Showing posts with label Southern Highlands Division of General Practice. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Southern Highlands Division of General Practice. Show all posts

Friday, November 18, 2011

SSWAHS = SWSLHD + SLHD and the Medicare Locals - 71

Medicare Locals will be healthcare Polyfilla: Roxon

Medicare Locals will be healthcare Polyfilla: Roxon

Divisions selected to be Medicare Locals must lose their doctor focus and prepare to be like Polyfilla to “fill in the gaps” of local health services, health minister Nicola Roxon says.


Speaking to the GP divisions’ annual conference in Melbourne today, the minister said the first priority of the new organisations will be to identify gaps in local services and integrate care.

“You are no longer organisations for a particular group of professionals – you are responsible for overseeing the primary health care needs of your entire community,” she told the AGPN’s GP Network Forum.

“You will need to work together to address these gaps – with an initial priority of addressing gaps in after hours services when you are first established.

Nicola Roxon said Medicare Locals will be tasked with  supporting all health professionals in primary care,  to “improve the quality and responsiveness of local care services, including in safety, performance and accountability”.

She said it was also important for Medicare Locals to go out into the local community and “tell and re-tell the story” of how they will improve local health services and how they will work with patients, professionals, other organisations, and hospitals.

The minister told the five divisions yet to be announced as Medicare Locals “not to be too disappointed” but to listen to the constructive feedback and “work cooperatively” with the Department of Health and Ageing

“Likewise, I would encourage applicants in areas where another organisation is to become the Medicare Local to contribute constructively to the process. The interests of the patients and providers in your area are best served by a smooth transition.”

It would seem that Nicola Roxon is making it quite clear that the dominance of the Division of General Practice is over when it comes to determining the delivery of clinical services provided in the jurisdiction of the new Medicare Locals. This is something about which the Board of the Southern Highlands Division of General Practice needs to take note. Recent declarations in the 'Highland's Doctor' by the Chairman of the SHDGP Board were:
"............. this was softened with the recognition that there was a real need to bring GPs from the Divisions into cooperation and participation as leaders in the new MLs, and that experience serving in Divisions over the previous 18 years had created skills in governance, service delivery and population health that few other potential ML Board members drawn from other branches of healthcare would have in the short term."

Drs Roche and Ruscoe had better reconsider their view in light of this recent advice from the Minister for Health and Ageing in which their role is to be collaborators and not as "leaders".

Thursday, November 10, 2011

SSWAHS + SWSLHD + SLHD and the Medicare Locals - 70

In a remarkable bit of spin by the CEO of the Southern Highlands Division of General Practice comes this short piece from the Wednesday publication of the Southern Highland News.

While there is nothing new about this news it does give a remarkable impression of "the tail wagging the dog". Does anyone really believe that the Southern Highlands Division of General Practice somehow pulled off this coup without the major contribution of the other partner?

At least, finally, the local community who are supposed to "find it easier to navigate the health system" are being told about it! Well done, Dr Ruscoe.

Enhanced health services for Southern Highlands
9th November 2011
By: Southern Highland News

The Southern Highlands Division of General Practice, in partnership with our neighbouring Division in Macarthur, has been successful in its bid to establish the new South Western Sydney Medicare Local.

This will become operational on July 1, 2012, and will eventually cover primary care services from Bankstown in the north to Wingecarribee in the south, mirroring the boundaries of our Local Health District.

It is one of thirty-eight organisations selected to become the next Medicare Locals that will drive access to better primary health care across Australia, announced by Minister for Health and Ageing Nicola Roxon on Friday.

"Importantly, Medicare Locals will maintain and build on the excellent work already done by the local Divisions of General Practice, with GPs and general practice being at the centre of a strong, integrated primary health care system," the Minister said.

The new Medicare Local will be responsible for population health planning, identifying and filling gaps in primary care services and will have greater involvement in co-ordination and integration of services at the local level.

