Sunday, May 29, 2011

SSWAHS = SWSLHD + SLHD and the Medicare Locals - 48

Work with us on Medicare Locals, Roxon tells AMA

27th May 2011 - Medical Observer
Mark O’Brien   all articles by this author
HEALTH Minister Nicola Roxon has urged incoming AMA president Dr Steve Hambleton to work with the Government on Medicare Locals and defended the “sensible recalibration” of rebates for GP mental health plans, in a speech to the association’s national conference in Brisbane today.

Ms Roxon urged Dr Hambleton to “stay inside the tent” when it came to discussing Medicare Locals, following ongoing criticisms from the AMA of the rollout of the organisations.

The AMA has called for the rollout to be put on hold until the exact functions Medicare Locals will have are made clearer and GP leadership within their governance structures is assured.
“My message to the AMA, and in particular to Steve as your new president, is to work with us on these changes,” Ms Roxon said.
“Ultimately, as a new president, the choice of how we engage is yours. But my suggestion to you is this: if you’re not sure you like what you see, come and talk to us about it.”

In response, outgoing AMA president Dr Andrew Pesce said the remaining “lack of detail” about the Medicare Locals was “disturbing”, and pledged that the association would maintain its pressure on the Government.
“The Government’s proposal to roll out Medicare Locals is the next big challenge of the AMA,” he told the conference, adding that he was “confident the Government will have to revaluate its position”.
Ms Roxon, meanwhile, defended the recently announced rebate cuts for GP mental health plans outlined in the Federal Budget, saying they were “based on good data and sound reasoning”. ('Calls for mental health rebate cuts to be reversed,'MO, 24 May)
“They are a sensible recalibration of the rebates which GPs receive, designed to better reflect time spent by GPs and bring them in line with other time-based Medicare items – while, importantly, maintaining a premium if GPs have undertaken mental health skills training,” she said.

Ms Roxon said the AMA’s pre-Budget request for $20 billion in health spending without proposing any savings was not sustainable.
“There is an endless range of areas where you can invest to do good in health – but not a bottomless bucket of money with which to do that,” she said.

Later, while answering questions from conference delegates, Shadow Health Minister Peter Dutton said a Coalition government would ensure Medicare Locals did not become fund-holding organisations, pledging that their funding would be returned to GPs.

stevekth
27th May 2011
5:05pm
Ms Roxon- your slash-and-burn policy towards the better access / mental health care planning process is both short-sighted and inflammatory to a profession already struggling to meet demand, especially in poorly doctored and often realtively poor, bulk bill-dependent communities. Your slashing of the rebate is not sensible. Maybe for your departmental purse strings, but neither for policy in this area nor for bringing GPs on side with your policies. Recalibration? No. Decimation, maybe. Better reflect time spent? How convenient, when the rebates for the other attendance items are frankly insulting and belong at a standard of living comparative rate in the last millenium. This is also in effect dumbing this vital area of our work down. You require us to undergo training to do this work, and then barely either reward or reasonably renumerate us for having done that work. All that this will do for many GPs is encourage them to charge a significant gap fee, or eschew this work altogether. Most of us are already so overbooked we would do better to see our much briefer level B type consult patients who wouldn't otherwise get an appointment. It is no secret that many GPs could see three level B consults in the time it takes for a Level C consult- and for much better net renumeration. What message are you and the pre-existing pegging of rebates for level B and C consults sending? Patients have a need for your help. You are not helping us to provide that help. Premium being maintained? Or derisory incentive to develop and maintain our skills and provide extra time for relatively less renumeration; derisory uplift when considering the extra paperwork, secretarial time, ink, paper, and often telephone calls and correspondence that goes with doing these plans? I and my colleagues are passionate about our patients. I believe strongly in continuity of care and in holistic services for my patients. But YOU are helping to make that not sustainable for me. YOU are decreasing the reasonable renumeration for my time, skills and experience- and all in a world of endless need, when I must decide how I use my time best for patients, maintain an income, support my family, employ staff and run a business, on a background of ever decreasing relative worth of the Medicare rebate system... how am I supposed to be able either to prioritise this work (which was the whole point of the scheme that you recently lauded as successful) or offer to do it at bulk-billing rates? And how is the local community mental health structure meant to manage the undoubted increase in referrals through to them from GPs unable to do this work now for as many patients as they did before? A depressing move indeed, and one which patients themselves need to be advised of- the Government has slashed funding to support GPs in doing this work for them, and is not willing to support our provision of bulk-billing for these services. This is not our fault, although Ms Roxon would paint it as so- and I say to her, my suggestion to you is this: you can't put lipstick on this particular pig, Ms Roxon. You have revealed what our Profession is worth to you, and how you intend to 'reward' us for our work and incentivise us to go that extra mile and to help the community health system.
skindoc4
27th May 2011
5:41pm
Don't bulk bill!!!!!! Duh!
stevekth
27th May 2011
6:00pm
then not only do we have the pressure of patients not being able to afford appointments (the vast majority locally are HCC holders or pensioners, so we would have to bill them) but then we have the expectation of 'I'm paying, so I need longer than the booked time for my problems which I've saved up' or 'I don't have to pay- it's a follow up'... and my point is that the Govt wants us to bulk bill. I am trying to maintain that. Nixon needs to understand that. Isn't that obvious? Duh! right back atchya
tvkdas
27th May 2011
6:42pm
Fair points by both skindoc4 and stevekth - I do agree with these sentiments, might I suggest a new notice for the patient notice board "As a result of the Federal Government Budget of Julia Gillard and as endorsed by Nicola Roxon, Mental Health Treatment Plans will now incur a fee of $160. Your entitlement to the full rebate has been slashed by the government. We encourage you to voice your concerns to the local member."
stevekth
27th May 2011
6:58pm
I don't think that I have much option. But you understand my motives- it will inevitably come back to accusations of greed, and the fundamental patient misunderstanding about rebate versus recommended fee for a consult. Especially uncomfortable around HCC and Pension holders. I think that I am going to have to go mixed billing for these things, care plans, etc. I already have stopped joint injections and use a bulk-bill local radiology outfit. Ears syringing also has no rebate, and I am advised by Medicare now that (a) removal of sutures placed at hospital but sent to us for removal has already been paid for by Medicare to the hospital, hence we are NOT entitled to claim a 10996 (or where done by another GP, irrespective of the time elapsed), and (b) 16500 can not be used when pregnancy is diagnosed, and where a patient attends for their antenatal related issue, eg. for a scan or bloods or results or BP monitoring, or pregnancy-related issues, the 16500 covers everything, even totally unrelated script requests, a cough or cold, etc- totally unrelated to the pregnancy- and 16500 can't be co-claimed with other attendance items (which I am aware is contrary to what had been thought by many GPs previously)- and, more outrageously, a 36 can't be used if the patient comes in for a pregnancy test or follow-up and other issues and it goes beyond 20mins and is complex- just a 16500! This came direct from e-mailing the Medicare resolution centre, given that the Provider hotline is useless, just reading out what is already on the internet for item descriptors. Also dealt with by them- 16591 apparently can't be claimed by me for pregnancy planning and management beyond 20 weeks as this has already been funded by the State to the local hospital, who doesn't even have formal shared care with me, yet expects me to do the usual care of low risk pregnancies and other care elements of those at higher risk... What is the point in this system (medicare) when it is so obviously broken? The lack of transparency, the complete absence of useful item descriptors and a 'knowledge bank' online to help Q&A in ambiguous areas, and often a feeling of anti-Provider sentiment (beware the audit etc.) is appalling.
stevekth
27th May 2011
7:01pm
(when I said about not being able to claim for a 36 if coming in for a pregnancy test, I meant a planned antenatal follow up for getting a test when already proven pregnant, or the results of that test, plus other matters, 20mins+, with complexity- for the initial consult when pregnancy is proven by a urine or blood test, apparently that falls only under the 23/36 category for VRs, depending on time and complexity)
KarynPsych
27th May 2011
7:18pm
Stevekth is correct yet I guess it all comes back to your rationale in medicine and whether all professionals would be happy for health provision in Australia to be a means based system. Obviously this is not an ethical issue for our erstwhile colleague above.
Polly
27th May 2011
7:59pm
Perhaps we should just bill on a time basis, as do lawyers, electricians, plumbers etc etc.?
Then the patient is free to ramble on - or take as much time as they wish - as long as they are forewarned?
Solidarity
27th May 2011
10:44pm
As Lionel Murphy was to law, so is Nicola Roxon to medicine. She needs to resign now and hand over to a medically qualified politician or at least one who understands what the doctors and patients of Australia need - before we all lose the good points of our current system and are consumed by the cataclysm of what she is proposing.
Stratmatonman
27th May 2011
11:12pm
......Come and talk to us! She's got a hide! When has she ever talked to the profession? Eh Roxon! What about Joint injections, Mental Health rebates, naming Medicare Locals, Costs of practice, Appropriate CPI rises etc etc etc. When have you and your Labor Government consulted US. The nerve of you!
DrBX
28th May 2011
3:19am
If MO is reporting accurately Ms Roxon has yet again revealed her inner self. Has she effectively commanded Dr Hambleton that he should stay within the 'party' lines. That as I work in secrecy so should you. That everything is on a 'need to know' basis and 'you do not need to know'.
Since Ms Roxon became health minister, federal health policy development has felt like a personal attack on GPs. As many other comments have pointed out, there is this gradual trimming of reimbursement of the 'usual' GP services that we are still expected to deliver. I certainly have not seen any politicians take a pay cut for the good of the country.
It seems that all new health policy abuses the altruistic nature of the GP - that we will keep caring for our patients no matter what. She confidently if not arrogantly knows that we will keep providing expensive services at reduced on no reimbursement because our patients come first. Same can't be said for our health minister. She states that she comes from a family with medical backgrounds so is eminently qualified as health minister yet displays no evidence of knowledge of the delivery of health services. She personally preached on the importance of preventative health, the importance of GPs and input to delivering complex services yet is slowly disabling primary health, the frontline of preventative health in Australia.

