Friday, April 29, 2011

SSWAHS = SWSLHN + SLHN and the Medicare Locals - 40

Mr Stephen Jones MP
PO Box 6022
House of Representatives
Parliament House
Canberra ACT 2600
 

Tel: (02) 6277 4661
Fax: (02) 6277 8548  


27 April 2011

Dear Mr Stephen Jones MP,

Medicare Local Submissions - April 5, 2011

I am aware that there were two applications by organisations bidding for the funding allocated for the SWS Medicare Local which was to include the Southern Highlands of NSW. It is my understanding that the Bankstown GP Division (SWS Health Coalition) has done so, and the Macarthur-Southern Highlands Divisions of General Practice have also submitted their application.

I am also aware that the intent of DoHA was that there should be extensive consultation with the local communities, local health practitioners in both the public and private health services, and the non-government organisations who provide health and welfare services to the residents of the Southern Highlands.

It is my understanding that the Macarthur-Southern Highlands Division’s application proposed that the current Southern Highlands Division would be a discrete part of the enhanced Macarthur Division of General Practice, who would have responsibility for the area between Fairfield- Bankstown and Bowral. I say it is my understanding simply because there has been no public discussion with the local Southern Highlands- Wollondilly communities, with the private health practitioners or with the NGOs by the Southern Highland Divisions of General Practice or, apparently, by the Macarthur Division of General Practice.

There have been no public meetings, nothing in the local press about the transition to Medicare Locals, and the only discussion by the CEO of the Southern Highlands Division of General Practice with a few members of the local private psychologist practitioners was to talk to them about introducing the ARGUS electronic communication system to their practices. The only discussion the CEO of the Southern Highlands Division of General Practice has been to inform some of the heads of Departments of the Bowral Hospital and Community Health Services that the funding of the current Division will end in July 2012 and that the liaison with the Macarthur Division was their Board’s proposed option. This does not amount to any form of robust discussion and involvement by the local community in how the Medicare Local would help the people of the Southern Highlands.

The contrast between the Macarthur-Southern Highlands Division’s lack of involvement with the local community and its health care providers, and the community-involvement actions seen in the Bankstown GP Division’s-SWS Health Coalition’s process for developing its application is extreme.
Yet when confronted with that significant difference the CEO of the Southern Highlands Division states that the assertion is “wrong” and “offensive” to say that there has been no community consultation. However, even a cursory examination of the Southern Highlands Division’s Newsletter (The Highlands Doctor) to its members shows that it has not been updated since July 2010. It would, therefore, seem that even its member GPs have not been kept informed as to what their Board has been negotiating with the Macarthur Division of General Practice.

The purpose of this letter, therefore, is to let you, and DoHA, know that the application by the Macarthur-Southern Highlands Divisions of General Practice is questionable in that:
1.       There does not appear to have been any significant community consultations with the people and health care providers in the Southern Highlands.
2.       There has been a veil of secrecy from the Southern Highlands Division of General Practice and the Macarthur Division in regard to what their planned intentions are in respect of how they would operate as a Federally-funded Medicare Local.
3.       There have been no public presentations to the community in the Southern Highlands and, possibly, in the Macarthur – Wollondilly jurisdictions to encourage community involvement and collaboration in the development of the Medicare Local proposed for the South West Sydney area.
4.       There has been no explanation to the local community as to how the Medicare Local would purchase the health services that would improve their health needs, in contrast to the existing available Medicare-funded health services in both the public and private sectors.
5.       There has been no indication that the general practitioners are aware of what their relevant Boards have proposed for the changed delivery of health services and how those changes will affect the viability of the whole health practitioner’s network.
6.       The AMA organisations in states and nationally appear to be gaining feedback from their members that the majority of GPs are unable to describe what the proposed Medicare Locals will do for their community members, or are opposed to the concept altogether. Since the outcome for Medicare Locals is dependent upon the GPs as well as other health professionals in the private sector one has to wonder if funded Medicare Locals will in fact obtain local support.
7.       It is questionable that, if the current Divisions of General Practice have difficulty in establishing transparent governance of their actions, how those same Boards will manage to introduce the transparent governance to the new Medicare Locals.
Yours sincerely,

A local resident.

SWSLHN and Bowral's Health - 3

Doctor issues mosquito warning

29 Apr, 2011 12:00 AM
DESPITE the temperature dropping as the Highlands heads into winter, heath experts are urging residents to keep vigilant about mosquitoes.
South Western Sydney Local Health Network Director of Public Health Dr Stephen Conaty said people still needed to be careful about mosquito borne viruses.

"As families head out ... they still need to take precautions against mosquitoes, to cover up, to use effective repellents and to light mosquito coils," he said. "Many mosquitoes can carry Ross River and Barmah Forest viruses. More serious viruses such as Murray Valley Encephalitis and Kunjin are also a risk in NSW this year.

"Ross River and Barmah Forest virus infections can cause symptoms including tiredness, rash, fever, and sore and swollen joints. These usually last a few days, but some people may experience more debilitating symptoms for weeks and occasionally even months."

Monday, April 25, 2011

Bowral Health celebrates ANZAC Day - Berrima 2011

Prologue

We are assembled here to commemorate that immortal day when the young men of Australia and New Zealand, by their deeds and sacrifice, demonstrated to the world at Gallipoli that Australia and New Zealand were truly rising Nations.

The sons and daughters of ANZACs came forward without question, accepted gladly and discharged fully, their responsibilities during World War II, Korea, Malaya, Borneo, Vietnam, and in peace-keeping and peace-making operations, and the Afghanistan conflict.

On this day we remember the sacrifice of such men and women for an ideal, for a way of life.

Let us take strength in the knowledge and hope that our sons and daughters will never forget the example set by their forefathers. In our everyday life let us endeavour to carry on those traditions established in past wars and conflicts at such tragic cost.

We think of every man, woman and child who, in those crucial years, died so that the lights of freedom and liberty, so costly won, is not lost by our own indifference. So let us mourn with pride, but let us also remember with equal pride, those who served - and still serve.

"See that ye hold fast the heritage we leave you. Yea, and teach your children that never in the coming centuries may their hearts fail or their hands grow weak".


Rev. Dean Reilly
25 April 2011

Saturday, April 23, 2011

SWSLHN and Bowral's Health - 2

It is Easter and this story possibly best epitomises the difference between the self-sacrifice of some, and the self-serving, self-aggrandisement of others. The latter most evident in Western so-called "developed" countries.

This reflects poorly on our own country, and the Southern Highlands in particular where, currently, we have this mad rush to get re-branded and re-funded before the local Division of General Practice loses its funding in June 2012.


Nun talks about practicing medicine in rural Miss.

In today’s episode of The Story, from American Public Media, listeners hear from Sister Anne Brooks, a physician who has been running a clinic in Mississippi for almost 30 years.

She talks about the challenges of treating patients in a rural area, the effect the lack of care has on people and how she makes ends meet in a poor community. Brooks sometimes takes things in trade for her medical services - her payments have included catfish, crookneck squash and chainsaw services.

Her efforts go beyond running the clinic. She is a member of the community and talks about building community spirit. There was no emergency room in the area so her home has often served as the ER; once she even delivered twins in her backyard.

She also discusses the cultural realities of being a white woman who came to treat a largely African-American community. When she arrived at the clinic, there were separate waiting rooms for white patients and African American patients - something she put a stop to. She describes how she adjusted her behavior to gain her patients’ acceptance and trust.

Brooks says modern health care relies too much on MRIs and CT scans and too little on clinical exams. She says young doctors and nurse practitioners who rotate through her clinic don’t know how to give a good physical.

Comments

One Comment on Nun talks about practicing medicine in rural Miss.

  • Richard Pizzi on Fri, 22nd Apr 2011 9:21 AM
  • Dr. Brooks was also interviewed last fall by Healthcare IT News: http://www.healthcareitnews.com/podcast/digital-records-rural-healthcare-tutwilers-shining-example

    SSWAHS = SWSLHN and mental health in the Southern Highlands - 13


    A tick for Opposition’s plans to improve employment services for people with mental illness

    With mental health in the news, thanks in part to Tony Abbott’s recent funding promises, below is a Q and A piece with Professor John Mendoza, first published by The Conversation on April 21.

    Why do so many mentally ill Australians struggle to maintain employment?

    This is a critical policy issue for all Australian governments over the next decade. We’re clearly facing a skills shortage and that’s across the board, it’s not just in the mining sector.

    We have to get a lot better at engaging people of working age who are not in employment.

    Mental illness, often untreated, is one of the primary causes for the situation that we face.

    About 28% of all Australians on the disability support pension have a primary mental health-based disability. Of the remaining 70%, around half have mental health problems as a secondary contributor.