"The Federal Government’s Medicare Local concept is designed to make it easier for patients to navigate the health system", CEO of the Southern Highlands Division of General Practice, Dr Warwick Ruscoe, said.

Saturday, November 5, 2011

SSWAHS = SWSLHD + SLHD and the Medicare Locals - 64

Medicare Locals - Criteria for applicants

Given the apparent failure (again) of the Macarthur - Southern Highlands consortium to gain selection in the second tranche of the successful Medicare Locals announced this week, it is perhaps timely to reproduce here the DoHA selection criteria which the consortium needs to consider for the third tranche to be notified. I suggest to the Boards of the SWSGP Link and the SHDGP that they should consider in particular Criterion 2; and Criterion 4 - 6. 

At present, there are clearly significant gaps in the consultation process with key stakeholders and groups that the consortium has been required to have in the development phase of their application. Perhaps they should take a serious look at the way in which the Bankstown GP Division progressed their community consultation process

The relevant consortium Boards need to beat their collective breasts and admit their failure and then, start again!

2.4 Selection Criteria

There are six (6) selection criteria against which applications for Medicare Local funding will be assessed. These criteria are outlined below:

Criterion 1:

Demonstrated expertise and capacity to address the five Strategic Objectives for Medicare Locals specified above, for the selected catchment area including outlining:

i. Activities currently undertaken and previous achievements which relate to each of the five strategic objectives;
ii. How these activities can be extended and expanded to meet the needs of a modern primary health care system;
iii. Demonstrated knowledge of the population base, health service architecture and infrastructure, utilisation and other demographic characteristics and health priorities in the proposed catchment area (this should indicate the evidence from which this knowledge is drawn);
iv. A strategy for development of a population and health service plan to address need;
v. Infrastructure already in place;
vi. Capacity to collect and manage data as appropriate;
vii. Strategies for ensuring appropriate accountability and transparency to the community; and
viii. Indicative personnel and other resources to be allocated to deliver these activities.

AND

Criterion 2:

Proposed governance and operational arrangements, including:

i. Details of the proposed legal/corporate and organisational structures;
ii. Experience and skills expertise of the proposed Executive;
iii. A structure that recognises the diversity of clinicians, services and health care recipients within the modern primary health care sector;
iv. Structures that encourage and maintain local engagement and responsiveness;
v. A transition plan, including estimates of costs associated with transition activities;
vi. Strategy for ensuring appropriate clinical governance;
vii. Strategy, skills and expertise to manage flexible funding to target services to the local community’s specific needs;
viii. Strategy for establishing effective linkages with other sectors and organisations, including Local Hospital Networks; and
ix. Strategy for ensuring community engagement and accountability.
The assessment panel will have regard for the desired governance attributes, including broad community and health professional representation, as well as business management expertise; and strong clinical leadership.

AND

Criterion 3:

The financial viability of the Medicare Local including:

i. Demonstrated record in efficient and effective use of funds of each organisation covered by the proposal;
ii. The experience and expertise of the organisation’s proposed executive team to manage substantial public funds appropriately; and
iii. Current contractual arrangements.

AND

Criterion 4:

Demonstrated evidence of ability to engage with and form productive relationships with key stakeholders, providing supporting evidence of any current partnerships and operational arrangements, and strategies to improve engagement with:

i. Community Organisations;
ii. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Organisations;
iii. Workforce Organisations;
iv. General practice;
v. The broader primary health care sector; and
vi. Research Organisations.

AND

Criterion 5:

Strategies and ability to respond to local needs and emerging priorities, including Commonwealth priorities in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health, eHealth and telehealth, mental primary health care, aged care, population health and after hours primary health care.