Let me leave you with two of her election statements:
“GPs are incredibly well trusted within the community so I think, as a policymaker, it is foolish not to look at ways you can engage GPs in a broader health promotion and prevention strategy when they are clearly the best conduit to the community at large,”

“GPs are so busy and so pressed for time and there is such high demand for their services that trying to get more involvement in prevention and long-term health goals of the population is quite difficult. It is obvious we need to address consultations that require more time.”
stevekth
28th May 2011
9:02am
Great points guys, and my feelings pretty much too. The point about 'come and talk to us' was a particularly bitter pill to be offered by the Government 'quack', lol- can I recommend that she 1st gets the wax removed which is totally occluding her ear canals! (Giving the benefit of the doubt that she would actually give a damn about anything that we have to say). The biggest insult for me- the way she talks of renumerating at a premium and in line with the time-based items, as if that is some great act of grace, wisdom and mercy. BUT the premise that there are appropriate rebates against which to benchmark 2710/2712 renumeration is a lie, and she knows it!!!!
stephmed
28th May 2011
1:36pm
Stevekth says it all so well, that I feel redundant making a posting

Funnily enough after completing mental health training bar some final paperwork, I decided not to bother when I discovered (at that time) that there would be no difference in payment. Subsequently when this changed the "Medicare local" thru whom I had done my training, could not assist me in completing it for some reason. So I have bitten the poorer bullet for some years, & churned out many of these plans, done thoroughly over 45 minutes.
Now I really cannot do it any more, which is a shame unless I give up a weekend for one of these rushed training courses that will teach me nothing that I have not garnered the hard way already!
& Yes like Stevekth, I recognize that the most needy have little means to pay, & getting older (I am 62), many of my patients are over 65 with multiple needs & bulk billing expectations
I have worked out that it costs me $100 per hour to run my room based on overheads & am lucky to get $160 before costs. meanwhile at the "take-away" down the road where it is "1" problem & all bulk billed, they see 6-8/hr, & only scratch the surface of patient care
This is not really about mental health rebates, it is all about the demise of General Practitioners & the rise of Nurse Practitioners, who will soon be performing all these complex services & being paid the same rate
I like Stevekth's freudian slip when he spoke of renumerating instead of remunerating, because that is exactly what Nicola has done!
To misquote Shakespeare "A Pox on Roxon!
stevekth
28th May 2011
4:17pm
lol!! I am disgraced- and thoroughly English still, though I try my best to assimilate, in true Borg fashion! Props for seeing my spelling- it wasn't a slip or typo, alas, just ignorance on my part. And I'm the guy who freaks his husband out when he talks of his aegis, elucidating, being cognizant of something, etc, etc. (ie I generally have good English & vocab) LOL
stevekth
28th May 2011
4:19pm
ps For other Trekkies, the phrase "We are Borg. You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile..." seems oddly apposite when considering the Roxon Master Plan...

Tuesday, May 24, 2011

SSWAHS = SWSLHD + SLHD and the GP Super Clinics

Super Clinic funding ‘wasted’ says MP

 Super Clinic funding ‘wasted’ says MP
Every practice in the country could have had a $91,000 infrastructure grant if the funding for GP Super Clinics had been spent on existing practices instead, according to an Opposition MP.

Liberal MP Dr Andrew Southcott made the claim (see link) in Parliament yesterday as he lashed out at the $650 million GP Super Clinic program, calling it “another area of government waste”.

He said the GP Super Clinic funding would have been better spent on improvements to existing general practices.

“This approach would have provided much better value for the taxpayer and much better value for money and would have seen more results than the paltry 10 clinics around Australia that we have now,” he said. 

“Instead, the government has provided grants of up to $15 million each to a select 64 clinics in a select 64 locations, through a process with no accountability, to compete against the age-old family practices who got where they are because of a lot of hard work.”

He added that with only 10 clinics open since the government announced its plans three years ago, it could take another 23 years before all of the 64 clinics are fully operational.

