COMMENT: EVERYONE is missing the point on the GP co-payment.

An unfair assault on the sick and the poor?

Hardly.

A device to deter overuse of GP services and expensive, taxpayer-funded, medical testing?

Well, yes.

Economics teaches that we will always over consume things that are free.

CLIVE PALMER: Refuses to support any GP fee

$7 GP FEE: Who would pay if it is approved

media_camera Fee would deter malingerers ... A $7 co-payment would see less patients at doctors’ surgeries. Picture: Thinkstock

It’s like when you go to a buffet and you can’t stop yourself from gorging on all that is on offer. You’ve paid your money at the door, so why not?

Health services are like that. We all pay taxes to fund health care and other public services.

Why not try and get the most out of them?

Sure, GP care is a cornerstone of our health system. Early trips can avoid ill health later on. It is one of our most fundamental responsibilities as a society to ensure sick people can get care when they need it.

media_camera A large number of doctor visits may not be necessary.

But it’s also likely that some trips to the GP are unnecessary. This is, of course, impossible to measure. But for many older Australians, in particular, a weekly trip to the GP for minor ailments is nothing out of the ordinary.

GPs too may enjoy this steady stream of not particularly sick customers — although it’s almost blasphemy to say it. The rise of privately-owned GP clinics, which profit from a regular supply of customers, may also play a role in over-servicing.

A small price signal, at $7 a trip, would help to deter excessive and unnecessary trips.

Exclusions can be made for vulnerable groups. The New Zealand government recently excluded kids from their co-contribution.

A small price signal, at $7, would help to deter excessive and unnecessary trips.

Remember that the government already proposes a cap of 10 paid trips a year for children and concession card holders — so they’re up for a maximum of $70 a year.

For many others, a $7 contribution is a small price to pay. If GP surgeries are flooded by sick people unable to afford care, we’ll soon hear about it.

In the meantime, if the small price signal deters some unnecessary use of public resources, all the better.

Originally published as Missing the point of a $7 GP fee