AND

Criterion 6:

Evidence of ability to build upon a sustained track record of high performance as a Division/s of General Practice or primary health care related organisation, including:

i. Driving improved outcomes and system change in general practice and primary health care through effective practice support;
ii. Improving eHealth and information management infrastructure, including the use of data to improve preventive health and chronic disease management in clinical practice, to measure the effectiveness of health program delivery, and to inform population–based services planning and evaluation;
iii. Effective governance and corporate management;
iv. Demonstrating effective collaborative relationships with other agencies and health service providers to achieved improved referral pathways, health service provision and/ or outcomes, including a demonstrated culture of inclusion across the spectrum of primary health care service provision and local community engagement;
v. Demonstrating compliance with contractual obligations;
vi. Delivering sustained achievement and improvement against national performance indicators for Divisions of General Practice (where relevant) and associated programs; and
vii. Actively sharing expertise and resources with others to promote quality improvement and knowledge transfer across the primary health care sector.

The selection panel will develop a relative merit list from the applications assessed, based on the selection criteria above, and provide recommendations of preferred applicants to the Minister for Health and Ageing.

The selection panel will also have regard to the desirability of achieving a reasonable spread of Medicare Locals across the country and geographic classifications for the first tranche of Medicare Locals.

All applicants should note that, where the assessment process does not identify a preferred applicant within a Medicare Local region, the Department reserves the right to broker an arrangement between funding applicants and/or other interested parties.

Tuesday, November 1, 2011

SSWAHS = SWSLHD + SLHD and the Medicare Locals - 62

 The big sell(out)! - SSWGP Link + SHDGP

At various times, and in previous posts, Socrates has made reference to the relationship formed between the Macarthur Division of General Practice (now the Sydney South West GP Link) and the Southern Highlands Division of General Practice. For the former, the collaboration is about its further expansionist aims. For the latter, it is all about making sure that some people remain employed. 

But....... does it mean that people in the Southern Highlands will get an improved health service? This is the crucial question to which we have not had an answer simply because we have not had the level of community consultation and public meetings - or the involvement of all the non-government organisations, or the local private and public healthcare providers, or the health consumers in our local community - that the Federal Department of Health and Ageing (DoHA) had required prior to the lodgement of any application by the Macarthur-Southern Highlands consortium. 

It is little point in suggesting that the Southern Highland's meek and mild health consumers and health practitioners and NGOs should be happy that the consortium would inform everyone of the details after the event. That still does not comply in any way with the DoHA mandated requirements prescribed in the documentation for submitting for funding of a Medicare Local.

Is BIGGER simply the BEST? How can a consortium, which will control some 700+  GPs over some 320+ practices, possibly provide, or even broker, the most effective and efficient health service to the 40,000+ people of the Southern Highlands?

From its own website description, the Sydney South West GP Link demonstrates and boasts that it is a business seeking "to trade nationally and internationally" and has expansionist aims. 

Do the health consumers in the Southern Highlands really want to compete with other health consumers in the national or international arena?  I think not!

 
History of the Division

"Macarthur Division of General Practice (MDGP) was established in August 1993 as an unincorporated association known at that time as Campbelltown Division of General Practice.

"MDGP was incorporated in 1994 as Macarthur Division of General Practice Inc.


"MDGP's first premises were in Campbelltown Hospital where the Division functioned essentially as part of the Campbelltown Health Service.


"In 1995, MDGP moved to office premises in the Campbelltown CBD area and to the present building in 1996.


"MDGP was also preceded by the unincorporated Macarthur General Practice Association (MGPA) whose main purpose was to provide an educational service for local GPs.

This body continued until 1998 when its role was formally taken over by MDGP.

"MDGP became a registered Company Limited by Guarantee as of 27th June 2005.

This enables the business to trade nationally and internationally as the company evolves.

"As of 1st July 2009, MDGP was successful in an open tender process, to run General Practice support services in the Liverpool and Fairfield regions. This effectively expanded the business of our support services to the Local Government Areas (LGAs) of Liverpool, Fairfield, Campbelltown, Camden and Wollondilly. Our catchment now includes some 600 General Practitioners working in over 280 practices across this large region.