Data obtained by Dr Southcott shows that almost 40% of the 64 Super Clinics are being built in districts not classed as areas of workforce shortages.

However, the government insists workforce shortage is not the only criteria that determines their locations. And Health Minister Nicola Roxon said the Super Clinics are being built in areas of need or where the clinics can help to relieve the pressure from local hospitals. 


The data does show that nearly half of the GP infrastructure grants have been allocated to regional areas

SSWAHS = SWSLHD + SLHD and the Medicare Locals - 47

Calls for mental health rebate cuts to be reversed

24th May 2011
Byron Kaye and Andrew Bracey   all articles by this author
FEDERAL Parliament has been urged to seek savings in programs such as the GP super clinics and Medicare Locals in order to save rebates for GP mental health plans which were slashed significantly in the recent Budget.

In a letter to all Federal MPs and senators, the AMA has today requested the rebate cuts be axed, arguing that the decision was made with no prior consultation with the profession and would undermine the Government’s own push to bolster mental health services.

The letter came as Mental Health Minister Mark Butler today repeated his claims that GPs were overpaid for drawing up mental health plans. He was answering questions following a speech at the National Press Club.

Last week Mr Butler pointed to data that showed the average Better Access consultation lasted just 28 minutes and attracted a $163 rebate, while a 40-minute GP consultation attracted a rebate of just $99.
But Associate Professor Helena Britt, head of the Bettering the Evaluation and Care of Health (BEACH) program, said the 28-minute average GP consult for mental health – provided by her and quoted by Mr Butler – was only part of the time practitioners spent on mental health plans.

She said the data included only the face-to-face time between GPs and patients and did not include the time doctors spent outside sessions on related paperwork and liaising with other healthcare workers.
“I don’t know what they’re thinking, but it’s possible that they have not considered these other time issues,” she told MO.
“The 28-minute average… is correct [but] I’ve questioned the interpretation.”

The AMA has similarly questioned the Government’s interpretation of the data in its letter.
“It has always been acknowledged that the justification for the higher rebate was based on additional face-to-face time before or after the service attracting the item, additional non face-to-face time, onerous compliance requirements and the non face-to-face time involved in consulting with other health service providers involved,” reads the letter.

The RACGP last week also seized on the 28-minute figure touted by Mr Butler, with college president Professor Claire Jackson calling for the cuts to be reversed as soon as possible to prevent GPs abandoning the scheme altogether.

The AMA’s letter concludes with a request for Parliamentarians to reconsider the cuts and retain existing rebate levels “to avoid an inevitable campaign of opposition from patients and doctors alike”.
“In our view, patient rebates should be maintained at their current level with the realistic expectation, indeed hope, that the program will become more, not less, available and that Australians will continue to benefit from the GP services involved.”

Under the plans, the current rebate of $163.35 for a mental health plan for GPs will be replaced by a rebate based on timed consultations from 1 November.

Rebates will now be $85.92 for a plan written during a consultation of 20–39 minutes and $126.43 for a 40-minute consult for GPs trained in Level 1 mental health skills.

Those without the training will receive $67.65 and $99.50, respectively.

SSWAHS = SWSLHN + SLHN and the Medicare Locals - 46

AGPN seeks accelerated Medicare Local timeline

24th May 2011

A CALL by the AGPN to launch more than 15 Medicare Locals in July has met with fierce resistance from the GP fraternity.

With the Government yet to announce which Medicare Locals will be the first to be established, the AGPN said there were more than 15 that could feasibly be launched now.
 It urged the Government to bring forward their launch, and not wait six months to announce the next tranche as planned.

AGPN chair Dr Emil Djakic said there would be no financial disadvantages in launching an additional 10 Medicare Locals from 1 July.

“The work and commitment is there... Why wait another six months?” Dr Djakic told MO.

“If there are other proposals that came to that original invitation to apply that meet the eligibility criteria and really look like being able to get on and do the job, then we should be allowed to roll our sleeves up and get on with it.”

AMA president-elect Dr Steve Hambleton, however, said too much remained unknown about the organisations, and he reiterated his concern that GP autonomy would be reduced.

“Accelerating the process means there’s going to be more risk, not less,” he said.

RDAA president Dr Paul Mara also urged “slowing down” the rollout, saying GPs had been “hoodwinked” because Medicare Locals were set to take fund-holding from GPs.

Federal Health Minister Nicola Roxon’s office had not responded to MO’s queries at the time of press.

SSWAHS = SWSLHN + SLHN and the Medicare Locals - 45

Analysing the 2011 mental health Budget

23rd May 2011
Sebastian Rosenberg   all articles by this author

THE most interesting element of the Budget was not the quantum promised to mental health: $2.2 billion is a reasonable outcome, but only $1.5 billion of this is new money.
Over five years, and as the centrepiece health investment in a tight Budget, there is reason to be appreciative without being overwhelmed.

Fact is, the health Budget grows by around $9 billion each year. At this rate of investment, mental health’s share of the overall health Budget is diminishing.

Another interesting aspect of the Budget was the choices the Government made that reflect willingness to support innovation. There are overdue investments in the Early Psychosis Prevention and Intervention Centre (EPPIC) and also funding for headspace, new services for new clients.
But whether enough funding has been provided to enable their national deployment with integrity of their model of care is less clear.

There is new investment in flexible care packages – $343.8 million – but this funding is supposed to assist 24,000 Australians with severe, persistent mental illness over five years, equating to only $2865 per person per year.

Access to this funding is up for tender, between NGOs and the new Medicare Locals. For the Government, this is a neat way of bringing the nascent Medicare Local enterprises into the community mental health service realm. The risk here is for a continuation of a biomedical approach to these packages of care at the expense of more psycho-social approaches.

The establishment of a pool of incentive funds for states and territories to engage particularly in the development of supported accommodation is most welcome, as is new investment in e-mental health.
There is mounting evidence that for some treatments, e-mental health care is at least as effective as face-to-face services and this is critical if we are to address the needs of remote and regional Australia.

Around a quarter of the whole mental health package is funded by minor administrative changes to the Better Access program, with reductions to the Medicare rebate to GPs and a reduction in the number of subsidised sessions of psychological therapy from 12 to 10 each year.

The Better Access program now costs $10 million per week – the Department of Finance could not ignore it. The fee for service payment model militates against collaborative care.

This is why the Government reassigned funds to the Access to Allied Psychological Services program.

The establishment of a new National Mental Health Commission is exciting, offering a new level of federal scrutiny and accountability over a system characterised by an inability to demonstrate the impact it makes on people’s lives.

Again, however, the Budget papers indicate expenditure of only $12 million over five years, limiting the initial capacity of the commission to really drive new accountability.

The Federal Government has given no indication of its intention to seek state and territory support for a COAG National Action Plan on Mental Health Mk II. As it stands, the Government is bringing around $200 million to COAG, seeking co-investments from the states. By contrast, the 2006 COAG plan delivered $5.5 billion.

