Monday, June 20, 2011

SSWAHS = SWSLHD + SLHD and the Medicare Locals - 52

First Medicare Locals urged to retain GPs’ central role

10th Jun 2011 - Medical Observer
Byron Kaye   all articles by this author
THE AMA has written to the first 15 Medicare Locals urging them to keep doctors central to governance, rule out holding funds and commit to working closely with GPs at every stage of setting up the new primary health hubs.

The AMA has strongly opposed the $416 million Medicare Locals program, arguing the Federal Government has failed to explain how it will improve GP services and is rushing through the reform with just weeks before the supposed 1 July start date.

Four of the first 19 Medicare Locals – all in Victoria – have not been publicly announced with the Government citing a need to redraw the boundaries as the final stumbling block.
The are expected to be named next week.

Yesterday, AMA president Dr Steve Hambleton wrote to the 15 publicly announced successful tenderers – all currently divisions of general practice – asking them to address concerns that the Medicare Locals structure will dilute the governance input of GPs and weaken patient care.
“We are concerned that the Government is rolling out its Medicare Local policy with desperate haste, despite a lack of detail and genuine consultation with the broader medical profession,” Dr Hambleton wrote in the letter.
“Integrating and coordinating the range of organisations and service providers operating within primary healthcare, and better linking primary healthcare and other sectors, is something that can deliver benefit if it is done well.
“However, there is a significant potential for Medicare Locals to get this wrong if they fail to listen to the views of the medical profession.”

The AMA has asked the Medicare Locals to confirm that local doctors would be represented at all levels and have “strong majority representation” on boards and rule out any fund-holding arrangement for GP and other specialist medical services.

Several divisions chosen among the first 19 Medicare Locals, contacted by MO this week, indicated that they would change their board structures to reflect the broader range of primary health professionals expected to be represented by the new bodies.


Comments: 

Detracter
10th Jun 2011
3:34pm
This is essentially a Labor governments attempt to centralise power and influence over what used to be a non-government operational area. Labor, and particularly Gillard, are doing this in the industrial relations area and the wider economy with the Carbon tax, Mining tax and Flood tax.
If she wins the next election, I could well anticipate a push for universal bulk-billing across the profession to reflect her central control agenda, dating from thirty years ago.
The AMA move to increase GP representation on these Medicare Locals seems to reflect my thinking on this matter.

Pav
10th Jun 2011
3:46pm
I don't really give a s#%t.

Just so long as the ML's take full responsibility and are accountable for their own actions when they stuff up - not just turf them back to the GP for patching up their mistakes.

ed
10th Jun 2011
4:39pm
Pav' arguement assumes that GPs who work in the Locals are not responsible and have inferior knowledge and skills. The same arguement was put across when the Corporates had commenced business. Errors are made by any type of a GP. What we have to worry is under GILLARD-ROXON AXIS OF SOCIALISED MEDICINE, SOON WITCH DOCTORS Will be employed . Then there will be trouble.And in the famous word of the bard' there was movement at the station'.


John Wellness
10th Jun 2011
5:01pm
A medical dominance of divisions of general practice has led to a fragmentation of primary health care and probably poorer health outcomes, especially for patients with complex chronic illnesses. We need practices that have multidisciplinary teams with each occupation contributing its own strengths. We also need a more preventative approach embracing behavioural as well as medical perspectives. The Medical Locals need governance systems that will allow us to become a health system - not a bunch of independent doctors and allied health practitioners. Doctors have a leading role to play in clinical governance but a lesser role in business governance.

khanGP
10th Jun 2011
6:19pm
When the concept of ' Super Clinics ' was being mooted, a lot of the GPs were stating - but where will the Govt. get the GPs from to work in these Clinics. At that point in time, I told my Colleagues, that the Govt. has a Master Plan in place - they will not need GPs to run these ' Super Clinics ' - they will run them without GPs - they will have their ' Nurse Practitioners ' running them. What with these NPs being given Prescribing Rights / Radiology & Pathology requesting Rights / Rights to refer these Patients ( sorry, ' Clients ' ! ) to Specialists & to Emergency Depts., GPs will be made redundant.
I was then, told that I am being ' Paranoid '.
My GP Colleagues felt then, that we, GPs would be elevated to a ' Consultant ' Role. Why would a NP refer a Patient to a GP, when he / she could refer to a Specialist or an ED ?? Our Local Divisions still feel that we, GPs would have a Lead Role in these ' Medicare Locals ' !! When there is a Collection of ' Primary Care ' Practitioners, each one of these Groups would want an EQUAL Voice in the Board of such an Organisation. So, the Board of these Medicare Locals, will have a Representative from each of the Groups - i.e. one each of a GP/ NP / Pharmacist / Chiropractor / Herbalist / Physiotherapist / Iridologist / Naturopath , etc.etc. The Voice of the GP would be only a ' Whisper in a crowded room '.
Wake up my dear GP Colleagues.
DR. AHAD KHAN, GP Glenbrook NSW

jadugar dar
11th Jun 2011
1:28pm
Ahad has summarised it beautifully!!!! I have said the same for a long time. Nicola has always regarded that GP's are unnecesary.We have one of two alternatives available to us now. 1. Register as a NP with our Medical Degrees and 2. Qualify and elevate to a Specialist level & register accordingly. And of course the 3rd is quit because GPs will not unite and take Industrial Action. Any alterations in the status of the AWU members would by now resulted in Libya-like turmoil. Good luck to those GPs who are retiring, dying or quitting.

Green Demon
11th Jun 2011
3:33pm
so....The 2010 Intergenerational Report, Australia to 2050: future challenges found that total government spending on health will rise from 4% of GDP in 2009/10 to 7.1% in 2049/50 and the bulk of the increase will be on MBS, hospital services and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme.
Aged care expenditure is also projected to rise significantly from 0.8% of GDP in 2009/10 to 1.8% by 2049/50 with residential aged care recording the highest growth.

It's ok to moan; be chicken little with sky falling in but what will happen we can't afford to pay for health? Having a greater emphasis via MLs on population; prevnetaive health has to be a no brainer! or do we head down a teared system like the US who will be facing 20% of GDP spending for the same period? Some words of actual wisdom may be helpful

Amateur Observer
12th Jun 2011
11:52am
Why does General Practice seem to be the only specialty group singled out for special attention by the Federal Health department in their recurrent trial-and-error attempts at health reform? I'm sensing a bit of gutlessness amongst the Feds when it comes to foisting experimental programs onto other medical specialties.