"With our expansion, our members and stakeholders suggested a name change to better reflect the geographical regions we covered. 

"Also in late 2010 the Southern Highlands Division of General Practice (SHDGP) expressed a wish to merge with us in recognition that both organisations could better serve their members under one umbrella. 

"With these issues in mind, at an extra ordinary general meeting held on 30th June 2011, our Division changed its name to Sydney South West GP Link effective from 1st July 2011. 

"We continue to work with SHDGP to progress the merger."


Monday, June 6, 2011

SSWAHS = SWSLHD + SLHD and the Medicare Locals - 49

Socrates says that it would appear that someone in Nicola Roxon's office has gotten the message that in the Southern Highlands there was sufficient "Southern Dis-Comfort" about the way in which the Southern Highlands Division of General Practice has approached the whole concept of Medicare Locals.

Perhaps now, the Board and CEO of the Southern Highlands Division of General Practice will undertake the basic principle of the Medicare Locals funding parameters and commence to speak with the public and private healthcare providers in the area, and the NGOs, to develop a collaborative model of health care in the Southern Highlands. Then, and only then, will they comply with the basic requirements for funding. The clock is ticking... and by July 1st 2012, the SH Division of General Practice will cease to exist.

Strangely enough, someone seems to have objected to the re-publication of the information of this publicly available information from the Medical Observer in which their author reports the content of a media release of the successful tenderers for the first of the Medicare Locals.

One can only speculate about who that might be. Socrates has yet to be given the answer to that question, and to the other as to how a publicly issued media release and publication can allegedly infringe copyright......!?

Roxon unveils first Medicare Locals

6th Jun 2011 - Medical Observer
Byron Kaye   all articles by this author
THE first 15 Medicare Locals have been unveiled by Health Minister Nicola Roxon, however Victoria has been left off the list as the Baillieu Government holds out on wider health reform.

The first tranche of MLs are split between the states, with four successful tenders named in NSW and five in Queensland.

Victoria’s absence has led the AGPN to call on the Victorian divisions to put pressure the Baillieu Government to sign up to the reform as soon as possible.

Four MLs have been earmarked by the Federal Government for Victoria, however the Baillieu Government requested extra time to consider the ML boundaries in its state. It is expected the four will be officially announced next week.

The situation has led AGPN CEO David Butt to issue an email to all divisions – which MO has obtained – to explain the situation, which he describes as “disruptive and farcical”.

“While this means that these four will definitely go ahead as planned, it now leaves a level of uncertainty about potential boundary changes for other Victorian MLs,” Mr Butt wrote.

“By the end of last week, the Federal Government’s plan was to proceed with two additional MLs in Victoria. Unfortunately, we now no longer have that certainty.

“If any of you from Victoria can bring any pressure to bear on the Victorian Government to stop the delays and allow the primary healthcare reforms to get going, then please do so.”

Announcing the MLs, Health Minister Nicola Roxon said the first round of successful applicants were chosen for their established records in improving primary healthcare for their local community and strong plans to improve local primary care services into the future.

The successful applicants are as follows:
Comments:
SMS
6th Jun 2011
4:38pm
Nothing good will come out of this for the average gp .
I am going to retire .
Rob the Physician
6th Jun 2011
4:45pm
MORE political interference in OUR health systems !!! e
Gerard Matthew
6th Jun 2011
5:12pm
The public don't seem to get it. If you tax the people and give it back as "benefits" there is a huge cost of bureaucracy to administer it with another layer to monitor the adminstration with the result that much less really helps the people targeted for the "benefits". Too much money goes to bureaucracitic empires rather than to the people who really need it.
khanGP
6th Jun 2011
5:43pm
The Divisions of General purport to represent the Voice of its Members. In reality, they do not. They do not seek the Individual GP Members' points of View on Important Developments, by way of conducting regular FAX / E-MAIL Surveys. Surveys with simple Questions - eg. Tick a ' Yes ' or a ' No ' to the Question - ' Do you wish your Division to be involved with the formation of 'Medicare Locals ' ?
I challenge each Division to pose such a Question to its Members & find out for themselves, the TRUTH - i.e. The majority of GPs do not want their Division to be involved in the formation of ' Medicare Locals '.
GPs are inundated at work & do not have time to attend Meetings - a Quick FAX / E-MAIL Survey is the way to go.
I believe the Divisions & the AGPN have betrayed their GP Members.
DR. AHAD KHAN
G.P. GLENBROOK NSW
Biggles
6th Jun 2011
6:24pm
who knows whats a medicare local?

