Letters
Mental health Rehabilitation
Volume 193 - Issue 3

Does access to compensation have an impact on recovery outcomes after injury?

Authors:  Meaghan L O’Donnell, Mark C Creamer, Richard A Bryant, Alexander C McFarlane and Derrick Silove

Med J Aust 2010; 193 (3): 188-190. || doi: 10.5694/j.1326-5377.2010.tb03856.x
Published online: 2 August 2010
Download PDF (108 KB)
Share: Share on Blue Sky Share on Facebook Share on LinkedIn Share by email

In reply: We thank the authors of the above letters for their comments. Our response will focus only on the major themes raised.

We note the concerns about excluding people with private health insurance. The issue here is not whether having health care costs met by private health insurance is the same as having motor vehicle accident (MVA) compensation entitlements. Rather, it is whether access to private insurance payments for health care is the same as not having any compensation at all. We argue that injury patients with private insurance have access to a broader range of health care services and providers than those in the public system, and can access these services more quickly because they avoid long public sector waiting lists. The suggestion that patients who are dependent on public health care in the 2 years following injury (non-compensable patients) receive the same health care as those who have private insurance is unjustified. Most studies to date have not considered other schemes such as private insurance, ignoring the potential impact they may have on health outcomes. We recognise that there may be demographic differences between patients who are involved with other schemes such as private health insurance, and these factors may contribute to outcomes. In noting the inherent limitation in this approach, we nonetheless argue that there are also limitations to including these patients, and therefore an analysis that excludes privately insured patients is a valid addition to the literature on compensation.

In response to the point raised by Gabbe and colleagues, we note that our analysis showing that “stressful interaction with the compensation agency” accounted for variance in anxiety scores was designed to investigate potential mechanisms that may explain why anxiety was higher in the MVA-compensable group. We did not conduct the analysis to argue that this group was not more anxious than the non-compensable group. They were more anxious.

Glozier and Large were concerned that differential attrition may affect comparisons between the two groups. To clarify, there were no significant baseline differences between completers and non-completers on any measure. Their second issue relates to the removal of patients with private health insurance from the analyses. To clarify, we removed anyone who indicated at 24 months that they had accessed private or other forms of compensation, regardless of their original compensation classification.

Studdert and colleagues were concerned that we used univariate differences to identify control variables. We adopted this process to replicate the statistical methodology used by Gabbe et al,1 in an attempt to replicate their findings.

In conclusion, our study illustrates the complexity of compensation research and the importance of carefully defining populations — a point that has not yet been adequately addressed. Indeed, a recent review of the literature argues that most compensation research is methodologically limited.2 We agree that there are limitations to our methodology, as there are in previous studies, and recognise that conducting this kind of research is inherently difficult. We welcome the establishment of the Institute for Safety, Compensation and Recovery Research, noted by Collie and Ellis, and its support of this challenging and complex research.

Authors

  • Meaghan L O’Donnell1,2
  • Mark C Creamer1,2
  • Richard A Bryant3
  • Alexander C McFarlane4
  • Derrick Silove5
  • 1. Department of Psychiatry, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC.
  • 2. Australian Centre for Posttraumatic Mental Health, Melbourne, VIC.
  • 3. Department of Psychology, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW.
  • 4. Centre for Military and Veterans’ Health, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA.
  • 5. Department of Psychiatry, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW.

Correspondence: mod@unimelb.edu.au

References

View this article on Wiley Online Library

More like this

Mental health Perspective 20 July 2026 Open Access

Reorienting Allied Health Into Community-Based Care for People Experiencing Trauma and Social Disadvantage

Simon Rosenbaum, Grace McKeon, Gulsah Kurt, Oscar Lederman, Kemi Wright, Sabuj Kanti Mistry, Jackie E. Curtis, Philip B. Ward, Zachary Steel, Hamish Fibbins, Rachel Morell, Melissa C. Eaton, Andrew Watkins, Ben Harris-Roxas, Brendan Goodger, Eleanor Beck, Megan Teychenne, Joseph Firth, Davy Vancampfort, David Burns, Russell Roberts, Tristan Favaloro, Danielle Weber, Rosanna Barbero, Vasili Maroulis, Melissa Holmes, Stefan Mackenzie, Chiara Mastrogiovanni, Afsana Anwar, Uzma Choudhry, Catherine Sherrington, Jane Currie, Thomas Gadsden, Scott Teasdale

View more