    The rate of employment for people with mental health conditions in OECD nations is nearly three times the rate of employment than Australia. Needless to say, Australia does very poorly in this area.

    There are a number of reasons for this and the announcement by the Federal Opposition starts to address some of these issues.

    ***

    How does the Coalition’s announcement build on existing infrastructure?

    We’re already spending a lot of money increasing employment services for people with mental health disorders.

    Commonwealth spending on disability support pensions and employment-related programs is around $5 billion. This provides income and support for people on the disability support pension, Newstart allowance and other benefits who are there because of mental health problems. But we’re not getting good outcomes from that spending.

    What today’s announcement does is target a couple of specific areas where we know we can do better.

    It’s not just a matter of preparing a person with significant mental illness to enter the workplace.

    We need to place people in a workplace where they can receive support. A truly supportive work environment is where the culture recognises the way mental illness presents and manifests.

    These workplaces support the employer to help keep that person engaged, modify activities, train co-workers on how to deal with mental health episodes and crises if they occur, and retain that person in employment.

    The mental health blueprint, released last month, calls for a minimum investment across 30 targeted programs over four years.

    We’ve got to lift our current rate of mental health funding as a proportion of total health spending – from around 6% towards 12% to 13%.

    That’s a very big ask and no government of any persuasion is going to be able to do that in one or two terms. I think the Coalition is mindful that what was announced today is not enough.

    ***

    Will we see more than just a bidding war from today’s announcements?

    I have to be optimistic that this announcement is more than a bidding war. I certainly believe what the Coalition took to the last election and what they’re building on today could bring about real improvements.

    The Rudd Government and, to an extent, the Gillard Government are “blowhards” when it comes to mental health. They’ve talked long and hard but they’ve delivered almost nothing.

    Suicide prevention was the cornerstone of their mental health policy leading into the last election, with promises of spending $274m over four years.

    In the first year, they’ve spent $10m. There’s a bit of a credibility gap when you say you’re going to deal with an issue and in the first year you spend only 2% of the funding that you’ve allocated.

    The situation is similar when we look at the Headspace initiatives for increasing early intervention sites around the country.

    Labor is spending most of the money not in the second term, but in the third term of government if they’re re-elected. I think that is gilding the lily on this issue.

    We need to see the investment flying through fairly evenly, but building up over the four-year budget cycle.

    Tony Abbott has basically picked out elements of the blueprint that were released by the working group last month. Many of the working group’s members are advisors to the Federal Mental Health Minister Mark Butler.

    These are things members of this group have said privately to the government about what needs to be done.

    Tony Abbott has said, very wisely, we know we’ve got a problem with employment participation for people with mental illness and I’m going to target that because it’s one of the areas where investments will produce dividends. The impact on the budget in the longer term will be a positive one.

    We know employment participation is critical to people’s recovery, in lifting them out of poverty and helping them regain their sense of self.

    Certainly social inclusion is improved dramatically by participating in work. So I think it’s a wise investment, it’s a smart policy, and it won’t cost the budget bottom line in the first instance.

    Over the longer term, it will save an enormous amount in terms of the money we’re spending at the moment on disability support pensions and the like.

    We’re spending this money now but without getting any movement on people going back to employment.

    • John Mendoza is the Director of ConNetica Consulting Pty Ltd. He is the former chair of the the National Advisory Council on Mental Health (appointed by the Rudd Government in June 2008) and resigned in June 2010 citing a lack of vision or commitment to the issue.

    One Comment

    1. Murf
      Posted April 22, 2011 at 11:49 pm

      If we’re going to get people who have mental health issues back into the workforce (and most of us who’ve been employed before are really keen to get back to it), we need to start training CentreLink not to send away unemployed females who don’t qualify for a benefit. I haven’t even been able to talk to anyone- just a quick dismissal on the phone, several times over the past 12 years (when I’ve had the occasional part-time job). They say “Use your professional networks- we can’t help people like you. We don’t have the sorts of jobs you’re looking for”. Slam. How can we have networks when we’ve been out of work for months or years? Huh? Will we just happen to bump into an employer who won’t run a mile as soon as we mention mental health issues? Better to keep it to yourself when there’s no one to back you up. Also, no one seems to realise how soul-destroying it is for females who have always been financially independent, to suddenly tie their fate to someone else because there are no supports in the community for them to fall back on. It makes mental health issues worse. Someone has to have a good think. Get back to me when there’s some news.

    Friday, April 22, 2011

    SWSLHN and Bowral's Health - 1


    Challenging accepted wisdoms about young peoples’ health and wellbeing

    Mental health is in the political limelight in the lead-up to the federal budget, with the Government and Opposition both promising support for mental health services.

    The researcher and writer Richard Eckersley argues that we need to develop a much broader understanding of mental health and wellbeing in young people. In particular, he challenges the conventional narrative around the social determinants of health.

    ***

    Challenging the accepted wisdom about young peoples’ health

    Richard Eckersley writes:

    The widely accepted story of young people’s health in developed nations is that it is continuing to improve in line with historic trends and the progress of nations. Death rates are low and falling, and most young people say they are healthy, happy and enjoying life. For most, social conditions and opportunities have improved. Health efforts need to focus on the minorities whose wellbeing is lagging behind, especially the disadvantaged and marginalised.

    There is another, very different story. It suggests young people’s health may be declining – in contrast to historic trends. Mortality rates understate the importance of non-fatal, chronic ill-health, and self-reported health and happiness do not give an accurate picture of wellbeing. Mental illness and obesity-related health problems and risks have increased. The trends are not confined to the disadvantaged. The causes stem from fundamental social and cultural changes of the past several decades.

    The contrast between the old and new stories is graphically illustrated by these Australian statistics: about 40 per 100,000 young people (aged 12-24) die each year and the rate is falling; 26,000 per 100,000 (26%) (aged 16-24) suffer a mental disorder each year and the rate has probably risen, perhaps steeply. Which statistic says more about young people’s wellbeing?

    Stories inform and define how governments and society as a whole address youth health issues, so which story is the more accurate matters. The usual narrative says interventions should target the minorities at risk. The new narrative argues that broader efforts to improve social conditions are also needed. The old story may still generally hold true in developing nations, but the issues raised in the new story are also of increasing importance to these countries as modernisation and globalisation impact more on the lives of their young people.

    A central dimension of the changed trajectory in health over recent decades, and which underpins the new story, concerns the declining significance of material and structural determinants of health and the growing importance of existential and relational factors to do with identity, belonging, certainty and purpose in life. There is a shift in emphasis from socio-economic causes of ill-health to cultural; from material and economic deprivation to psychosocial deprivation; from a problem of material scarcity to one of excess. With this has come a shift in significance from physical health to mental health.

    This argument is not to suggest sharp, categorical distinctions and clear breaks from the past. Physical and mental health are closely interwoven and interdependent. Physical illness, including infectious diseases, still matter. Disadvantage and inequality still matter. Indeed, the cultural changes of past decades may well have exacerbated their effects by making material wealth and status more important to how people see and judge themselves. Environmental problems such as climate change have serious implications, including the risk of possible catastrophic effects on human health.

    The contrast between the old and new stories of young people’s health and wellbeing is part of a larger contest between the dominant narrative of material progress and a new narrative, sustainable development. Material progress sees economic growth and a rising standard of living as the foundation for a better life; sustainable development seeks a better balance and integration of economic, social and environmental goals to produce a high, equitable and enduring quality of life.

    Material progress represents an outdated, industrial model of progress: pump more wealth into one end of the pipeline of progress and more welfare flows out the other. Sustainable development reflects (appropriately) an ecological model, where the components of human society interact in complex, multiple, non-linear ways. Not only does sustainable development better fit the new story of youth health, it is likely to achieve better outcomes in relation to the old story’s focus on socio-economic disadvantage and inequality because it less intent than material progress on economic growth and efficiency.

    The health of young people should be a focal point in the larger contest of social narratives. They should, by definition, be the main beneficiaries of progress; conversely, they will pay the greatest price of any long-term economic, social, cultural or environmental decline and degradation.

    If young people’s health and wellbeing are not improving, it is hard to argue that life is getting better.

    • This is an edited extract from: Eckersley, R. 2011. A new narrative of young people’s health and wellbeing. Journal of Youth Studies. First published 13 April 2011 (iFirst) (http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13676261.2011.565043). An author version is available at www.richardeckersley.com.au

    • Richard Eckersley is a director of Australia21 Ltd, an independent, non-profit research company and a visiting fellow at the Australian National University.

