'Don't deport us over health issue' say couple
A British couple who face being deported from Australia after one of them was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis (MS) have said it is not fair the life they built could be taken away "any minute".
Jessica Mathers, 30, and boyfriend Rob O'Leary had their bid for permanent residency rejected in 2023 due to the potential cost to health services of treating her condition.
The project manager and DJ from Macclesfield, who has lived in Sydney since 2017, said the couple had been "living in a state of uncertainty" for years as they waited for an outcome of an appeal against the decision.
The Australian Department of Home Affairs has been contacted for comment.
Ms Mathers and Mr O'Leary, 31, from East London, met while backpacking in the country in 2017 and have lived there ever since.
He started a business in the carpentry and construction trade three years ago, and said the couple had "made the most of our lives here".
But Ms Mathers's diagnosis of the relapsing-remitting variant of MS in 2020 has led to a visa battle with authorities that could see the pair thrown out of the country.
Symptoms are typically mild for this form of MS, according to the NHS, but about half of cases can develop into a more progressive form of the disease.
She has received treatment in Australia under a reciprocal health agreement with the UK and said her condition had been "well managed" so far.
But the couple's requests for permanent residency were rejected in 2023 due to the costs associated with her medical care.
Non-citizens entering Australia must meet certain health requirements, including not having "unduly increasing costs" for the country's publicly-funded healthcare service Medicare.
The couple lodged an appeal with the Administrative Appeals Tribunal after the visa rejection in 2023, and have been waiting for the past two years for an outcome.
Mr O'Leary said they had offered to pay the medical costs themselves or take out private insurance, "but the law is black and white, and the refusal is based on that, it's really hard for us".
They have started an online petition to call for Australia's Minister for Home Affairs to review their case and look into immigration policies that "unfairly target individuals with well-managed health conditions".
Mr O'Leary said the couple were "not asking for special treatment" but a chance to continue "working hard to contribute to this country in meaningful ways".
He said: "We've always paid tax, we've always worked, Jess has done heaps of charity work."
Ms Mathers said the couple had been "stuck not knowing what to do" as they waited for the outcome of their appeal, which had made it difficult for her to find anything other than temporary work.
She said: "It's held up our whole life, it's really upsetting.
"We know that we could get a refusal from the tribunal and then get given 28 days to leave the country, at any minute.
"We've got so much opportunity in Australia, and to walk away from it would be so sad."
Listen to the best of BBC Radio Manchester on Sounds and follow BBC Manchester on Facebook, X, and Instagram. You can also send story ideas via Whatsapp to 0808 100 2230.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Wire
30 minutes ago
- Business Wire
Simplify Healthcare's Benefits1™.Medicare Drives Over 30% of Nationwide PBP Submissions to CMS, Marking Over 7 Years as a Trusted Industry Leader
AURORA, Ill.--(BUSINESS WIRE)-- Simplify Healthcare, a recognized leader in enterprise software solutions for Payers, proudly announces that its flagship platform, Benefits1™.Medicare, played a key role once again in streamlining over 30% of Medicare Advantage (MA) Plan Benefit Package (PBP) submissions to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) this year. This milestone highlights the platform's transformative impact on benefit plan management and its integral role in supporting Payers across the nation. Benefits1™.Medicare continues to be the industry leader, enabling large-scale CMS bid submissions successfully for over 7 years, while also importing data seamlessly from the CMS-PBP software. Designed to handle the complexities of bid submission and accessible immediately (benefit updates can be started at any time independent of HPMS releases), the platform continues to set the standard for speed, accuracy, and compliance in PBP submissions with its seamless integration, robust reporting, global data updates, secure user roles, workflow automation and audit tracking capabilities. 'Our customers relied on Benefits1™.Medicare to streamline over 30% of nationwide PBP submissions—proof of the trust we've earned and the efficiency our platform delivers year after year.' — Ramesh Padri, VP of Product Delivery at Simplify Healthcare. 'Managing the full Medicare Advantage lifecycle—from bids to digital delivery—makes Benefits1™.Medicare truly stand out in helping Payers drive value and improve member experiences.' — Tasneem Chital, VP of Government Markets at Simplify Healthcare. Industry Leadership Through Customer Focus As healthcare organizations face increasing operational and regulatory challenges, Benefits1™.Medicare offers an effective solution that simplifies workflows while driving greater organizational efficiency. 'This milestone reflects our long-standing commitment of partnering with health plans to successfully manage bid submissions. We bring the full stack partnership experience — people, thought leaders, product, and technology — towards delivering a superior bid submission experience for our customers.' — Nirnay Patel, EVP & GM of Benefits1™ at Simplify Healthcare. About Simplify Healthcare Simplify Healthcare powers connected benefits and provider journeys for Payers through a scalable, enterprise-grade, secure, compliant, and configurable cloud-based software platform — Simplify Health Cloud™. We offer highly scalable, technology-centered document and translation management services to Payers through Simplify Docs™. We also empower industries with AI-native SaaS solutions designed to build and deploy digital solutions faster, better, and with embedded AI through SimplifyX™.