This Budget sets out many challenges for the sector but perhaps the most significant challenge is for the political gods to resist the urge to simply now cross mental health off their ‘to do’ list. Now is the time for advocates for mental health reform to be pointing out how much there is still to do.

People with mental illness and their families are used to waiting, often with sad, sometimes tragic consequences. This Budget does not mean that wait is over.

Sebastian Rosenberg
Senior Lecturer, Brain and Mind Research Unit, University of Sydney

Saturday, May 21, 2011

SSWAHS = SWSLHN + SLHN and the Medicare Locals - 44

Doctors paid too much for mental health role, says Minister

13th May 2011
Andrew Bracey and AAP   all articles by this author

MENTAL Health Minister Mark Butler has claimed GPs have been overpaid for developing mental health treatment plans, following criticism from doctors’ groups over Budget measures set to slash MBS rebates for drawing up the plans.

Labor committed $1.5 billion in new funds for mental health on Tuesday night but over one-third of that is to come from rationalising an existing program that provides access to psychiatrists, psychologists, social workers and occupational therapists.

Under the Better Access program, GPs refer patients to these health workers for continuing care.
But Mr Butler says doctors have been paid too much for their role.
"The recent evaluation of the Better Access program clearly showed the GPs have been getting paid over the odds," Mr Butler told Parliament on Thursday.

The average GP consultation under the program lasted 28 minutes, the Minister said, adding that doctors have been getting a flat rate of $163 for that when a standard Medicare consultation that lasts more than 40 minutes is just $99.
“[That's] two-thirds more money under Better Access for one-third less time," Mr Butler said, adding the Budget overhaul would bring the Better Access rebate "back into line with the standard time consult under Medicare”.

GPs will still receive a 27% premium on top of the standard rate if they have completed six hours of mental health training.

Under the new deal, doctors will receive $126 for consultations lasting more than 40 minutes and $86 for shorter visits.
“That is a fair deal for general practitioners,” the Minister said.

The Minister’s comments followed strong criticism earlier this week from AMA president Dr Andrew Pesce, who claimed the Budget measure devalues the role of the family doctor.
“The changes will take the family doctor out of the coordinating care role for people with mental health issues," Dr Pesce said earlier this week.
“We need to improve funding for mental health but this Budget decision gives with one hand and takes away with the other.”

Labor hopes to save $580 million over five years by rationalising Better Access.
The bulk of that, some $406 million, will come from reducing the GP rebates.
Another $174 million will be saved by reducing the number of treatments patients can receive from 12 to 10.


Comments:


Rainbow
13th May 2011
1:23pm
We should all take careful note and learn our lesson from the reduction in this rebate- when the government asks us to take on e-health and offers a fee for this service we should ask for a commitment that the fee will be ongoing and indexed to the CPI. Otherwise we should be united in our refusal to put our intellectual and practical resources to this onerous task.
 
Bite-my-Lip
13th May 2011
1:23pm
I don't think the reduction in fee is unwarranted. They should have scrapped the program all together. Along with the Dental Program. Put the money into bigger funding of some institutional care for the severly mentally ill. They cannot afford this middle class welfare and the psychology talkfest for the neurotic (the only people who seem to benefit from the program). All the money seems to have gone to the psychologists who have just raised their fees to put their services out of reach of those in real need.
 
woodsie
13th May 2011
1:42pm
I wish medical writers would stop referring to Medicare fees as "what the doctor gets". An important point to note is that the Medicare fees are not what the doctor will receive, unless they bulk-bill. These fees are what Medicare pays the patient toward the provision of the service. If any doctor thinks the new Medicare fees are inadequate, then simply charge the fee you think is appropriate, as is your right. Remember, almost all of the psychologists that we refer patients to will charge above the Medicare rebate.
 
John Miller
13th May 2011
2:17pm
Spot on Woodsie. From my perspective, all that has changed is that the patient will pay more for the service. I have yet to meet a clinical psychologist who doesn't charge more than the rebate; why then should the doctor?
 
gpns
16th May 2011
11:32am
I am a clinical psychologist that bulk bills. As in NO cost to the client.
 
gp04
13th May 2011
2:23pm
I hate doing MHA's- the patient is usually distressed, the paperwork is fiddly and onerus and the work is emotionally draining. If I am not going to 'be paid over the odds' I would prefer not to do them. Local community mental health team here we come- hope they got a good share of the billions!
 
nan
13th May 2011
2:38pm
This is because the mental health costs went overthe roof after psychologists were granted medicare payments and they just increased their consultations and the costs skyrocketed. There is no evaluation of the fees charged by psychos who are not even accredited or registered properly. Now GPs who charge lower fees and try to do a proper job are targeted. are
 
Jack
13th May 2011
2:39pm
aa
 
Jack
13th May 2011
2:40pm
Wont be too many MHP done at ~$90 for 20min. This is all part of the cunning plan by our cunning political classes to shift Medicare form private to public. Will fit in ever so nicely with "Super" Clinics. The sicophant public health doctors think the current mental health proposals are wonderful as they will massively expand their empires and demonstrate just how very important they are in the grand scheme of things. If the changes were really just about money the Minister would have just dropped the requirement to do MHP for GPs to refer to psychologists. Its not just about money its about ideology and that is a debate that just isnt worth entering into with a socialist who has power - akin to getting into a battle of wits with a two year old.
 
FedUpRuralDoc
13th May 2011
2:54pm
All boils down into what medicare is, or isn't.

It IS a rebate system for patients. It ISN'T a payment scheme for doctors.

Just charge what you think you are worth (the lawyers just divide time into 6 minute blocks and charge accordingly, plus fees for letters/postage etc). The patient can take up the issue of an inadequate rebate with the Govt.

AMA needs to come out fighting on this issue. I won't hold my breath.
 
wyecroft
13th May 2011
2:58pm
Response to Woodsie and Bite-my-lip. As a clinical psychologist I only 'bulk-bill' as I believe that my patients are already in 'high need' and are unable to either pay upfront or pay a gap. I can live on the bulk-bill payment. I also only charge a private patient the bulk-bill rate and have NEVER charged the APS recommended rate. Please do not generalise and I am happy to meet John Miller who feels he has "yet to meet a clinical psychologist who doesn't charge more than the rebate".
Signed: Not all the same.
 
Lelaina
13th May 2011
4:42pm
Thank-you wyecroft, there are some human not money driven health professionals still in this country. As a practice nurse, I am often the person who has a discussion with a patient first and who advises that they see the GP to discuss the MHCP. As practice nurses do we get any money for this service? No. Do we complain? No. And what about the practice nurses that do the actual plans? Who gets the money? Not us. I am also aware of psychologists that "bulk bill" and who recognise the reality of patients who are in "high need". I am also prepared to stand next to you and meet John Miller and any other GP who feels the same. Thank-you wyecroft for your care and understanding of these patients, we need more of you!
 