    SSWAHS = SWSLHN + SLHN and the Medicare Locals - 39

    NZ colleagues offer warning over Medicare Locals impact

    21st Apr 2011
    Byron Kaye all articles by this author

    NEW Zealand’s most influential GP has delivered a stark warning to the Australian Government as it prepares to unleash the first Medicare Locals: Don’t make the same mistake the NZ Government did.

    Dr Peter Foley, chair of the New Zealand Medical Association, said Australia must learn from the hugely unpopular introduction of Crown Health Enterprises – similar to Australia’s Medicare Locals (MLs) – which he said had failed to ensure adequate GP leadership.

    “If the [Australian] Government truly regards general practice as central to the delivery of primary healthcare… then this position must not be undermined by any top-down direction of how that might be delivered,” Dr Foley told MO.

    Dr Foley’s warning came after the AMA recently wrote to all Australian federal parliamentarians arguing the ML model “does not give adequate recognition to the fundamental role of GPs”, and warned it may repeat the failure of the New Zealand reforms.

    “The GP team – doctors and nurses – must be consulted and involved in every step in the design of any new system. Respectful engagement and collaborative development with real clinicians is crucial to achieving the necessary buy-in and subsequent success of any health reforms,” Dr Foley said.

    AGPN CEO David Butt agreed the New Zealand reforms had “disempowered” GPs but believed Australia had already “learned from New Zealand”.

    “They made mistakes and didn’t realise the central role of GPs, [but] our models are different. All the things that the divisions are doing now with GPs will be continued,” he said.

    Comments:

    Stratmatonman
    22nd Apr 2011
    1:08am


    Good on Peter Foley for coming out and saying this this - listen up Labor your non-consulting and arrogance has been found out even across the Tasman; I DO NOT believe the mistakes of NZ have been learned and AGPN will come to regret its naivete.

    Wednesday, April 20, 2011

    SSWAHS = SWSLHN + SLHN and the Medicare Locals - 38

    Health reforms walking a weak and wobbly plank

    The Federal Australian Medical Association opposes the Government’s Medicare Locals as currently proposed.

    What happens if you take the doctor out of the picture? Pic: What happens if you take the doctor out of the picture?

    There is little detail on structure or funding. There is no explanation of patient benefit. There is plenty of uncertainty.

    Medicare Locals are supposed to be a major plank of the Government’s health reforms. It is a weak and wobbly plank.

    We have called on the Government to defer the establishment of any primary health care organisations (PHCOs) until there has been genuine consultation with the medical profession.

    The AMA has for some time been calling for consultation and more detail about the governance and operation of Medicare Locals, but those calls have been met with silence.

    The AMA and the medical profession cannot support primary care reforms that do not explain how they would benefit patients or communities, and which do not guarantee they would maintain and support the leadership role of GPs in primary care.

    There must be meaningful dialogue with the medical profession about a way ahead that is best for patient care.

    The AMA is not opposing the concept of a primary health care organisation to coordinate primary care services. When Medicare Locals were first announced, we were cautiously optimistic about the role they might play in improving health care for Australians.

    But since that time there has been little detail about governance, funding arrangements, or the envisaged role of doctors in their management. It is a big ask for us to support a concept that is very short on principles, let alone detail.

    Some commentators seem concerned that the AMA insists that doctors should be strongly represented on the governance structures of our health systems.

    You need only look at the chaos wrought upon our public hospitals when they are administered without appropriate reference to the doctors (and other health workers) who actually deliver the health services in the hospitals.

    New Zealand’s initial experience with PHCOs that were run by ‘skills-based’ boards was heading for disaster until the situation was retrieved by an increased presence of doctors on those boards.

    The assumption that health care is improved by marginalising the role of doctors in decision making is, to say the least, contestable - and the AMA will certainly continue to argue against it.

    Locally, we examined closely how the proposed Medicare Locals were intended to integrate with Local Hospital Networks. Our examination was not too encouraging – hence our concerns.

    Medicare Locals will be funded separately, governed separately, and will function separately to the acute hospital system.

    The chances of evolving a Medicare Local-inspired integrated health system are just about zero.

    The likelihood of continued cost and blame shifting between the Commonwealth and the States is extremely high.

    The Prime Minister has also stated that Medicare Locals could be fundholding bodies and, despite our requests, she has not ruled out fundholding for GP services.

    Currently, patients decide when they need a GP service, not a distant bureaucracy that works to a fixed budget, and which increasingly emphasises cost control rather than access to quality services.

    This is a big change in the way a patient’s visit to a GP is funded. The community needs to understand that this will inevitably lead to the rationing of GP services – in the just the same way as public hospital services are rationed.

    Although Medicare rebates have failed to keep up with the costs of providing GP services, patient co-payments, where necessary, have kept general practice viable.

    Fundholding arrangements delivered by Medicare Locals could be the final straw that breaks the back of general practice.

    Doctors practise according to the principle of ‘first do no harm’. Perhaps the Government should apply the same principle to its currently proposed Medicare Locals.

    SSWAHS = SWSLHN + SLHN and the Medicare Locals - 37

    PSnews

    Medicare builds up in local areas

    Fifty-eight organisations and consortia have applied to become Australia’s first Medicare Locals.

    Acting Minister for Health and Ageing Mark Butler welcomed the interest from Divisions of General Practice and other primary health care groups in establishing Australia’s first network of primary health care organisations.

    “Medicare Locals will help to provide primary care services which are more responsive to the needs of local communities,” Mr Butler said.

    “They will make it easier for patients to access the health services they need by identifying service gaps in local communities, helping to keep Australians well and out of hospital.”

    He said the Government’s primary healthcare approach recognised the fundamental importance of GPs as being the centre of primary care.

    “Medicare Locals build on the important role already delivered by Divisions of General Practice, focusing on improving local health and medical services through better coordination and integration of frontline primary health care services,” Mr Butler said.

    He said the first tranche of Medicare Locals would be drawn from high performing Divisions, preferably working in partnership with other organisations.

    All 58 applications in the first round involved one or more Divisions, as well as other primary health care partners.

    Mr Butler said the Government looked forward to the first tranche of Medicare Locals being up and running from 1 July 2011.

    He said the Government had been planning for the first tranche to comprise about 15 Medicare Locals.

    Mr Butler said applications would be assessed against a number of key areas such as demonstrated ability to respond to local health needs and emerging priorities; ability to form productive relationships with key stakeholders; ability to build on a sustained track record of driving improved outcomes and system change in general practice and primary health care through effective practice support; and strong governance and operational arrangements.

    The second part of the application process to establish the next round of Medicare Locals, starting in 2012, would close on 19 July 2011.

    SSWAHS = SWSLHN + SLHN and the Medicare Locals - 36

    First Tranche Applications Exceed Expectations

    The Australian General Practice Network (AGPN) has stated that the process for application was both “thorough and exhaustive”, whilst at the same time calling on the Federal Government to commence as many Medicare Locals as possible in the first round (see http://www.ergpa.com.au/news/development-of-medicare-locals-on-track-just-waiting-for-the-tick/).

    The Australian Medical Association (AMA) is continuing to call for further consultation with the medical profession, and push for deferred establishment, with expanded timelines (see position statement @ http://ama.com.au/node/6500).

    The Victorian Healthcare Association (VHA) (see http://www.vha.org.au/positionstatements2010.html) and Statewide Primary Care Partnerships have continue to exercise caution in their approach.

    Meanwhile, consumer groups and allied health professionals are starting to knock on the doors and ask some valid questions about their role and position in this change.

    As somewhat of a pragmatist I tend to believe this is all an important part of people working out where they stand in relation to the changes afoot, and what the likely impact will be on their patients, their business or service and the overall landscape of health care in Australia. None of which is a bad thing, it all challenges all of us in how we plan for, deliver and receive services, which is ultimately the point of system reform in the first place.

    What I think is the real issue right now is how we keep our health care services focussed on the outcomes, rather than the process of change. It’s very easy to be distracted by the minutia of the funding cycles and the many, many reporting requirements, the boundary cut offs, and who gets what from which level of government. It’s easy to forget that ultimately we are there to assist people in need of care and good health. Our job is about finding the best way to do that, in this case under a Medicare Local banner, but still with the same concern for how our communities get the best from their health care system.

    So at the end of the day, does it matter what they’re called, or how many start in July and how many start 6 months later? What do you think?

    Comments (1)


    Bel
    18 April 2011

    Great blog Kristin,

    Not taking away from the importance of being informed and asking questions, as health professionals and consumer groups have every right to seek understanding and further have a voice but I think it’s really important that in light of “reform uncertainty” people are reminded that regardless of what is happening, what could happen or even what should happen, that our focus remains with the patient and our ability to assist them with the best possible health outcome.

