To be recouped between 2014-2015, and 2021-2022, the $1.5 billion in savings is being pursued at a time Australia's aging population is putting additional pressure on health and medical services.

They are the brainchild of an administration which came within a hair's breadth of losing the 2016 election because it did not grasp the importance of equitable and timely access to medical services to the electorate.

While the Turnbull Government has a clear obligation to wipe out waste and inefficiency without fear or favour, some voters will interpret this apparently disproportionate target as possibly ideologically driven.

If, as the Government has claimed, the savings will be achieved by streamlining programs, improving control and compliance and ending outdated spending, all should be well.

That said, the challenge is to achieve a higher level of efficiency without inadvertently impacting on the ability of front-line medical staff to deliver vital services to their communities. History has shown that every time a razor gang swings into action it soon falls foul of the law of unintended consequences.

With very limited information available to date on how the savings are going to be made and what areas will be directly affected, it is difficult for the public to assess whether or not what is being done is fair and achievable.

This information vacuum, highlighted by ACT Labor Senator, Katy Gallagher, who has called for the release of additional detail, leaves Mr Turnbull and his ministers open to allegations Labor's so-called "Mediscare" campaign was grounded in truth after all.

The fact more than half of the projected total savings, an estimated $3.2 billion out of $5.1 billion, are to be squeezed out of the Social Services portfolio, would be seen by some as supporting such a thesis given the Coalition's ongoing reluctance to spend money in that area.

Ms Gallagher is correct in saying tax payers are entitled to full disclosure on how the health money is to be saved and what impact the savings will have on access to services.

It is, on the one hand, their money that is being spent and, on the other, the services they rely on that may be cut back inadvertently or otherwise as a result of the efficiency program.

Given the challenge of meeting Australia's future health care needs is only going to become harder and more expensive there is also an argument that any savings achieved should be reinvested in the sector.

Arbitrary cuts made now to achieve short term targets may well prove to be very costly in the long run.

More money needs to be spent now on clever people who can plan how to achieve the best possible future outcomes for the lowest cost.