Bite-my-Lip
13th May 2011
5:19pm
wyecroft may not be all the same, but there are precious few of him/her. Sure there is a service available for those who cannot afford it. But this was meant to be "better access to mental health" not "the same access to mental health before millions of dollars were sunk into it". Even the designer of the program was concerned about the negative impact that it has on the patients who need it the most.
For the severely mental ill, a good social worker can achieve more than a psychologist. The homeless, the destitute: Many of them grace my doors, but I have an ordinary urban practice- I discount me fee to them as well so its not only psychologists and nurses that have charity in minds. In the end my bottom line pays for my practice nurse and any money given to her as an employee comes directly out of what I pay to my bank manager. Apparently we are on the same side: though often it doesn't feel that way.
 
FedUpRuralDoc
13th May 2011
5:19pm
..and Lelaina needs to understand that as a practice nurse he or she is paid a wage generated by the charging of mental health care plans - which covers her wage, long service, superannuation, the cost of the building, the cost of other admin staff, the electricity bill, rates, the upgrading of computers etc etc.


Most docs bulkbill MH plans. We recognise the patient is vulnerable. But the Govt is now asking GPs to effectively subsidise these consults by accepting a lesser rebate if bulkbilled only. It just dosn't make business sense.

Oh, unless we slash staff wages...
 
Cranky midlife GP
13th May 2011
6:33pm
surely the government is counting on significantly less MH plans, thus saving 10 fold on psychologist rebates. The psychologists should be very worried as too many should not have been subsidized at all. Only the clinical psychologists demonstrate competence in assisting the significantly mentally unwell patients.
 
Mary
13th May 2011
6:38pm
Sigh, interproffesional mud slinging is so passe. Let's keep the focus on the needs of patients and if we want to make lots of money we can charge accordingly and the market will sort it out (or we could start fossicking for minterals).

The average wage of a practice nurse is $29 an hour - rather low if the nurse is talented and driving care plans and health checks, given that the minimum wage in this country for a call centre operator is $17.50. Would be good to see nurses looking to establish and own general practices.
 
Andrew
13th May 2011
7:28pm
Whoa - Socialist Government employing divide and conquer, and predictably, out come the knives.... but they are pointed in the wrong direction! Most non procedural health services are underfunded and most health professionals underpaid, because for years, no politician in Australia has told the truth that quality care costs more than society is spending. Someone has to pay more for better or put up with less than good. Private vs public purse, psychologist vs nurse vs GP -those arguments are all second tier issues - missed the forest for the trees . Society as a whole is taught to value stocks, shares and futures - it no longer values quality health care. When periodically the media do some superficial treatment of waiting list times, deaths in A &E's etc etc. politicians employ sleight of hand to deflect blame, promise illusions and post pone cost.
70% approx of GP services are bulk billed.
The market won't sort it out because the average GP has swallowed the Medicare and political propoganda over years that good GPs care enough not to charge more, when "Medicare Doesn't Care" to pay a reasonable refund. Many of the GPs that don't swallow it, don't know how to effectively respond. After all they are not taught market based business skills in the socialist University ivory towers.
Socialists gave us the Soviet Union - great success - sausage for all.

13th May 2011
11:37pm
Like wyecroft, I am also a bulk billing Clinical Psychologist. I practice in a high need area too.
To Bite-My-Lip, I have to say that whilst Social Workers are fantastic professionals who can provide support and liaison, they are not skilled in psychotherapy. You don't send a psychotic, depressed, traumatised, autistic or personality disordered person to a Social worker for therapy. Please meet some psychologist and learn about what we do and why the public welcomes our input.
 
Solo Victorian Regional GP
14th May 2011
3:44pm
I am level 2 mental health trained. There is a big difference in the amount of work I need to do if I am referring to a psychologist versus planning to do the treatment myself. If I am referring to a psychologist my prioroty is usually to assess whether the patient qualifies for a MHTP and whether a psychologist is the right person. Often the patient is already seeing a psychologist and my role is reduced to a bureaucrat. If I am doing it all myself there is much more I need to do at this planning stage. Once the details are clearer I will decide if my commitment to mental health for over 30 years will involve maintaining my level 2 CPD for this triennium or not. So much for restructuring my practice to accomodate the mental health work. I am looking at other ways to make up the shortfall. I can guarantee I will make more money. From Medicare's point of view I will be costing them more.
 
doc
15th May 2011
7:34am
I used to bulk bill all my mental health plans, but will now charge my usual gap. The mental health plan did make it easier to care for the severely mentally ill without it being too much of a financial burdon on the practice, but sadly this will no longer be the case. Mental Health plans are not only created as a referral mechanism. Many of my patients don't want/need to see a psychologist but need ongoing psychological care. This has been a huge blow to the severely mentally ill, who need regular GP visits, and who are financially destitute. I hope the funds are funnelled into programs that cater for them.
 
ed
17th May 2011
11:56pm
There are suirgeries where everybody is charged $20-$30 more than the scheduled fee, even for pentioners and destitutes. The owner then holidays in exotic destinations while paying a pittance to the drs working for him. Best is he employs women doctors who never protest and accept whatever he gives.Such parasites exist in semirural practices and most of them run Divisions. Crooks exist at all levels, so why blame Nicola and Julia.

SWSLHN and Bowral's Health - 10

Budget cuts to mental health rebates slammed

11th May 2011
Mark O’Brien   all articles by this author
DOCTORS’ groups have accused the Government of devaluing the role of GPs in mental health care following its move to dramatically cut rebates for mental health plans in last night’s Budget.

The Gillard Government’s $2.2 billion mental health care package has been widely welcomed by consumer and community groups – however, it comes with a sting in the tail for GPs. In a major overhaul of the Better Access to Mental Health Care initiative, GPs’ rebates for drawing up mental health plans will be scaled back significantly, saving the Government an estimated $405.9 million over the next four years.

In addition, the number of psychologist, psychiatrist or other allied health professional visits a patient can now access under the scheme will be capped at a maximum of 10.
“This is not the right approach. Devaluing the role of family doctors is a backward step that will seriously fragment medical and mental health care for those people who need it in the community,” said AMA president Dr Andrew Pesce.
“Family doctors are the preferred entry point for mental health care but the Government is now making it harder for people to get access to the care they need and reducing the amount of time that patients can spend with their GP.”

The Better Access cuts are likely to overshadow other wins for GPs, particularly the $75.5 million measure that will allow them to refer patients for some MRI services on the MBS.

Treasurer Wayne Swan defied pre-Budget speculation he would cut NHMRC funding and made several new commitments to healthcare, including $1.8 billion for rural health infrastructure, a $613 million boost to the national immunisation program and $139 to continue the National Bowel Cancer Screening Program over the next four years.

The Government is meanwhile also set to expand the existing health checks of four year olds to include consideration of emotional wellbeing and development in three year olds. The measures, allocated $11 million over five years, will include funding for a National Expert Group to develop and provide advice relating to the checks and training requirements for health providers.

Budget Scorecard View a larger version of the scorecard
In a nutshell, here's what it means for health.
Comments:

Docmus
11th May 2011
12:16pm
Don't know whether to laugh or cry at the stupidity of the government reducing allied mental health visits to improve mental health. Perhaps there should be a parliamentarian pay cut to encourage improved political decision making.

