Patient group keen to see fairer access to TV in Perth public hospital rooms

A patient advocacy group is questioning the policy of public hospitals in Perth, Western Australia, charging patients for television use. The policy stipulates that in eight metropolitan hospitals in Perth, a third-party company, Hills Health Solutions, provides bedside television services, including free-to-air channels and one movie channel, but not streaming services.

This company is responsible for the purchase, installation, and maintenance of the televisions, and charges patients $10 per day or $54 per week, with concession card holders receiving a discounted rate of $9 per day or $48 per week. Although this practice has been in place for decades, the Health Consumers Council of WA says they are actively looking into ways to make free-to-air television accessible to low-income individuals.

A spokesperson for the North Metropolitan Health Service stated in a written statement that this fee is consistent with practices in other Australian public hospitals. The spokesperson explained, "The fee applies to the use of televisions in patient rooms unless admitted as a private patient. The televisions are provided by a third party and a concession rate is offered. Free televisions are available for patients in communal areas.” Additionally, patients admitted to public hospitals using private health insurance also have free access to television.

Clare Mullen, Executive Director of the Health Consumers Council of WA, believes that watching television is an important way for patients to relax and recover. "We know that being in hospital can be an incredibly overwhelming experience for anyone, having to be somewhere that isn't home, dealing with the stress of tests, waiting for surgery or results, not to mention feeling unwell," she said. "Mental well-being is essential to our physical well-being, and watching free-to-air television is one way patients can soothe their minds while their bodies are recovering.” She added, “Surely there is a better way in a wealthy state like WA to ensure those doing it tough can enjoy the simple pleasure of summer sport while they recover.”

Sarah Finlayson, whose brother has a psychosocial disability, believes this fee policy may disproportionately affect vulnerable groups. Ms. Finlayson recounted her brother's hospital experience: “My brother was sent to Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital by a social worker, and when I went to see him, he had been in hospital for a few days, and I found him just staring at the ceiling. There was a TV there, so I asked him if he wanted to watch TV, and he told me it was broken. I went to the nurse, who said, ‘No, it’s a paid service, run by an external contractor.’ I immediately paid the service fee, went back and turned on the TV, and I was shocked to find it was just free-to-air television. I couldn't believe you have to pay to watch free-to-air TV.”

WA Premier Roger Cook defended the fee, stating that public spending should go directly to medical care. “Every dollar we spend in public hospitals goes to looking after patients in beds,” he said. “We have an arrangement where a small fee is charged each day so that someone can provide the equipment, maintain the equipment, and make it available for those patients. We know that's inconvenient for many, but I think the expectation of the WA public is that if we have public resources, they should be going directly to health care.”

Australian Medical Association WA President Michael Page said it was an issue that was not often discussed. “On the face of it, it might sound like a fairly trivial issue,” Dr. Page said. “Access to television is not what you would call a basic human right, but for patients who might be in hospital for at least a few days, it’s not a particular luxury either. Boredom is a real issue; loneliness is a real issue.” Dr. Page believes that watching television can help certain patients—particularly older patients and those experiencing confusion or delirium—maintain orientation in an unfamiliar environment. “Being able to watch the news, being able to watch the cricket is actually very important for helping patients stay oriented, ensuring that they have a smooth passage through their hospital stay and back home,” he said. “When those who can’t afford the extra $10 a day, or whatever it is to watch TV, can’t access it, it becomes a selective thing.”

Listeners to ABC Radio Perth had differing views on the issue, with some pointing out that the practice has been in place for many years. Listener Jay argued: “The TVs are provided and run by a private contractor, that’s what you’re paying for. Without them, there wouldn’t be TVs, or taxpayers would have to buy, install, and maintain them.” Listener Cate said: “Years ago, the health department decided that providing televisions wasn’t part of the health system and wouldn’t be funded.” Listener JB also opined: “Most hospital TVs are assets of private businesses, who purchase and maintain the equipment. Phones are often dropped and broken, requiring repairs and replacements. It might seem like a lot of money, but like all equipment that needs maintenance, it is expensive.”

Others believe that television services should be provided free of charge. Listener Marty said: “Yes, this service should absolutely be free. My elderly mother is currently in hospital, and we are shocked at how much the television is costing. It is clearly a money-making venture, and it’s shameful.” Listener Barb also said: “Paying for TV in a public hospital is not new. I had to pay for my disabled brother about 10 years ago when he was in hospital for a few days. It shouldn’t have to be.”