Veterans angry about new health rule

In short:

The federal government has faced sustained pressure this week over a contentious change to veterans' access to allied health.

The government announced a $5,000 limit on allied healthcare spending for veterans in the budget, with spending over that amount to require demonstrated clinical need.

What's next?

The government continues to defend its plans, with the changes to take effect from July 1, 2027.

In the Senate on Wednesday, Jacqui Lambie rose to speak on an extraordinarily personal topic — her recent surgery for vaginal prolapse.

She told the parliament of her challenges in seeking the surgery through the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA), and her eventual decision to pay for the surgery out of her own pocket.

"If I was like the majority of female veterans, I would have had to wait for DVA to approve my claim," she said.

"And then I would have to search, and hope, and hope, that there would be a gynaecologist that would accept the low rate paid by DVA.

"That's how much they care about our vaginas."

Senator Lambie was visibly emotional when she described her health challenges. (ABC News: Matt Roberts)

She linked her personal experience to the concerns being expressed by other veterans about looming changes to how the DVA manages access to allied healthcare.

From the middle of next year, a $5,000 threshold will be introduced for veterans spending on allied healthcare.

The government is quick to point out that it is not a cap. But spending over $5,000 will be subject to new scrutiny to determine if it is "clinically effective".

Senator Lambie's specific situation was not related to the changes, but she said the threshold could have harmed her ability to seek physiotherapy post-surgery.

Matt Keogh says he wants little real-world impact on veterans as a result of the changes. (ABC News: Ian Cutmore)

The government is now facing substantial pressure over its plans, and was not helped when Veterans Affairs Minister Matt Keogh told the parliament he "got it wrong" after initially declining a meeting with veterans concerned about the threshold.

Government sources suggest questions around the threshold are being considered at the highest levels, including up to the prime minister's office.

What's changing?

The $5,000 threshold was first announced in May's budget.

It was described as an "annual monetary limit for veterans' allied health services" that would save the budget roughly $750 million over three years and $340 million each year after that.

The threshold aims to limit what the government describes as "overservicing" — where there is no clinical justification for the volume of appointments and services provided.

Veterans have access to various healthcare benefits covered by the government, including allied health care depending on injuries or conditions resulting from their service.

The federal government wants to cap access to health supports to $5,000 a year for injured war veterans, but there are growing concerns some will be worse-off as a result.

Department figures suggest that only around 10 per cent of veteran cardholders spend more than $5,000 on allied health services each year.

A Senate estimates hearing in June heard examples of overcharging that the department said it was keen to tackle.

In one case, a single patient was charged $101,000 in a single year by a dietitian, equating to 19 appointments a week.

Another veteran was charged $47,000 in a year for podiatry.

Department officials pointed to these as extreme examples of what it considered to be overservicing.

Its answer is the $5,000 threshold — granting funds to that amount but charges beyond would be subject to a "demonstrated clinical need".

Finding a fix

Both the department and minister, Matt Keogh, have pointed to a long period of planned consultation to run before the changes take effect.

There is a stated desire to ensure there is no service gap — that is, when veterans hit the $5,000 threshold they are not barred from accessing services they need while paperwork is processed.

But exactly how that will work is not yet clear.

The government has pointed to its process of consultation as its means of working out answers to questions like how clinical need will be measured, who needs to prove it (the veteran or provider) and what happens if DVA determines that clinical need does not exist.

This week Jacqui Lambie shared her health struggles while the government and Coalition were busy making deals and One Nation launched a debate about cigarettes.

But that has raised the concerns of veterans' advocate groups, many of whom are fiercely protesting the changes.

Llani Kennealy from Women Veterans Australia said setting the threshold at all sent the wrong message to veterans seeking care.

"Imposing the cap automatically makes the veteran community feel like we were doing something wrong, seeking treatment for conditions as a result of our service," she said.

And she argued it would have an immediate impact should it be introduced.

"I have concerns about people delaying care, not accessing care, worrying — not all veterans are capable or particularly in the mental state to go on MyGov and assess where they're at with their treatment," she said.

"So it has a huge impact on the veteran community, and quite frankly, it's just the government putting the burden on the veterans to go after the shonky operators that have been over-servicing the veteran community."

Under repeated questioning on the issue in parliament this week, the veterans affairs minister pointed to changes the government was making to try to improve access to allied health.

Phillip Thompson says the government's actions do not stack up to its words. (Supplied: Australian of the Year)

These include increasing fees paid to providers to try to encourage more to take on veterans as clients and removing requirements for referrals.

Mr Keogh said the government wanted its introduction to have as little real-world impact on veterans as possible.

"What we have always been very clear about … is that we would always ensure that there was continuity of access, and that we would engage with all of the veteran community in relation to how we made sure that we maintained that good access," he said.

The shadow minister for defence personnel, Phil Thompson, said the cap had to go.

"The Albanese Labor government talks about supporting veterans, but its actions tell a different story," said the former soldier, who served in Afghanistan.

"This cap puts access to vital treatment at risk for veterans dealing with physical injuries, mental health challenges and service-related trauma."

See more ABC coverage in your search results

Promotion