    SSWAHS = SWSLHN + SLHN and the Medicare Locals - 35

    The danger in the following media statement possibly best demonstrates the potential for nepotism in the fund-holding arrangements planned for the Medicare Locals to be rolled out by the Federal Government from July 1st 2011.

    We already have a situation when the Southern Highlands Division of General Practice can determine who should (or should not) be recruited to provide mental health services to those patients with a diagnosed mental illness. This has already been demonstrated with the Better Outcomes for Mental Health initiative (BOMHi) and the Mental Health Nurse Incentive Program (MHNIP) which were both funded by Medicare Australia. The funds for the BOMHi program are held by the Division and are used to pay for patients of GPs to have sessions with private psychologists. Those psychologists selected for the program will tell you that invariably the money "ran out" before the end of the grant period.

    In the case of the MHNIP, the Division endeavoured to divert patients from the GP practices to the RN they had recruited to run the program from their Division's rooms. Eventually, they had to cease that activity due to the fact that their RN did not gain the necessary accreditation to be able to carry out the functions required. From all reports, the Division then did nothing to support the implementation and extension of the program among their GP members and so, a useful and viable mental health service that could have been of benefit to many, has withered away.

    Govt pledges $59m for mental health

    15th April 2011

    By: Australian Doctor

    The new wave of Medicare Locals will be given $59 million to provide care packages to support people with severe mental illness.

    The money will allow the new organisations being rolled out from July this year to buy bundles of services to support people in the community and keep them out of hospital.

    Clinical services will include therapy from psychologists and social workers who, according to the Federal Government, will be "encouraged to link patients to other services in the community for people with severe illness".

    The move follows national consultation on the funding plan.

    The government claimed there was strong support from GPs, who will be central to "supporting and finding referral pathways" to other services.

    The first 15 Medicare Locals will be eligible to access the funding.

    AGPN CEO David Butt said the timing of the pledge was "a glimpse into the government’s vision" for primary mental health services.

    "It’s encouraging to have these flexible care packages available to the first 15 Medicare Locals and indicative of a government that wants to see a fundamental change in the delivery of mental health services, in which there is a shift towards the primary healthcare sector rather than a reliance upon the acute sector.

    "These packages will also enable interventions at different levels of intensity.

    Depending on the patient’s needs, the care may need to step up’ to more intensive interventions, such as specialist care with a psychiatrist or psychologist, or the care may step down’ to services like community connectedness programs." Paul Smith

    SWSLHN and Bowral's Health

    Plain packaging will hit sales hard, and big tobacco is worried
    Craig Seitam
    April 20, 2011
    An example of what the new plain cigarette packets will look like.

    An example of what the new plain cigarette packets will look like.

    So, the move to cigarette plain packaging will do nothing to reduce the rate of smoking, but it will be a pain in the proverbial for shopkeepers. I'm told this at least once an hour on talk radio, so it must be true.

    But things aren't always what they appear to be. I know this as a reformed tobacco executive. I was employed by Rothmans of Pall Mall from 1994 to 1998 in Queensland, NSW and Victoria in charge of about $250 million in annual supermarket sales.

    Working for big tobacco is a double-edged sword. Sure, it's a legal product, and you could get hit by a bus tomorrow (although I'd take my chances with the bus versus smoking). Over time, I started to feel the imaginary horns attached to my head, especially when asked by my child's teacher what I did for a living.

    But other than that, we ruled the world. In those days, cigarettes made up six of the top 10 supermarket products. Not exactly part of the fresh food mantra, but it wasn't hard to get an audience with the bigwigs at short notice. The guys flogging baked beans and shoe polish had to stand in line. Our products were money in the bank.

    The industry was cashed-up and was not afraid to spend it. The laws were slightly more relaxed, and often tobacco retailers had to do no more than sign a lease. The three tobacco companies would fight tooth and nail to do the shop-fit free, and in some cases pay the rent in exchange for the rights to a window display.

    The rule of market share dictated that ''if it can't be seen, it can't be sold''. We employed all kinds of surveys measuring our visibility in stores, and lived and died by the results.

    For marketing, the brand was everything. People don't just smoke a brand, they are the brand. What's inside the cigarette doesn't really matter, but what the smoker thinks about themselves (true or not) is absolute. If you're a bus driver, but aspire to being an internationalist with a passport to smoking pleasure, you'll buy accordingly.

    And it's not just the brand, but the appearance of the pack . . . how it feels, the fonts used: everything was analysed and tested to the extreme.

    When NSW tightened the noose on in-store advertising, cigarette package images were replaced with tantalising shots of sunflowers and Uluru. The theory was that people would associate these images with the colour of the brand they smoked. Publicly, the big round of packet health warnings in the '90s was treated as a speed bump. Like a duck on a lake, beneath the surface things weren't so calm. One of our bosses referred to the move as an ''absolute disaster'' and our focus moved to producing retail stands and lighting that deflected from the top of the packet.

    Removing cigarettes from visibility in stores has introduced an impediment to the process, but the allure of the brand still remains - even with an ugly health warning. Olive-green packets will not be cool; there will be no differentiation between one brand and the next. Even the mythology, for those of us who remember the Hoges and Stuart Wagstaff TV ads, will disappear.

    The tobacco companies invest a lot in research, particularly in statistics. Every move in price and circumstance is modelled to the N-th degree. As the it-won't-affect-us-honestly-it-won't ads increase, you can bet they reflect the anxiety of the industry.

    My opinion as a former insider? The proposed plain packaging changes will hit sales hard.

    Craig Seitam is a marketing consultant.

    twitter Follow the National Times on Twitter: @NationalTimesAU


    Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/plain-packaging-will-hit-sales-hard-and-big-tobacco-is-worried-20110419-1dnbi.html#ixzz1K1Y7Sm8r

    Tuesday, April 19, 2011

    SSWAHS = SWSLHN + SLHN and the Medicare Locals - 34

    At last, there is something more substantial in the way of the every-growing backlash against the Federal government's Super Clinics and Medicare Locals. Socrates notes that this survey of GPs is of just a small sample, but it does seem to confirm the anecdotal view that there is mass confusion amongst the general practitioners of just what will be the business of the Medicare Locals and of the Super Clinics and how either will in any way change the delivery of health services in the Australian community.

    Secondly, it confirms what seems to have been evident in this blog, and elsewhere, that there has been very little information provided to local communities about how the Medicare Locals will operate to improve their local health services. The big exception has been the Bankstown GP Division and their SWS Health Coalition.

    Let's hope that the Federal Government budget focusses on what works and what does not when it comes to making cuts in health spending.

    GPs: Axe Medicare locals to free up health funding

    19th Apr 2011
    Byron Kaye all articles by this author

    JUST weeks out from what is predicted to be a tight Budget, GPs have pointed the way for the Gillard Government to reach its all-important surplus: freeze the rollout of super clinics and scrap Medicare Locals altogether.

    Winding back incentive payments for pharmacists to dispense generic drugs also rated a high mention in MO’s latest national poll of 150 GPs.

    Asked where health spending should be cut in the May Budget, 77% of GPs nominated the super clinics program – now $630.4 million deep in promised Commonwealth funding.

    Nearly 40% recommended Medicare Locals for the chopping block, freeing up at least some of the $416 million that has so far been committed to their rollout, which begins on 1 July.

    “If you took the super clinics money from Canberra, the leverage that you would get would train five times as many students and doctors,” AMA vice-president Dr Steve Hambleton said.

    “Nobody can understand anything about whether super clinics are any benefit to the health system at all.”

    Health economist Professor Gavin Mooney said the super clinics program was too advanced to be stopped, but “what could be possible and a good thing would be if Medicare Locals were delayed”.

    The survey, conducted by Cegedim Strategic Data, also found 45% of GPs wanted to see a reduction in the $1.50 payment that pharmacists receive each time they substitute branded medicines with generic ones.

    One area where some GPs and the Government appear to agree is the chronic disease dental scheme, which the Gillard Government claims is costing close to $63 million a month.

    Nearly a quarter of those surveyed would be happy to see the scheme axed.

    The poll comes as medical researchers held a series of rallies protesting widely tipped budget cuts to the sector of $400 million.

    GPs were not short of ideas for where to spend the savings. Two-thirds nominated indexing MBS rebates to inflation as a priority.

    Dr Hambleton said the rebates had been “systematically underdone” for years, making out-of-pocket expenses harder for patients to meet.

    A quarter of GPs wanted MBS rebates for point-of-care testing (PoCT).

    Robert Wells, director of the Menzies Centre for Health Policy at the ANU, said Government support for PoCT was inevitable, but a rebate now could undermine the new funding deal with pathologists. But given PoCT was both safe and convenient, he said, rebates for this should be supported.