Yahoo
31 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Simplify Healthcare's Benefits1™.Medicare Drives Over 30% of Nationwide PBP Submissions to CMS, Marking Over 7 Years as a Trusted Industry Leader
AURORA, Ill., June 06, 2025--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Simplify Healthcare, a recognized leader in enterprise software solutions for Payers, proudly announces that its flagship platform, Benefits1™.Medicare, played a key role once again in streamlining over 30% of Medicare Advantage (MA) Plan Benefit Package (PBP) submissions to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) this year. This milestone highlights the platform's transformative impact on benefit plan management and its integral role in supporting Payers across the nation. Benefits1™.Medicare continues to be the industry leader, enabling large-scale CMS bid submissions successfully for over 7 years, while also importing data seamlessly from the CMS-PBP software. Designed to handle the complexities of bid submission and accessible immediately (benefit updates can be started at any time independent of HPMS releases), the platform continues to set the standard for speed, accuracy, and compliance in PBP submissions with its seamless integration, robust reporting, global data updates, secure user roles, workflow automation and audit tracking capabilities. "Our customers relied on Benefits1™.Medicare to streamline over 30% of nationwide PBP submissions—proof of the trust we've earned and the efficiency our platform delivers year after year." — Ramesh Padri, VP of Product Delivery at Simplify Healthcare. "Managing the full Medicare Advantage lifecycle—from bids to digital delivery—makes Benefits1™.Medicare truly stand out in helping Payers drive value and improve member experiences." — Tasneem Chital, VP of Government Markets at Simplify Healthcare. Industry Leadership Through Customer Focus As healthcare organizations face increasing operational and regulatory challenges, Benefits1™.Medicare offers an effective solution that simplifies workflows while driving greater organizational efficiency. "This milestone reflects our long-standing commitment of partnering with health plans to successfully manage bid submissions. We bring the full stack partnership experience — people, thought leaders, product, and technology— towards delivering a superior bid submission experience for our customers." — Nirnay Patel, EVP & GM of Benefits1™ at Simplify Healthcare. About Simplify Healthcare Simplify Healthcare powers connected benefits and provider journeys for Payers through a scalable, enterprise-grade, secure, compliant, and configurable cloud-based software platform — Simplify Health Cloud™. We offer highly scalable, technology-centered document and translation management services to Payers through Simplify Docs™. We also empower industries with AI-native SaaS solutions designed to build and deploy digital solutions faster, better, and with embedded AI through SimplifyX™. View source version on Contacts Simplify HealthcarePhone: (844) 720-6678Email: info@ Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
US health care is rife with high costs and deep inequities, and that's no accident – a public health historian explains how the system was shaped to serve profit and politicians
A few years ago, a student in my history of public health course asked why her mother couldn't afford insulin without insurance, despite having a full-time job. I told her what I've come to believe: The U.S. health care system was deliberately built this way. People often hear that health care in America is dysfunctional – too expensive, too complex and too inequitable. But dysfunction implies failure. What if the real problem is that the system is functioning exactly as it was designed to? Understanding this legacy is key to explaining not only why reform has failed repeatedly, but why change remains so difficult. I am a historian of public health with experience researching oral health access and health care disparities in the Deep South. My work focuses on how historical policy choices continue to shape the systems we rely on today. By tracing the roots of today's system and all its problems, it's easier to understand why American health care looks the way it does and what it will take to reform it into a system that provides high-quality, affordable care for all. Only by confronting how profit, politics and prejudice have shaped the current system can Americans imagine and demand something different. My research and that of many others show that today's high costs, deep inequities and fragmented care are predictable features developed from decades of policy choices that prioritized profit over people, entrenched racial and regional hierarchies, and treated health care as a commodity rather than a public good. Over the past century, U.S. health care developed not from a shared vision of universal care, but from compromises that prioritized private markets, protected racial hierarchies and elevated individual responsibility over collective well-being. Employer-based insurance emerged in the 1940s, not from a commitment to worker health but from a tax policy workaround during wartime wage freezes. The federal government allowed employers to offer health benefits tax-free, incentivizing coverage while sidestepping nationalized care. This decision bound health access to employment status, a structure that is still dominant today. In contrast, many other countries with employer-provided insurance pair it with robust public options, ensuring that access is not tied solely to a job. In 1965, Medicare and Medicaid programs greatly expanded public health infrastructure. Unfortunately, they also reinforced and deepened existing inequalities. Medicare, a federally administered program for people over 64, primarily benefited wealthier Americans who had access to stable, formal employment and employer-based insurance during their working years. Medicaid, designed by Congress as a joint federal-state program, is aimed at the poor, including many people with disabilities. The