Cannabis, as a narcotic, is currently regulated under a myriad of Commonwealth and State laws, including the following:

• Therapeutic Goods Act 1989 (Cth);
• Narcotic Drugs Act 1967 (Cth);
• State and Territory laws, including the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW);
• State and Territory laws which deal with poisons and therapeutic goods, such as Poisons and Therapeutic Goods Act 1966 (NSW); and
• Access to Medicinal Cannabis Act 2016 (Vic).

– Maiocchi v Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists (No.4) [2016] FCA 33

In the New South Wales Supreme Court in Application of a Local Health District: Re a Patient Fay [2016] NSWSC 624, Fay, a pregnant 19 year old woman with an intellectual disability with placental haematoma and progressive renal failure, was warned by her doctors that she was at significant risk of permanent cerebral damage and possibly death if her pregnancy continued. The medical advice had recommended that the pregnancy be terminated to allow more effective control of her blood pressure. It was made known that the foetus would not live if intervention occurred. She signed a consent form stating that if specific medical events were to cause impending death, then the baby would be delivered even if the baby’s life was at stake. Her doctors desired to treat her immediately instead of waiting for one of Fay’s nominated treatment-accepted events to occur.

Private hospital operators conduct their business in a competitive environment and competition laws can affect how they interact with their competitors and other organisations such as private health insurers, pharmaceutical companies, medical device companies and medical practitioners.

The case of Jones v Bartlett (2000) 205 CLR 166 ('Jones v Bartlett') stands for the basic proposition that an owner of a residential premises does not owe a duty of care to a plaintiff to ensure that premises are updated to comply with ever evolving Australian Standards and Building Codes.

Biggs v George [2016] NSWCA 113; Hinton v Alpha Westmead Private Hospital [2016] FCAFC 107

Secretary, Department of Health v DLW Health Services Pty Limited [2016] FCA 108 is an appeal to the Federal Court of Australia against a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, concerning a decision by delegates of the Commonwealth Department of Health to reduce classification levels of aged care recipients.

including ‘Capital Refurbishment’ Type Fees

The Government published on 2 September 2016 Information for Approved Providers of Residential Aged Care Homes on Charging Fees for Additional Care and Services in Residential Aged Care, including ‘Capital Refurbishment’ Type Fees.15

The Federal Government announced in the 2016/2017 budget10 that it will achieve efficiencies of $1.2 billion over four years through changes to the scoring matrix of the Aged Care Funding Instrument (ACFI) that determines the level of funding paid to aged care providers. The Government will also reduce indexation of the Complex Health Care component of the ACFI by 50 per cent in 2016/17 and establish a $53.3 million transitional assistance fund to support providers.

Until 27 February 2017, CDC funding for home care is provided to places as allocated to Approved Providers via the Aged Care Approval Rounds (ACAR).