    This poll was conducted for Medical Observer by Cegedim Strategic Data research company.

    Share: submit to reddit

    Monday, April 18, 2011

    SWSLHN + SLHN = SSWAHS - 2

    New NSW Government's 100 Day Plan - health and mental health mentioned

    06-Apr-2011


    The new NSW Coalition government has released their 100 Day Plan.

    Of note to the health and mental health sectors are the following items:

    • Amend health legislation to enable the establishment of local District Health Boards.
    • Commence the implementation of our Better Hospitals & Healthcare Plan that includes a $3 billion investment into health
      capital, opening 1,390 beds and providing 2,475 extra nurses.
    • Establish a Mental Health task force to start planning for the establishment of the Mental Health Commission, and create an Office of Medical Research

    At least mental health gets a mention - many other social services are not mentioned. Perhaps that means no real change for them? MHCC looks forward to working with the new government on the establishment of the new Mental Health Commission, introducing more community managed mental health services and making better use of CMO capacity to take over existing services.

    Read the 100 Day Plan

    SWS Health Coalition in action - this how it can (should) be done!

    Meet Your Neighbour - Bankstown GP Division

    The Mental Health Coordinating Council’s initiative to encourage organisations to meet, learn more about each other and find ways to work better together. Come and learn more about Bankstown GP Division and how NGOs and GP Divisions can work together.

    When:
    Monday, 18 April 2011
    Duration:
    2.00pm to 4.30pm
    Where:
    Bankstown GP Division, Bankstown Civic Tower, Level 7, 66-72 Rickard Rd, Bankstown
    Contact:
    For more information Rod West 02 9555 8388 ext 110 rod@mhcc.org.au
    RSVP for catering purposes: Carrie Stone 02 9555 8388 ext 0 meetyourneighbour@mhcc.org.au

    More about the Meet Your Neighbour - Bankstown GP Division

    SSWAHS = SWSLHN + SLHN and the Medicare Locals - 33

    The Gillard health program: reform without change?

    Markets and demand are transforming the health system, but the policy debate isn’t catching up, writes James Gillespie for Inside Story

    17 February 2011


    Above: Julia Gillard, with Anna Bligh (left) and Kristina Keneally, at a press conference with the state and territory leaders after last Sunday’s COAG meeting in Parliament House, Canberra.
    AAP Image/Andrew Taylor

    WHATEVER its shortcomings in concrete achievements, the current round of health reforms has set new records for hyperbole. Launching “the biggest health reform since Medicare” last year, Kevin Rudd declared that “the days of incremental reform are over.” Julia Gillard’s version, signed off by the assembled premiers and chief ministers at the Council of Australian Governments meeting on Sunday, was pared-down and more limited, but the rhetorical claims remained high: “We are sweeping away those eight separate bureaucracies for one national funding body,” the prime minister announced. And although the broad details were still a mystery, the leader of the opposition, Tony Abbott, denounced “an historic capitulation on what the government was proposing. This is the biggest surrender since Singapore.”

    The reality is more prosaic. The latest deal is a recognition that federal arrangements are deeply embedded in the organisation of public health services, and an acknowledgement of the new balance of power emerging with Coalition governments in charge in Western Australia, Victoria and, almost certainly, New South Wales. The new COAG heads of agreement confirm the existing division of roles: the states and territories are assured of their position as “system managers for public hospital services” with a “lead role in public health,” while the Commonwealth, through Medicare, keeps a “lead role” in primary care – a set of divisions at the heart of many critiques of Australian health funding.

    Most commentary has concentrated on the adjustments agreed by COAG. Abandoning the planned 60:40 per cent Commonwealth funding of hospitals – which would largely have been achieved by clawing back existing GST revenues from the states – the Commonwealth will now guarantee to meet 45 per cent, with a 50:50 split on new expenditures. Moves towards more transparent and efficient funding methods have been retained or even made more transparent, with a national funding body managing pooled state and federal funding. The significance of these changes will emerge more clearly as the details are negotiated over the next few months.

    The changes focus on hospital reform – and it is important to remember that this made up only one part of Labor’s reform agenda. The Rudd government launched ambitious reviews of virtually every area of health policy. Reform was seen as system-wide, but the commissions were overlapping, often announced with little consultation or coordination. Although the ambition seemed to be to reform the whole system, there was never a sense of common architecture binding policy approaches together. The National Health and Hospital Reform Commission had the sweeping task of overseeing the health system as a whole, supplemented by overlapping taskforces in primary care, maternal health services and prevention. By early 2010, the government had received proposals for reform in virtually every area. Each of these bodies has continued to put forward policy reforms, adding up to a series of sweeping proposals that could profoundly change our healthcare. And many of these reforms are proceeding – with the most politically difficult, aged care, still with the Productivity Commission.

    Incrementalism has its virtues. While Rudd compared his agenda with the radical funding reforms of Medibank and Medicare, the current context is quite different – and more challenging. The two previous great waves of national health reform in Australia – the movement of the Commonwealth into funding a public-private system built on subsidised private health insurance (1938–53) and the introduction and consolidation of Medicare (1972–84) – focused on improving access to medical care through financial reform. They were both radical – changes came through centralised shifts in funding responsibilities – and deeply conservative, with little desire to alter the content of health services.

    However heated the battles with the medical profession, the conflict focused on forms of government or insurance-fund payment for services. The general pattern of hospital and primary (largely general practice) services received little criticism – the demand was for more of the same. Australia was not alone; the postwar wave of health reform in developed countries concentrated mainly on these questions of access and equity. Medicare (largely crafted in the 1960s) offered a solution to the health problems of the 1940s and 50s – acute illness, treated first by local GPs and then by lengthy stays in hospital, where either it was cured or the patient died. Broader attempts at service reform, such as Whitlam’s abortive community health centres, were marginal and abandoned in the face of medical opposition.

    The Rudd/Gillard project has made gestures to the new problems of the health system. Many Australians still face barriers in gaining access to existing services – in remote areas and Indigenous communities and because of the growing burden of out-of-pocket costs – but policy challenges have shifted to more intractable questions of the content and coordination of health services. The growing burden of chronic illness – including mental illness – has exposed the limitations of a health care system built around the problems of earlier generations. The new pattern of illness involves long-term conditions, largely incurable, such as diabetes, many cancers, and respiratory and heart conditions. The general practitioners at the heart of Medicare, working with fee-for-service in splendid isolation from hospitals, are ill-equipped to coordinate patient care. Hospitals, still geared to short episodes of acute illness, have little ability to connect with patient care in the community.

    There has been some recognition of these pressures in the reform drive. Rudd’s speeches were peppered with references to the need for coordination and the problems of an ageing society and chronic care. The new COAG heads of agreement propose that funds from efficiency savings should go towards chronic disease management and other programs designed to shift demand away from the hospital system. But the bulk of attention still addresses the headline issues of hospital waiting lists and elective surgery. System reforms, designed to force more localised “hospital networks” on the states, were more a reaction to the unpopularity of the centralised NSW and Queensland models than an attempt to think through why the more regionalised, but certainly not community controlled, Victorian models appeared more resilient in the face of tabloid assaults on real or “beat up” hospital crises.

    Where do the new COAG agreements leave us? There are four, somewhat contradictory points:

    Federalism has been reasserted. After a long decline during the Howard years, marked by successful cost- and blame-shifting via which cash-strapped state governments were made responsible for the faults of the system, the turn of the political cycle is opening some real political interchange. The states control and understand the public hospital system, and Tony Abbott’s disastrous attempt to assert direct control of Tasmania’s Mersey Hospital during the dying days of the Howard government served to underline the lack of local knowledge and administrative capacities at federal level. Rhetorical threats of federal “takeovers” were never serious. Increased Commonwealth funding can push the states towards some reforms, such as efficient pricing. Hospital reform will depend – as in the past – on state and territory governments, not on a magic wand of centralised single-payer Commonwealth funding

    Is primary care more than enhanced general practice? Medicare Locals – the larger primary care organisations to be formed from mid 2011 – reflect the limits of a vision focused on expenditure flows from Canberra. Although hailed as the framework for a fundamental reshaping of primary care, much of the system is left out, with these new bodies looking more like revamped divisions of general practice, excluding many of the areas of primary practice most used by the general public: community pharmacy and healthcare services such as physiotherapy. The new COAG agreements offer the interesting suggestions that Medicare Locals will be funded to provide services and focus coordination. We still need to see hard money following these worthy declarations.

