To the Editor: We agree with very few of the conclusions in the recent article by Mitton et al.1 It is fascinating that the authors single out elite athlete funding as being the only notable area of discretionary government spending that prevents more from being spent on healthcare. We suspect that the authors share the widely-held view within the healthcare professions that sport is an indulgence rather than a contributor to the good health of this nation.

Sports medicine is the only recognised branch of medicine in Australia that is considered an “area” of medicine (all other recognised branches being considered “specialties”), a view held by both the Health Insurance Commission and the Australian Medical Association. Therefore, an Australian athlete who suffers a sports injury and is referred to a sports physician receives lower Medicare rebates for the visit than all other patients referred elsewhere in the system, and is unable to claim any Medicare rebate if he or she requires a magnetic resonance imaging scan for an injury, again the only such example in the Australian healthcare system.2

Injuries which occur as a result of traffic accidents, workplace accidents, falls, assaults and suicide attempts are all monitored by various government departments, with priority funding specifically directed towards their prevention. The federal government in Australia directs no funding towards sports injury monitoring or prevention3 and does not devote sufficient resources towards making the population more active.4

The article by Mitton et al ignores the concept of efficiency (in terms of prolonging life) within healthcare spending. Health promotion and prevention of illness and injury are far more efficient ways of prolonging life than treating existing disease (compare smoking cessation programs with coronary care units). Lack of sport and exercise is an increasingly prevalent risk factor for major diseases.4 The use of elite athletes as role models may or may not contribute to a more active population — we suspect the former. We also believe that the disrespect shown within the Australian healthcare system towards sports injuries (compared with other injuries and illnesses) is a major disincentive for Australians to become more active. This is a disincentive for which we will pay a high penalty in terms of decreased life expectancy and increased healthcare costs in the future.

In reply: We thank Orchard and Finch for their letter about our article comparing spending on the Sydney Olympics to expenditure on healthcare for Australia, Canada and Britain.1 The reason we “singled out elite athlete funding” was simply to choose a high profile expenditure as an illustration that government does indeed make decisions about priorities with the limited societal resources available. While we would strongly agree, and in fact state, that “spending more on athletics may improve the health of the population”,1 the necessary public debate about how societal resources should be best spent is lacking.

In our view, such a debate should be informed by the costs and wide-ranging benefits of government expenditure and be based on clearly articulated public values. Contrary to the claim that we “ignore the concept of efficiency”, it is precisely here, when costs and benefits of alternative claims on limited resources are explicitly compared (both within healthcare and across government sectors), that the notion of efficiency is addressed.2 Upstream investment in promotional activities may well be an appropriate way to spend health and non-health dollars — let’s just make these choices, and the underlying values, explicit.