combination of federal and state oversight resulted in 50 different programs with widely variable eligibility, coverage and quality. Southern lawmakers, in particular, fought for this decentralization. Fearing federal oversight of public health spending and civil rights enforcement, they sought to maintain control over who received benefits. Historians have shown that these efforts were primarily designed to restrict access to health care benefits along racial lines during the Jim Crow period of time. Today, that legacy is painfully visible. States that chose not to expand Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act are overwhelmingly located in the South and include several with large Black populations. Nearly 1 in 4 uninsured Black adults are uninsured because they fall into the coverage gap – unable to access affordable health insurance – they earn too much to qualify for Medicaid but not enough to receive subsidies through the Affordable Care Act's marketplace. The system's architecture also discourages care aimed at prevention. Because Medicaid's scope is limited and inconsistent, preventive care screenings, dental cleanings and chronic disease management often fall through the cracks. That leads to costlier, later-stage care that further burdens hospitals and patients alike. Meanwhile, cultural attitudes around concepts like 'rugged individualism' and 'freedom of choice' have long been deployed to resist public solutions. In the postwar decades, while European nations built national health care systems, the U.S. reinforced a market-driven approach. Publicly funded systems were increasingly portrayed by American politicians and industry leaders as threats to individual freedom – often dismissed as 'socialized medicine' or signs of creeping socialism. In 1961, for example, Ronald Reagan recorded a 10-minute LP titled 'Ronald Reagan Speaks Out Against Socialized Medicine,' which was distributed by the American Medical Association as part of a national effort to block Medicare. The health care system's administrative complexity ballooned beginning in the 1960s, driven by the rise of state-run Medicaid programs, private insurers and increasingly fragmented billing systems. Patients were expected to navigate opaque billing codes, networks and formularies, all while trying to treat, manage and prevent illness. In my view, and that of other scholars, this isn't accidental but rather a form of profitable confusion built into the system to benefit insurers and intermediaries. Even well-meaning reforms have been built atop this structure. The Affordable Care Act, passed in 2010, expanded access to health insurance but preserved many of the system's underlying inequities. And by subsidizing private insurers rather than creating a public option, the law reinforced the central role of private companies in the health care system. The public option – a government-run insurance plan intended to compete with private insurers and expand coverage – was ultimately stripped from the Affordable Care Act during negotiations due to political opposition from both Republicans and moderate Democrats. When the U.S. Supreme Court made it optional in 2012 for states to offer expanded Medicaid coverage to low-income adults earning up to 138% of the federal poverty level, it amplified the very inequalities that the ACA sought to reduce. These decisions have consequences. In states like Alabama, an estimated 220,000 adults remain uninsured due to the Medicaid coverage gap – the most recent year for which reliable data is available – highlighting the ongoing impact of the state's refusal to expand Medicaid. In addition, rural hospitals have closed, patients forgo care, and entire counties lack practicing OB/GYNs or dentists. And when people do get care – especially in states where many remain uninsured – they can amass medical debt that can upend their lives. All of this is compounded by chronic disinvestment in public health. Federal funding for emergency preparedness has declined for years, and local health departments are underfunded and understaffed. The COVID-19 pandemic revealed just how brittle the infrastructure is – especially in low-income and rural communities, where overwhelmed clinics, delayed testing, limited hospital capacity, and higher mortality rates exposed the deadly consequences of neglect. Change is hard not because reformers haven't tried before, but because the system serves the very interests it was designed to serve. Insurers profit from obscurity – networks that shift, formularies that confuse, billing codes that few can decipher. Providers profit from a fee-for-service model that rewards quantity over quality, procedure over prevention. Politicians reap campaign contributions and avoid blame through delegation, diffusion and plausible deniability. This is not an accidental web of dysfunction. It is a system that transforms complexity into capital, bureaucracy into barriers. Patients – especially the uninsured and underinsured – are left to make impossible choices: delay treatment or take on debt, ration medication or skip checkups, trust the health care system or go without. Meanwhile, I believe the rhetoric of choice and freedom disguises how constrained most people's options really are. Other countries show us that alternatives are possible. Systems in Germany, France and Canada vary widely in structure, but all prioritize universal access and transparency. Understanding what the U.S. health care system is designed to do – rather than assuming it is failing unintentionally – is a necessary first step toward considering meaningful change. This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Zachary W. Schulz, Auburn University Read more: Buyouts can bring relief from medical debt, but they're far from a cure Public health and private equity: What the Walgreens buyout could mean for the future of pharmacy care Migrants often can't access US health care until they are critically ill – here are some of the barriers they face Zachary W. Schulz does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