    The reforms recognise but skirt the difficult task of building effective links to coordinate a fractured system. Funding reforms may facilitate this, but are only part of the solution to a problem built on archaic organisational structures and patterns of professional practice that will only change slowly and require careful local action rather than grand national gestures. The Medicare Locals have different boundaries from hospital networks and could perpetuate current divisions. The key problem for the next generation of health policy-makers is how to align new forms of demand for services with limited resources – a long way from the shrieking tabloid politics of hospital waiting lists.

    The growth of the private sector remains outside policy. The long battle to win bipartisan support for Medicare ended in 1996 but still haunts public discourse. Some observers still treat the relatively small subsidies to private health insurance (admittedly poorly targeted and uncapped) as a problem well beyond their real significance. In the meantime, a large private sector – spanning innovative day surgeries, hospitals, community-based specialists and allied health providers with limited access to Medicare rebates – remains largely outside policy debate. Debates around primary care – even just at the general practice end – ignore the complexity of business models, ownership structures and incentives that have resulted from new corporate structures. The private sector still has no representatives at COAG.

    The American political scientist Jacob Hacker has described recent government attempts to intervene in Western health systems as “reform without change and change without reform.” He argues that deep institutional rigidities mean that the policy levers available to governments have less purchase, while funding reforms focused on the public sector have diminishing influence on the emerging policy problems. At the same time, massive changes driven by markets and patterns of population demand are transforming the system, well outside any government’s control. If the COAG reforms are to cross these divides and begin to solve the new problems of healthcare, they need an agile leadership not yet seen in this (or any other) Australian government. •

    is Deputy Director of the Menzies Centre for Health Policy at the University of Sydney.

    Sunday, April 17, 2011

    SSWAHS = SWSLHN + SLHN and the Medicare Locals - 32

    If Socrates was to suggest how minimal and better directed funding could be best used to improve the health and welfare of the community members, perhaps this story by Melissa Sweet about Miller, a suburb of South West Sydney, and its people is the best example.

    For a relatively small amount of funding local communities could be empowered to improve their own health and welfare services without the interference of those who may not have such a proven record of doing this, or who may not have the same vested involvement in a community healing itself.

    Understanding Miller

    “Locational disadvantage” has an enormous impact on the lives of residents in many Australian suburbs. But an experiment in Sydney’s 2168 postcode area is yielding results, writes Melissa Sweet

    28 March 2011

    Connecting with The Hub as a volunteer was a turning point for Stephen Williams (above, talking to Synthia Clark from neighbouring Green Valley), who became one of the dozens of local residents contributing to the Miller Street Art Gallery.
    Photo: Mitchell Ward

    THE sun is intense as I drive back to Miller, a suburb of some repute in Sydney’s sprawling southwest. I’ve been visiting for a year or more, but my picture of the area is still full of contradictions and unanswered questions. This time, I hope, I’ll finally see the place in a clear light.

    On this Friday morning, the carpark outside the rundown shopping centre is packed. People are hanging around the entrance to the Green Valley Hotel. Nearby, the pawnbroker’s doors are open, and a sign on the window lists the “ten top wanted goods.” (At the top of the list are PlayStations, Xboxes and mobile phones.) I make my way past the two-dollar shops and across the road to Miller Square, where a few people are sitting on a brick wall by the library, drinking. They seem out of place, sitting in front of the metres and metres of murals and mosaics that brighten the walls and distract from the faded brick flats nearby. Beyond is the patchwork of public housing that dominates the area.

    The artwork seems to be saying – in a voice that’s not entirely convincing, perhaps because it knows you can never entirely escape your past – that this is a friendly place where anyone is welcome. The bright paintwork on the exterior of the community health centre spells it out more explicitly: “Welcome to The Hub.” And as I push open the door another sign gives a different message, warning that offensive or aggressive behaviour will not be tolerated.

    Perhaps it’s not surprising that visits to Miller usually leave me confused; it is a place of such mixed messages, of hope and pride as well as despair, frustration and anger. But the story of this suburb is worth trying to understand because it says much about the connections between where people live and their prospects, their wellbeing and their health. It also says something about how government policies and programs can both help both to create and to ameliorate the problems of people living in suburbs like Miller.

    In the jargon, this area of “locational disadvantage” matches all the usual indicators: low education levels, unemployment, poverty, family dysfunction, and mental health and drug and alcohol problems. But this is also a place where an unusual project has brought together local residents with government and community agencies to work for change.

    The Community 2168 project – a reference to the local postcode – began in 1999 with three agencies, the Liverpool City Council, the state Department of Housing and the local health service, pitching in $30,000 each. Described as a “major community renewal and capacity building partnership,” it began in response to a crisis in public safety alongside the closure of the bank, the police station and other local services, which left residents feeling abandoned.

    Community 2168 has set up forums for residents and local service providers – including local NGOs, police, the council, and housing, health and community services – to come together to identify problems and devise ways of dealing with them. In the early years, the focus was on tackling crime, through policing and prevention measures, and increasing the range of services in the area. A smart new Police and Community Youth Club was set up, for example, and parks and other public areas were upgraded.

    As the community’s priorities shifted, the project focused more on developing the skills and capacity of locals through initiatives such as art and cultural activities, volunteer programs, an annual employment and education expo, grants for local groups, and the creation of community gardens. Community 2168 has often acted as an incubator, helping to establish a new program or service and then passing it on to other agencies.

    Anita Hanna, a social worker who ran the project for four years and continues to be involved through her new position as coordinator of community development for Liverpool City Council, is full of enthusiasm for its achievements to date and potential for the future. “I really like working in the 2168 area,” she says. “The people are wonderful, enthusiastic, always putting in hard work to get things happening.”

    Ms Hanna says the project is moving towards a social enterprise focus, and its next major venture will be establishing a “people’s shed” later this year, which will provide a hub for diverse activities, including a men’s shed, artisan and trades projects, and a food market. In the longer term, she would like to see the project’s approach rolled out more widely. “What I like about 2168 and what I think it’s done more than anything is develop a model that works in locationally disadvantaged areas,” she says.

    Given the unending cycle of policy shifts and restructuring that bedevil public and private sector agencies, it seems a minor miracle that the project has lasted so long, and with so many of the original players still involved or at least in contact. Many other programs in the area have come and gone during that time.

    It is also unusual, at a time when disadvantaged communities are often subject to top-down, punitive “welfare reforms,” as are apparently mooted for the forthcoming federal budget, to see a genuine attempt to engage communities themselves in creating the changes they want. This philosophy wasn’t evident back in the 1970s, when top-down state government policies brought high concentrations of public housing to an area lacking in services and infrastructure. Many local residents and agencies blame those policies for the area’s current problems.

    The 2168 project also stands out as a rare effort to tackle the social and economic factors that shape the health of individuals and communities. The “social determinants of health” receive plenty of rhetorical attention, but there is far less investment in action to tackle them. We prefer to spend billions on acute healthcare services, which are often ill-equipped to pick up the pieces of social disadvantage, when intervening in the root causes of so much poor health is clearly a more effective approach.

    Perhaps one of the reasons that funding priorities are so often askew is the difficulty of telling the stories of places like Miller. These are often complex, lack simple take-home messages, and are ill-suited to the short attention spans of political debate and much of the mainstream media. In fact, many of the locals remain as resentful of the media as when a young filmmaker called Peter Weir came to the area in 1973 to make a spoof documentary about how media coverage stereotyped the locals as losers.

    Apart from its lessons for the national social policy agenda, some think that the 2168 experience offers lessons for the federal government’s controversial health reform process. It is notable that the social factors underlying ill health do not rate even a mention in the government’s recently released guidelines for the new primary healthcare organisations to be known as Medicare Locals.

    According to Peter Sainsbury, a public health specialist with a distant involvement in Community 2168, the project exemplifies many of the qualities of real primary healthcare. Although primary healthcare is often conflated with the work of GPs, its proponents see it as encompassing much more than healthcare services. In its fullest sense, it is based on principles such as community participation, multidisciplinary and intersectoral action, political advocacy and health promotion.

    The 2168 project is special, says Professor Sainsbury, because of the deep level of engagement by both professionals and local residents, as well as the effective collaboration of local agencies. “The difference in Miller,” he says, “is that the professionals know the patch; they know the people, they know the other service providers. They do work together to provide something approaching comprehensive primary healthcare.”

    BACK inside The Hub, I find Stephen Williams, with shaggy grey beard, thick black eyebrows and Aboriginal colours on his T-shirt, sitting at a table with paintbrush in hand. He is making posters to advertise the Miller Walkabout, a walking group that is one of many activities run from the centre with the help of volunteers.

    He shows off a large tabletop nearby, which he has decorated with a snake and other motifs of bright colours – lime green, pinks and oranges, as well as red, black and yellow. “And these are the South Sydney colours,” he points out with a smile. Mr Williams has lived in the area on and off for much of his life – ever since his mother moved her children here from a blacks’ camp near Cowra, to where she and her family had been relocated from their homelands.