11th May 2011
1:27pm
What to do about patients with chronic mental illnesses who require, at least, one visit per month???
 
TIBOR
11th May 2011
3:32pm
We have had the 'carrot' and now the 'stick'. That is how new government initiatives are introduced. Doctors will just have to decide if they want a pay cut and continue to give mental care plans or opt out totally. The pressure will continue to be on by patients and allied health, as they have become accustomed to the remuneration. Same thing occurred with immunisation and chronic illnesses. This is no surprise, as this is always the ploy. Having never been involved in the scheme, as I did not want to be told how to suck eggs, it will not impact on my practice, however the larger corporate practices will be the hardest hit, as they have used it as a gravy train.
 
ed
11th May 2011
4:05pm
Dear Tibor,
Just think about that GP who works for a Corporate and goes to different medical centres explaining how to do care plans, and Mental health plans. This doctor made $560,000 last year from Care Plans alone. This year the income will drop by 70%. No more Ferrari just Ford Falcon
 
Babyteeth
11th May 2011
4:21pm
The system was abused Drs, that is why it was being cut. Of the many PD Patients sent to my Practice to create a scene, by the GP down the road, many of these Patients went back to the same GP for a debriefing and psychological counselling and to discuss how mean and crazy I was for kicking them out for their intolerable and disruptive behaviour. It is extreme examples of criminal abuse of the system, such as this, and GP misdiagnosis and inefficiency, that has led to it being dropped. Mind you, I don't know if the Psychiatrists will do any better. Medical Corporates abuse and destroy everything they touch, and they are your real enemy in all of this.
 
TIBOR
11th May 2011
5:34pm
That's an amazing story ed!
 
GP JOHN
13th May 2011
4:31pm
Agree tibor. It was a gravy train for greedy corporates and greedy doctors who may now have to lease holdens!!
Same for psychologists who have mushroomed all over australiaon the back of it!!
 
KarynPsych
21st May 2011
1:30pm
The Better Access program cuts are a direct challenge to all the professionals involved in this well regarded and evaluated program. The program works due to the shared care team approach between psychologists (such as myself) and the skills and time dedicated to assessment by our GP peers. I ask that my fellow medical professionals become political for the sake of our patients on this issue. The OT's and social workers patients showed that unilateral cuts to services would not be tolerated in 2010 and with the right pressure this too will be reversed. Please do not continue to repeat the furphy that allied health rebates are cut from 12 to 10. This is political spin at its finest. Compare apples with apples, the rebates are halved for the patient not experiencing changes in their presentation from 12 rebates with a GP review between 6 consults by GPs with a possibility of 6 exceptional circumstances consultations (12+6) to patients having access to only 6 appointments with the option of 4 more for "extreme cases" (6+4). I know the media have been stating that this is a cut in rebate for only 2 appointments yet again the media did not represent GP devaluation properly either in repeating "good news" mantra.

SSWAHS = SWSLHN + SLHN and the Medicare Locals - 43

Conflicting views on rush to Medicare Locals

Conflicting views on rush to Medicare Locals

A leading health body says the Federal government’s plans for Medicare Locals are hazy and incomplete, but the AGPN is calling for more of the organisations to be fast-tracked. 

In a submission to a Senate inquiry (see link) into plans for the National Health Performance Authority, the Australian Healthcare and Hospitals Association (AHHA) has accused the government of staying silent on how Medicare Locals are going to operate.

It says the government is instead relying on the organisations being just like GP divisions, “a collection of programs being loosely managed rather than setting in place fundamental reform from the start.”

The AHHA says Medicare Locals run the risk of becoming ‘one-size-fits-all’ and instead need to be focussed on local population health and service planning.

It says they are underfunded and more investment is needed to ensure they have the expertise currently residing in state and territory health departments.

Meanwhile however, AGPN Chair Dr Emil Djakic insists it would be better to have 25 rather than 15 Medicare Locals in place from July, and not wait until the second wave due next year.

“If that means that the funding for Medicare Locals which was brought forward in the Budget needs to be spread more broadly across more Medicare Locals in the first year then so be it – it is far better to get these Medicare Locals started sooner,” he says.



Comments:


  • Yes the government is very quiet about medicare locals with good reason. Look with interest at the NZ health model and their Primary Health Organisations (PHOs). Health funding is channelled through district bodies in a very controlled fashion. Say goodbye to Medicare Rebates and say hello to Medicare Locals. It is already happening with the mental health care budget changes. Let’s ask more questions and let’s ask very LOUDLY!

    Leona Edwards Practice manager | 19 May 2011 

  • Friday, May 6, 2011

    SSWAHS = SWSLHN + SLHN and the Medicare Locals - 42


    A conversation we ought to be having about healthcare


    Anne-marie Boxall from the Commonwealth Parliamentary Library has written a timely and important article for the FlagPost blog, titled: Paying for health care: how can we sustain it?
    It is republished below with her permission, and will be worth revisiting when the post-budget protests erupt.

    Anne-marie Boxall writes:

    At budget time, the federal health minister has one of the toughest jobs. We got a glimpse into this a few weeks ago when the Government announced that it had decided to defer listing some new drugs on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme even though they work and have been deemed by experts to be cost-effective. The announcement sparked outcry from consumer groups and health care organisations alike.

    The Minister found herself in this unenviable position because the amount of money available to spend on health care is finite. This is not just a dilemma that arises at budget time however.
    Governments around the world are becoming increasingly concerned about how they will fund health care into the future because in most OECD countries, health expenditure is growing at a faster rate than gross domestic product.

    The harsh reality is that we cannot afford to do everything that we want or need to do to improve people’s health, at least not without finding new revenue sources (for example from taxes, the private sector and individuals). As Minister Roxon explained last week, the constraints on public sector financing mean that governments will need to play a more active role in determining what will, and will not, be funded in health care. In health circles, this exercise is known as priority setting.
    In a forthcoming Parliamentary Library Research Paper I examine the fiscal sustainability of the Australian health system in more depth. In addition to priority setting, I outline a range of mechanisms currently being used to help control health expenditure and examine how effective they are. I also outline a number of other options that could be considered, including:
    • paying health care providers in different ways (there are numerous options but the World Health Organisation considers salaries, setting strict budgets, and using capitation payments to have the most potential for containing costs);
    • stimulating competition between the public and private sectors, as long as it drives improvements in the quality of care and delivers better value for money;
    • monitoring and exerting greater control over the capacity of the health system (for instance the number of health care professionals and health facilities makes a significant difference to overall health expenditure); and
    • ensuring government funds are only used to fund the highest quality and most effective of all the treatment options (physiotherapy, for example, might be more effective for back pain than drugs or surgery).

    One thing the paper makes clear is that there is virtually no easy savings to be made in the health care sector anymore. Doing anything to make Australia’s health system more affordable will be tough, so beware of anyone spruiking simple solutions. It is not simply a matter of compiling a list of the most cost-effective or cheapest treatments and funding them first. Other countries have tried this ultra-rational approach and found that decisions provoked so much outcry that they were politically untenable.

