promotional feature
AUSTRALIAN NATURAL THERAPISTS ASSOCIATIONAustralian Government to engage in this
misguided review,” Olds says.
“It is a given that 15 items on the original
list had no justification or standing as bona
fide natural therapies and no research
findings to support them. ANTA would never
argue for their continuation in that case.”
At the time, Olds, then president
of ANTA, argued for their removal: “It
would bring a clearer definition to bone
fide therapies and stronger professional
recognition for our practitioners.”
He believes the reforms that occurred as
a result of the review were misinformed and
failed to represent present-day therapies
being delivered to the Australian public.
“For example,” he says, “iridology
was one item listed for review and it isn’t
a therapy. It is part of a naturopathic
consultation assessment process. On the
original list of therapies for review there
were 31 items. Some of those items were
at best adjunctive techniques but were not
accredited therapies with Health Training
Packages approved by the Australian
Government regulator for training people to
practise in the natural therapy professions.
“This review was informed by an
evaluation of the evidence undertaken
by the National Health and Medical
Research Council. NHMRC was tasked with
reviewing scientific literature examining
the effectiveness and, where available, the
safety and cost effectiveness of 16 natural
therapies. This was conducted in line with
NHMRC’s approach to assessing evidence
and was undertaken for the specific
purpose of informing the Australian
government’s Natural Therapies Review
and Assessment Committee.”
However, the review process lacked any
meaningful consultation with the natural
health professions, Olds states. He reveals
that the committee, which comprised
about 30 people and was chaired by the
former commonwealth chief medical
officer, included only three representatives
of the natural health industry. “There was
an imbalance of influence and the natural
health representatives had no influence over
input to that panel,” he says.
The Australian government’s official
line, as stated on the Department of
Health website, is that the review found
no clear evidence supporting the efficacy
of the 16 excluded therapies. Elaborating
further on the rationale behind the
change, it states: “Around 54 per cent ofthe Australian population is covered by
general treatment (extras) insurance.
Changing coverage for the excluded
natural therapies will remove costs from
the system and contribute to reducing
private health insurance premium growth.”
While the restriction is being sold to
the public as a saving to taxpayers, health
fund members and the government’s
public purse, the projected savings are
questionable and need examination. “I doubt
very much they saved anything because it’s
primarily a subscription service,” Olds says.
He added, “Under our democratic system,
Australian citizens pay for ancillary services
in addition to paying their taxes in Australia.”What’s the next step?
While the severity of the move has raised
concerns that more of the same may follow,
Olds is hopeful a further review (proposed
April 7) may offer an olive branch to the
natural therapy industry. “An appeal has
been received by the health minister and
he has committed to review the reforms he
made following the initial review,” Olds says.
Curiously, announcement of this latest
review comes only six days after the reforms
were executed (on April 1 2019). “[The healthwellbeing.com.au | 99