    He pauses to wave off a group heading out on a cycling expedition, before explaining that he moved back here several years ago to nurse his mother, Dorothy Williams, for the last four years of her life. “When she passed away I just fell in a heap,” he says. “She was my main person, she was trying to be a father and a mother. I just didn’t feel like doing anything. I lost the will to work.”

    Connecting with The Hub as a volunteer has been something of a turning point for Mr Williams, who became one of the dozens of local residents who contributed to the Miller Street Art Gallery. The artwork has made a big difference to the neighbourhood, he says, but he’s still not at all happy about the behaviour of some “no-hopers.”

    Outside, as he shows me around block after block of murals, Mr Williams tidies the street, pausing to put an empty beer bottle in the bin and shift an abandoned shopping trolley. The streets have more than their share of debris, but are much improved over the bad old days when this area was known as “the Miller drive-through” – drugs were sold openly to people in passing cars, residents were afraid to leave their homes and kept awake by unrest, and the community health centre was firebombed and emblazoned with graffiti warning “no go zone.” It was, as one community worker remembers, “this haunt for all the dead beats, the druggos.” It was not a place where service providers wanted to be.

    As Mr Williams shares the bare bones of his own story, it becomes clear how his life has been shaped by racism: the slurs, even more hurtful when they came from young children, the fights, the long journey to understand how his own story is part of a much bigger one. “Growing up with so much racism, it really brought me down,” he says. “I’ve come out the other side of that and I’ve survived that.”

    Stigma and discrimination are a problem for 2168 residents at many levels. There are tensions between the old-time residents, who remember when there were still farms in the area, and the newest arrivals, many of whom speak Arabic, Vietnamese, Hindi or Spanish at home. When researchers associated with the 2168 project employed local residents last year to conduct a door-to-door survey, the team spoke twenty-one languages among them.

    The Liverpool area is one of the most multicultural in Sydney, with around 44 per cent of residents born overseas, and it is expanding rapidly. But infrastructure and services already struggle to cope. The latest state government projections suggest that by 2036 the area will be almost as large as Canberra is now, with a population of about 325,000 people, an increase of more than 75 per cent on the current figure.

    Not all locals like the concept of multiculturalism. Elizabeth Harris, of the University of New South Wales’s Centre for Health Equity Training, Research and Evaluation, which is based at Liverpool, has been involved in evaluating the 2168 project since its inception. Known for being a straight-talker, she says, “There is a strong feeling that there is too much diversity now. They feel they’re losing things. It’s not as if it’s a multiculturalism that’s bringing in lots of restaurants and fabulous shops; it’s just bringing in kids who don’t speak English into the schools.”

    John Leech, a community services worker who grew up locally, says many people in the area have low levels of acceptance of the other tribes, whether these are the police, Aborigines, single mothers or welfare recipients. “There’s an assumption that anybody who speaks Arabic must be Muslim, and ‘Muslims are no good because they’re all terrorists,’” he says. “It’s just so wrong but I can walk out into the square and talk to two or three people and that’s what they will say to my face.”

    Indeed, one man who has lived in the area for almost fifty years, an upright citizen who maintains a spotless house and garden and who works hard for the community, has no compunction in telling me that most of the area’s problems are due to “the towel heads.”

    This sort of language is not at all foreign to Wendy Waller, the mayor of Liverpool City Council, who works in an overstretched not-for-profit agency providing counselling and other services to families in crisis. Every day she sees the impact of intergenerational dysfunction on people’s lives and their capacity to make sensible choices for themselves and their families. She says racial tensions in the area are at least partly a reflection of its having many traumatised people with low levels of education.

    “Liverpool has 150 cultures now,” she says. “I will quote my Arabic-speaking worker who said a lot of people who come in are traumatised, they often don’t have an education, they are poor… Because a lot of people are coming here as refugees or in very sad situations, they’re coming with belief systems that are often quite distorted.

    “You’ve got to understand that the people who are feeling threatened are seeing this whole change happening around them. They’re powerless and they’re losing their identity, their place is disappearing. I’m not saying it’s right or wrong but that’s what’s happening. Plus a lot of people are housed here with drug and alcohol and mental health problems, so their way of thinking isn’t as clear as yours or mine.”

    Many residents feel stigmatised by their address, and complain that they and their children miss out because of where they live. For Colleen Boler, who has lived here for more than forty years, it seems like “the only people who live in Sydney are in the eastern suburbs.” She raised her family here, and is involved in the Community 2168 management committee and the local residents’ action group, which organised a recent health and family fun day.

    “Many of us are getting old and there’s only a handful of us involved, and we’d really like to have more younger people from different cultural backgrounds come to our meetings,” she says. “The more people we could involve, the more pull you’ve got when dealing with the council and the services.”

    Like many long-termers, she looks back to when her neighbours were working families who helped each other in times of need. These days her backyard is overshadowed by a block of bedsits, with many of the male residents having been in and out of prison or mental health care. “A handful of elderly men have lived in there for years, and they’re wonderful, but they’ve got to put up with the other people in there who cause trouble,” says Colleen. “We don’t have control over our environment.”

    Sarah Stapleton, a thoughtful and personable nineteen-year-old I met when she was handing out material for the local Labor candidate at Miller High School on federal election day last August, believes she has had difficulty finding a job because her address says Miller. At the time, she was unemployed but had thought about becoming a police officer, a nurse or a welfare worker. She said that a recent job interview at Red Rooster had ended badly when the manager saw that she had attended Miller High. “People bag this place out,” she says, “but there are people here who want to do well.” (Soon after we met, Sarah found a job with a local law firm.)

    Her father, Michael, explains that he moved to the area about twenty years ago for its cheap housing, and that he likes living here because the people are honest and unpretentious. He gets irate when he sees how the area is often portrayed in the media. “It’s galling,” he says. “No one likes to have the area they live in have the shit kicked out of it by people who don’t know it.”

    IN THE early 1970s, Peter Weir was tossing up whether to film a documentary in the housing estates of Mount Druitt or Green Valley, two outer suburbs of Sydney. In his proposal to the Commonwealth Film Unit, he explained that he settled upon the Valley after a colleague called it “Dodge City” because it was home to debt dodgers and said that many if not all of its residents were in the criminal class. This reaction was typical, Weir wrote at the time. “The media has created an image of Green Valley that is entirely distorted.”

    As part of the Whatever Happened to Green Valley? project, Weir also made a mockumentary about the media, and helped local residents tell their own stories. Years later, a reviewer in the Sydney Morning Herald wrote, “The results are simple but very telling: the struggle to create a better life for the children, financial worries despite the relief of increased space, feeling abandoned without sufficient facilities once they had moved in.”

    “Green Valley” no longer refers to the broad area but is now one of the better-off suburbs in the 2168 postcode area, which also takes in Ashcroft, Busby, Cartwright, Heckenberg, Sadleir and Hinchinbrook. But it is Miller – named after an Irish immigrant, Peter Miller, who came here as a baby and grew into a prosperous farmer – that tends to attract the bad headlines.

    While the demographics have changed hugely since Weir’s time, many locals remain upset about how the media portrays the area they call home. It’s okay for them to call Miller a “hell hole” or worse, but woe betide any outsiders using such language. When I ran a pro bono media advocacy workshop for residents last year, some were still upset about a Daily Telegraph headline, “Adding Colour to their Grey Lives,” that had run months earlier above an article about Miller’s street art. Perhaps it would not have been so hurtful if there had not been such a long history of negative coverage.

    Yet damning headlines have played a part in directing political attention and funding to the area. This is a catch-22 for places like Miller: adverse publicity can generate funding but it can also reinforce harmful stereotypes. As a recent article in the Medical Journal of Australia points out in another context, the research suggests that negative publicity about the state of Aboriginal health discourages Aboriginal people from engaging with health services.

    “When we recognise a distinct and disadvantaged group within the general population, we inadvertently and unavoidably label that population as inherently disadvantaged, even in the act of trying to address this disadvantage,” write researchers Emma Kowal and Yin Paradies from the University of Melbourne. “The publication of Indigenous health statistics draws attention to health problems and attracts resources to deal with them. However, for Indigenous Australians, it also creates a sense that an Indigenous identity is tied to inevitable ill health, homogenising the varied health and wellbeing of individual Indigenous people.”

    Generalisations are always fraught; even within Miller there is enormous variation in people’s circumstances, capacities and expectations. To misquote Tolstoy, happy places are all alike; every unhappy place is unhappy in its own way.