    In the United States, recent attempts to make resource allocation in health care more rational led to claims that the government was introducing ‘death panels’. In the United Kingdom, the decision to deny access to certain cancer drugs led to similar claims. Even if governments hold out against such protests, often there just isn’t enough evidence available to make an informed decision about which treatments deliver the best bang for the buck.

    Making the health system more sustainable is also not as simple as getting those people who can pay more to do so. Individual contributions, such as fees, co-payments and other out-of-pocket payments, already account for about 17 per cent of total health expenditure in Australia.

    And there is already compelling evidence that the cost of health care poses a real burden for some people and stops them from getting necessary care (see here, here and here). Shifting more of the cost burden onto individuals would make it even more difficult for people with low incomes to get essential health care, and it would make our health system less equitable.

    It would also mean that Australia was moving in the opposite direction to most other OECD countries, which have reduced the proportion of total health expenditure coming from individuals over the last decade. It’s not possible to explain the reasons for this trend without further analysis, but it may be that other countries have come to agree with the World Health Organisation that relying on individual contributions to control the growth in health care costs is a relatively blunt instrument and the least equitable way of funding health care.
    With no easy solutions on offer, the only way this or any future government is likely to make our health system more sustainable is to undertake more fundamental and potentially unpopular reform (this would include considering some of the options outlined earlier).

    Governments will have to make the public more aware that there are limits on what they can spend on health care. No one will like it when the funding cuts affect them, but it might help if they have some understanding of why. Governments will also have to convince health care providers that changes are needed so that better care can be provided at a lower cost.

    If reforms threaten the incomes of health providers, then they may need to innovate and find new and more profitable ways of delivering services.

    Governments will also have to initiate a national debate on some of the key issues that underpin the issue of sustainable health funding. Are we, for example, prepared to consider solutions such as paying more tax? Or, do we want to move away from public financing and encourage the private sector and individuals to play a greater role?

    Admittedly, a reform agenda along these lines would be politically difficult for any government. However, it is likely to be more effective than the current approach.

    To date, governments have tended to view the health system in its components parts because it is so large and unwieldy. As a result, there does not appear to have been an overarching strategy for reigning in the growth in health expenditure. Instead, it appears that governments have had a series of one off battles in various sectors of the health system over time.

    Instead, governments could consider viewing the health system as just that, a system, and begin developing a clear strategic plan for how we as a nation will tackle the problem of ensuring the sustainability of the health system.

    Given that just about any proposal for constraining health expenditure provokes outrage, when it comes to engaging in battles over health funding, it seems that governments would have little to lose by being strategic about the battles it takes on in order to deliver outcomes in the long-run.

    One Comment

    1. Dr George Margelis
      Posted May 5, 2011 at 7:33 pm

      It is great to see that the discussion has moved on to the real problem, The way we currently pay for healthcare in Australia and many other countries drives the current problem of increasing costs without driving better outcomes.
      Anne-Marie has summarised the option, what we now need is leadership to drive them through. The health cost problem is potentially much more dangerous than many of the other issues the government has turned its attention to. We can try introducing more taxes to help cover the costs, but at some stage you just run out of taxable income, so reform of the system now is really the only option.

    SWSLHN and Bowral's Health - 9

    Budget expected to benefit mental health programs

    5th May 2011 - Medical Observer
    Shannon McKenzie and AAP   all articles by this author
    MENTAL health has been tipped as a major winner in next week’s Budget, with fresh predictions that the Gillard Government will tip around $2 billion into that area.

    Part of the mental health plan would involve establishing a $50 million Mental Health Commission, charged with ensuring people’s minds are treated with as much care as their bodies.

    The prediction from media source AAP and mental health experts comes as Health Minister Nicola Roxon this week admitted mental health had "for many decades really fallen between all the gaps".

    Professor Ian Hickie, executive director of the Brain and Mind Research Institute, is confident the Government will deliver on its promise to make mental health a priority.

    However, the rest of the health portfolio is unlikely to see a vast increase in new funding, with the Gillard Government still finalising its $16 billion hospital reform deal struck with states and territories.

    Labor promised to consider investment in dental care as part of the deal that saw the Australian Greens help deliver Julia Gillard a minority government.

    But due to the summer's natural disasters, and the continued promises to return the Budget to surplus, a universal Denticare scheme looks unlikely.

    Greens spokesperson Senator Rachel Siewert admitted as much.

    "We're hoping we're going to see the start of the Government's commitment to dental reform and to progress towards a Denticare system," Ms Siewert told AAP this week.

    "But we're realistic and we don't expect to see it all at once."

    Reported cuts to medical research totalling $400 million are unlikely to be in the budget following a backlash from scientists.


    raven
    5th May 2011
    5:21pm

    WA MP Martin Whitely has published a blog raising significant questions about EPPIC and Headspace and about undeclared conflicts of interest among the authors of the recent mental health reform blueprint. Professor Patrick McGorry has responded. Both are available at: http://speedupsitstill.com/patrick-mcgorryE8099s-independent-mental-health-reform-groupE8099s-3-5b-blueprint-australian-mental-health-forward-prescription-E28098psychiatric-disordersE28099-E28098off-label#more-1530

    Thursday, May 5, 2011

    SSWAHS = SWSLHN + SLHN and the Medicare Locals - 41

    Divided in opinion with Medicare Local

    Nursing Review of Australia


    Announced as part of the 2010 Health Reform, Medicare Locals will be rolled out as early as in the middle of this year. However, groups in the field are still divided in opinion regarding the plan, writes Jeff Li.

    In the closing address of the 11th National Rural Health Conference, the Minister for Health and Ageing Nicola Roxon said that through strong engagement with local health services, Medicare Locals will make it easier for rural patients to use the health system and to reduce mismatch between services provided and services needed.

    Jenny May, chairperson of the National Rural Health Alliance, says that Medicare Locals is a chance to bring focus to primary care, but stresses that it is important for it to be aware of the needs of the local community.
    “There are some principles, if you like, in terms of Medicare Locals that the Alliance feels very strongly about, and they are the need for them to be local, and the need for them to be genuinely consultative and the need for them to be very multi-disciplinary in their approach and to really model a primary health care approach to prevention to early diagnosis and to support the services,” May says.

    “There needs to be collaboration between the local players involved in primary care, that comprises general practices, including GPs, practice nurses and others, including aboriginal medical services, the local government sector and numbers of other private or public allied health commissions, who all currently provide primary healthcare services.”

    She also says that primary healthcare organisations can collaborate in terms of planning services, identifying service gaps and providing or supporting a range of services.

    “I think practitioners, in collaboration with service providers, have a much better idea at a local level, where the gaps in services are. So I think they have much to bring to the table.”

