - a promise that thankfully was not carried through as it would have most likely ended with the usual fate of referenda in this country.

This year, however, Labor seem happy with what they have, and the Liberal Party seem desperate to not let health get in the way of talk of the carbon tax and boats.

One of the reasons for this is that because of state and federal funding, any discussion on health policy generally becomes a pretty dull (for voters) exercise of determining who is funding what and who is responsible for which problems.

And so you get exchanges such as this one between Tanya Plibersek and Peter Dutton when they appeared on Q&A in April:

PETER DUTTON: Well, Tony, I think it's worth just looking at a couple of the facts. The fact is that despite funding commitments elective surgery times have blown out. That's a reality when you look at the picture across the country. TANYA PLIBERSEK: Well it's not across the country, Peter. PETER DUTTON: They've blown out from 34 to 36 days since 2007-8. TANYA PLIBERSEK: No, they've actually reduced. PETER DUTTON: The other important issue just in terms of your... TONY JONES: Well, the Minister said you're completely wrong. She says they've reduced so where are your figures? Where are your figures? TANYA PLIBERSEK: The difficulty is you throw in places like Victoria, where they've blown out by 20 per cent. Victorians are having a bad experience but nationally we're doing better with elective surgery and from state to state we see variations.

Well yes, we do see variations. Since 2007-08 median elective surgery waiting times have increased in NSW, Victoria, Queensland and Tasmania, but reduced in South Australia, ACT and the Northern Territory. Overall, however, Dutton is right - the median waiting time for elective surgery has increased from 34 days to 36. Whether this is a "blowout" is another thing.

Median waiting time (days) for patients admitted from waiting lists for elective surgery

But if you like using statistics to tell your own version of the truth, forget economics: health is by far the champion. For example you can also gauge elective surgery by what percentage of patients have to wait over a year. On this measure things look better (or less worse) except if you live in NSW:

Percentage of patients who had to wait for elective surgery for over 365 days

So you can talk about health policy and find good and bad evidence in the same area. And that's before we even get to arguing over funding and whether or not a cut is a cut.

If there is one area that the introduction of fact checkers will be most welcome this election time, it is health. We all have a vague understanding of whether for example unemployment is higher or lower than it was previously, but unless you want to wade through numerous health reports you will not have much of an understanding of whether things have improved (and even then you will likely have little idea of why).

Health perhaps more than any other area is judged by one's personal experience. We might have a job but we can still have an understanding of whether or not the economy is doing well. We might even realise that things are better in Western Australia than they are in South Australia, and even understand why that might be the case. But when you're sitting in an emergency waiting room in Adelaide you don't really know if things are better or worse for someone sitting in a waiting room in Perth (and in 2011-12, you were better off being in Adelaide):

Proportion of emergency presentations (with triage category of 'emergency') seen on time: 2011-12

All this confusion would suggest a nice area for policy development.

But while (not surprisingly) the Government thinks its current policy is the way forward, the Opposition hasn't quite yet come to the party.

In its Real Solution document, Health Policy comes in at number 16 out of its 21 sections. For the most part it is a hodgepodge of statements lacking hard promises and only one actual solid policy of providing $35 million to help find a cure for Type 1 Diabetes.

It also includes a pledge to "strengthen Medicare and take pressure off the hospital system by restoring the Private Health Insurance Rebate as soon as we possibly can". Given there is no evidence that the means testing of the PHI Rebate has had any impact on private health membership (numbers have actually increased), I suspect that "as soon as we possibly can" will get more vague (if such a thing is possible).

Recently Tony Abbott held a doorstop in which he announced a policy to streamline the application process for medical research grants, which is a worthwhile policy and appears to follow that recommended in the Strategic Review of Health and Research released by Minister Plibersek in April.

On other aspects there has been a fair bit of shuffling. This time last year Peter Dutton was threatening to abolish Medicare Locals, and yet now he seems more interested in reviewing the situation. But he did suggest on Q&A that "I think we will have a superior proposal to that which Labor has on the table at the moment and we're working with people across the sector to deliver that policy."

Last month he also told the Financial Review that he has "a cracker" of a policy on the way. I guess it's so good they just don't want to spoil it by telling voters what it is. And so we must continue to wait to see if the policy they come up with is a cracker or just cracked. Till then we can assume the Liberal Party is happy for it not to be a priority.

Greg Jericho writes weekly for The Drum. His blog can be found here. View his full profile here.