    Simon Fox, a social worker and manager of community planning at Liverpool City Council with a long involvement in the 2168 project, says that the resilience of the people of Miller in the face of historical neglect is impressive. “One of the key messages that needs to get out there is that the problems being faced by an area like 2168 are not the fault of the people who live there,” he says. “This is a systemic problem that’s been created by a society that chooses to create places like Miller, place people in the housing there, say ‘this is where you are going to live,’ then not provide the support.

    “People outside tend to blame the victim. They say, ‘they’re hopeless there, aren’t they?’ But put anybody in that situation, and they’re going to struggle. This is a problem we as a society have to deal with. We allowed it to be created. We have a responsibility now to do whatever we can to try to improve the situation.”

    IF YOU ask the people of 2168 about their health, as researchers have, around 90 per cent nominate personal habits, lifestyle and access to health services as the key influences. Less than 60 per cent of them nominate their financial circumstances. Findings like these come as no surprise to the Canadian health policy expert Dennis Raphael, who has been trying for many years to focus the media’s spotlight on the social determinants of health. Raphael, professor of health policy and management at York University in Toronto, blames a dearth of media coverage for the wider community’s poor understanding of their importance.

    “I teach over 600 undergraduate students a year who are genuinely surprised to learn that there are factors beyond ‘healthy lifestyle choices’ that influence health,” he wrote recently in the journal Health Promotion International, in an article titled “Mainstream Media and the Social Determinants of Health: Is It Time to Call It a Day?” “I receive a similar response when I present to the general public. It seems reasonable to hypothesise that this lack of public awareness about the social determinants of health has been abetted by the mainstream media’s neglect of this key issue.”

    Professor Raphael cites a study of Canadian health reporters who say the barriers to reporting on these issues include the difficulty of putting them into the immediate and concrete “storytelling” that typically comprises news reporting, and the perception that “living conditions affect our health” is not news.

    Indeed. One of the struggles of writing about Community 2168 has been trying to construct a narrative around its work. Endless meetings, committees, newsletters, email lists, the building of relationships between service providers and residents over years, youth and cultural events, community BBQs, and measures to improve street lighting or reduce vandalism – these are not the makings of dramatic scenes that tend to engage the media’s audiences.

    But the online world is offering new opportunities for telling stories about places like Miller. “Beating the Odds,” a recent ABC online investigation focusing on Mt Druitt, includes documentary material contributed by a fourteen-year-old who’d been in trouble at school and was given a camera for a week to record his life. Notable was the constructive discussion on the site from readers, with many sharing their own experiences. “While individual stories can be very inspiring,” wrote one, “I think when trying to understand complex situations it is far more useful to look at overall trends, not individual stories. Personally I feel lucky to have got out of disadvantage, yes I worked hard, but I had support and a lot of luck too. I refuse to knock or preach to others because I know it could be very easily me in their position.”

    Worlds away, another innovative online initiative was recently launched in Boston to help people see the connection between their postcode and health. Billboards around the city encourage people to visit the website, whatsyourhealthcode.com, which gives information about the health of various suburbs, and encourages people to lobby for a better deal for their communities. One link, for instance, says: “South Boston has one of the highest rates of substance abuse mortality in Boston. Things that put young people at risk of substance abuse include easy availability of drugs and a high concentration of places to buy alcohol. In fact, South Boston has the highest density of alcohol beverage outlets and the most liquor licences per resident in the city… Living in a healthy environment isn’t only about having access to clean air and water, it also is about protecting young people from misleading messages and easy access to products that can result in serious health problems.”

    In a statement launching the campaign, which was years in the making, Mayor Thomas Menino said, “Geographic location is one of the most significant factors determining an individual’s health. This campaign will help Boston residents identify the contributing factors in their own communities and learn more about what they can do to improve their health and the health of their families and neighbours.” Presumably, though, any evaluation of this campaign would have to consider its effect on the stigmatisation of disadvantaged areas.

    ONE of the things that marks out the 2168 project has been an ongoing process of evaluating its performance, with the results fed back to the community via the Liverpool City Council’s website and community meetings. The results show that there have been ups and downs – some early gains diminished during a period of instability several years ago when the project officer position was vacant. But overall, the trend is towards improvement in many areas, with concerns about racism being one of the few indicators to have worsened. Overall, residents have reported improvements in the neighbourhood and say that the project has also provided opportunities for learning, employment and capacity development, improved access to services and helped build social cohesion.

    Given the poor relations with police before the project began, it is significant that four out of five residents now say they would turn to police if they needed help. Where once drug dealing and public safety were major issues, residents now nominate as their biggest concerns litter, vandalism, the poor state of the shopping centre and a lack of safe places for children. In 1999, 51 per cent of people felt the area had become worse over the previous few years; by 2010, this had fallen to about 30 per cent. The latest survey of Miller residents, conducted last May, found that 78 per cent were quite or very satisfied with their lives.

    Although perceptions of community safety have lifted, there is room for more improvement. In 2010, 21 per cent of people who responded to the survey reported that they, or a member of their household, had been a victim of crime in the year prior to the survey; 27 per cent did not feel safe in their homes at night and 74 per cent did not feel safe walking down their street after dark. Almost two-thirds felt that Miller does not have a reputation as a safe place.

    Elizabeth Harris, who has been one of the driving forces behind the 2168 project and its evaluation, began her career as a social worker in one of Sydney’s old psychiatric institutions, Callan Park, and has worked in diverse settings, including Papua New Guinea, Vanuatu, Malaysia and the western NSW town of Bourke. She has been involved in various projects in Sydney’s disadvantaged suburbs for years.

    One of the things she has learnt along the way is the “importance of culture and how people see things in completely different ways than you do.” She says, “There’s such a gulf between what people who live in a situation understand to be an issue and what people who are looking down on it from a long way away understand.” The 2168 evaluations support this observation, repeatedly showing that while service providers tend to nominate big-picture issues like unemployment and housing as the key issues, local residents are more focused on immediate concerns, like vandalism and potholes.

    Ms Harris says that one of the project’s more important outcomes has been a change of attitude among service providers, who increasingly recognise the importance of giving local people a greater say. “There’s always been residents’ action groups but my perception is now people take their views more seriously than they might have ten years ago,” she says.

    Her centre plans to establish a research and training hub to train local workers and residents in working with disadvantaged communities, with the aim of institutionalising some of the lessons from 2168. “There’s a growing number of residents who can see a bigger picture, who can see a bigger role for themselves, and we hope to develop that, so that they don’t have to be the passive recipients,” says Ms Harris.

    Simply increasing services to places like Miller will not have the optimal impact, she adds, unless the locals are genuinely involved in setting priorities. This is one of the reasons she is so concerned about moves to expand the reach of income management for welfare recipients, which she believes has the potential to exacerbate rather than ameliorate disadvantage. She says very few politicians these days really understand what it is like to live in places like Miller.

    “It’s very hard for people not to feel worn down by always being portrayed as not pulling their weight, not caring for their kids, not having drive, not having resilience,” she says. “What is really distressing is that nobody is actually saying you’ve neglected your child, it’s just that you happen to live in this postcode or suburb and therefore, unless you can prove otherwise, you are going to have your income quarantined.”

    ONE of the lessons from Miller is that there are alternatives to the big-bang, top-down policies like income management. And yet, despite all the hard work and the impressive commitment of many of those involved in Community 2168, is it really just tinkering at the edges? How can a community development project that runs on the smell of an oily rag deal with the huge structural problems confronting such places?

    These are questions that have dogged my visits to the area, clouding my attempts to understand 2168. They are also questions that Ms Harris often asks herself.

    “Everything is tinkering at the edges really,” she says. “If you think there is a magic bullet to solve health inequality, then you don’t understand the multiple causes of health inequality. What Miller has demonstrated is that groups like housing, health, police and council can work together on something over a long period of time and invest in it in a way that can have outcomes. Those outcomes are not profound but they are important to the people who live there.

    “That saying, ‘from little things big things grow,’ is quite an important way of thinking about this stuff. I don’t think that what I do is going to change the world overnight but I think it’s helping incrementally to change some things for some people. I always take the view that whatever I do, I’m looking at a ten-year timeline because I’ve never seen anything change substantially in less than that. Somehow politicians have got to start thinking on a ten-year timeline.”

    As well as that long-term vision, places like Miller need help from people and agencies willing to understand multiple perspectives, work with complexity in all its challenging messiness, and recognise the importance of both local detail and the over-arching big picture. It’s no small ask in this age of the quick fix and the sound bite. •

    Melissa Sweet is a health journalist and editor of the health policy blog Croakey. She has honorary appointments in the School of Public Health at the University of Sydney and the School of Medicine at Notre Dame University (Sydney campus).