    However, Steven Hambleton, vice-president of the Australian Medical Association says that one of his concerns is that general practices will repeat the process in hospitals where doctors and other health professionals are taken out of management and become disconnected with the needs of the patients.
    “The overarching concern is that we don’t want to see primary care goes the same way as hospital care in that a bureaucracy gets in the way between patient and doctor.”

    “If there is going to be a body of Medicare Locals, there definitely needs to be GPs in there in the majority to make sure that it remains connected to the patients. The GPs have in this space for a long time and has the expertise.”

    Hambleton says another concern is the nature of Medicare Locals as fund holders.
    He says it implies that there is a definite fund pool and that when it runs out, there is none left. “[It] basically means that there is a great potential for rationing of healthcare at the Medicare Locals level.”
    He also says GPs should be providers of medical care and that working with other primary healthcare providers is the way of the future. But he says that patients need to be educated on what services are available and when to seek healthcare.

    “We’ve gone from episodic healthcare to chronic disease managed healthcare and are about to proactive chronic disease management, which must be linked in with health literacy from the patients and a lot of self-management. You can’t do that with just one provider. We do work well with nurses; we do work well with health professionals and all parties that contribute to the healthcare of the patient. I guess the key person in all this is the patient themselves.”
    Hambleton also says the fact that funding for primary healthcare and community services coming from different pools of fund will reduce the efficiency of the two systems working together.

    “The structural drivers of health reform, which was the Rudd government’s push to have the majority of the funding of primary care all coming from the Commonwealth has been unbound by the current Prime Minister, meaning that it is going to be a lot harder for Medicare Locals to actually achieve to what they originally planned to do in the National Health and Hospitals Reform Commission.”

    “We’ve seen Medicare Locals issues accelerated, when at the same time, the structural drivers that pushed the groups in the Medicare Locals’ base together have been lifted. So at the very least, we have to stop the rate of roll out, stand back a bit and do some more planning. With the way things have been rolled out right now, the AMA is not happy with it.”

    May agrees that there has been some haste in the process, especially when some of the organisations for Medicare Locals cover a large geographical area with different needs. The NRHA will see with interest on how the applicants for Medicare Locals funding plan to operate and that it has some principles on whether a Medicare Locals bid is successful.

    “The important thing from our point of view is to see integration of the best available services in rural areas. Often there is a deficit of any services, and we are keen to see those needs articulated and then met.”

    Wednesday, May 4, 2011

    SWSLHN and Bowral's Health - 8

    May Budget expected to bring long-awaited GP MRI rebates

    3rd May 2011 - Medical Observer
    Byron Kaye   all articles by this author
    GP REFERRALS for MRIs could finally be granted MBS rebates as the Federal Government confirms it is “reviewing” funding arrangements for radiology ahead of the release of next week’s Federal Budget.

    The widely anticipated measures, long advocated by doctors’ groups, would see MRIs subsidised for children under 16.

    The changes would mean young patients could more easily recoup most of the cost of the radiation-free, higher-accuracy alternative to CT scans, now seen by experts as the standard for examinations of several spinal, knee, brain and abdominal conditions.

    Currently, patients of all ages can receive a rebate of $350–$430, but only when ordered by a non-GP specialist. GPs have been agitating for years to have the rebates available directly from their referrals, arguing the system is inequitable because it discourages lower-income patients from having the investigation.

    When questioned about speculation the Government will offer the rebates for GP-ordered MRIs for children, a spokesperson for Health Minister Nicola Roxon declined to comment directly but said the Department of Health was “currently reviewing diagnostic imaging arrangements”.

    RACGP vice-president Dr Elizabeth Marles said she would be “very pleased” by any measure to cut children’s exposure to even the low levels of ionising radiation in a CT scan. She predicted that rather than risking a “budget blowout”, the rebate would save taxpayer money by reducing specialist visits.

    “It’s not going to be a commonplace investigation,” Dr Marles said.

    “If you had significant neurological concerns about a child, you’d get a specialist anyway. By giving them the ability to have an MRI, you’d be able to determine if there were any brain tumours or things like that. You’ve got a better idea from the outset.”

    The change may require additional CPD training on appropriate and safe ordering of MRIs and the college would work with Government to develop a program, Dr Marles said.

    “We would support some sort of education for GPs so they would be comfortable to be able to use MRIs appropriately.”

    GP Dr Brian Morton, chair of the AMA’s Council of General Practice, said it would make “the right test for the right reason” more easily available and would speed up treatments.

    GPs could “initiate the management rather than having to wait for the specialist”, he said.

    However, Dr Morton called for any rebate for GP-initiated MRI to be extended to include non-child examinations best done with MRI, including for spinal radiculopathy, knee injuries and multiple sclerosis.

    Dr Ron Shnier, president of the Australian Diagnostic Imaging Association, said although radiation levels in CT were low, making MRI more accessible to children would improve safety.


    Comments:

    bubbles
    3rd May 2011
    5:12pm


    Finally! I also hope they are going to consider the CT Coronary Angiogram having some form of rebate as well.

    Monday, May 2, 2011

    SWSLHN and Bowral's Health - 7

    NSAIDs may block antidepressants

    2nd May 2011 - Medical Observer
     
    Catherine Hanrahan   all articles by this author
    COMMON anti-inflammatory drugs may antagonise the effects of antidepressants, scientists have found.

    US researchers analysed the effects of ibuprofen and other NSAIDs on citalopram in an animal model of depression and in a human population.

    They showed that in 1500 patients with depression who took citalopram over a 12-week period, 55% of those who had taken an NSAID at least once were treatment-resistant to citalopram, compared with 45% who had not taken an NSAID.

    The clinical data was supported in a mouse model, where all the NSAIDs and analgesics tested blocked the antidepressant effect of citalopram.

    In vitro studies showed the anti-inflammatories antagonised p11, a biochemical marker for depression. This protein was regulated by frontal cortical levels of the cytokines tumour necrosis factor alpha and interferon gamma, which were also abolished by ibuprofen.

    Clinical pharmacologist Professor  Ric Day, from St Vincent’s Hospital and the University of NSW, said the findings may explain why a large proportion of patients are resistant to antidepressants.

    However, Professor Ian Hickie, executive director of the Brain and Mind Research Institute, University of Sydney, said the results were contrary to other cytokine hypothesis studies. “Most people have tended to think the opposite – that cytokines appear to be increased in some people with depression and might be driving… things like sleep disturbance, changed body temperature and lack of energy,” he said.

    The clinical data could be confounded if taking NSAIDs indicated medical conditions which made patients less likely to respond to standard treatments, he added.

    PNAS 2011, online first


    Comments:


    ondocfarm
    2nd May 2011
    1:49pm

    At the Sydney 11th IASP World Congress on Pain (2005) it was shown that NSAIDS interfere at the midbrain ( RVN & PAG level) level with the opioids and can stop them working. Reference: Workshop 394 Page 154 Abstracts. Christopher Vaughan Uni of Sydney Royal North Shore........ So people on higher doses of opioids should never be given doses of NSAIDS concurrently. I have had a few whose pain levels exploded when given NSAIDS by an unwary doctor!