Ive been living 3 minutes from my surgery, usually know the names of most of the school captains and prefercts and the primary school etc etc, and have been into probably 1 in 4 houses in the district over the last 20 years - medicare could NEVER be that local... dream on.........
Dr T
6th Jun 2011
7:05pm
"You're not having any dessert unless you finish your greens!"

How typical of the federal government to wave a big at over Victoria. No, it's not a carrot. And David Butt is wrong. The states have the right to determine what happens with their state health dept funding. We still have state governments David. Until they do away with them the federal government is just the paymaster. The federal government would be acting inappropriately if it withheld primary care funding on the basis of state health decision making. Everyone knows that. Come on. 

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.

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.”

Monday, May 2, 2011

SWSLHN and Bowral's Health - 6

Drug company reveals extent of payments to doctors

2nd May 2011 - Medical Observer
 
Mark O’Brien   all articles by this author

GLAXOSMITHKLINE’S decision to reveal how much it has paid to Australian healthcare professionals for speaking and consulting services during the past 12 months has set the bar for other companies, according to Healthy Skepticism spokesman Dr Jon Jureidini.

The company has announced it will make its payments public by July and update the figures regularly in an effort to make its operations more transparent.

Dr Jureidini said he welcomed greater transparency in payments from pharmaceutical companies to health professionals but would reserve judgement on the effectiveness of the initiative until the details were published.
“I will be interested to see the quality of the information they release,” he said.
 “It influences the way we doctors behave if we are given money. That information needs to be available to people who need to make judgements about our potential conflicts of interest.”

GSK medical director Dr Camilla Chong said the company hoped the initiative would help the manufacturer build trust with the public.
“It is important for people to understand the work we do,” she said.
“Unless we are transparent, there will always be this cloud over the industry.”

Dr Chong said the company expected the information released would include all grants, donations, consultancy fees and sponsorships made to healthcare professionals for research programs, advisory committee work and educational projects.

The figures will be updated and made available publicly on a regular basis.

The initiative follows the introduction in recent years of public reporting of spending on educational events, hospitality and entertainment for prescribers by Medicines Australia member companies.

Generic manufacturers have since followed suit, with Generic Medicines Industry Association member companies recently revealing for the first time the extent of their own spending on non-price benefit promotion of their products.
 
Tags: GlaxoSmithKline, Dr Jon Jureidini, Healthy Skepticism, Dr Camilla Chong, payments to health care professionals

SWSLHN and Bowral's Health - 5

NPS GP Workshop photos!

22 GPs (and families) gathered at Coolangatta Estate near Shoalhaven Heads for a weekend workshop provided by NPS on "Prescribing for pain - acute, chronic and palliative" on 4 and 5 September 2010. Valuable sessions were provided by expert speakers as well as a case study by Dr p9040176.jpgp9040182.jpgp9040184.jpgParker and a "hypothetical" by Dr Grice. The photos explain...
 
 
 
 
 
 
p9040190_copy.jpgp9040194.jpg
 
 
p9040185_-_copy.jpg
 
p9040197_copy.jpg
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
p9040196.jpg
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
p9040198.jpg
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 p9040200.jpgp9040201.jpg
p9040205.jpg
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
p9040206_copy.jpgp9040210_-_copy.jpgp9040212.jpg
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
p9050213.jpg
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
p9050215.jpg
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

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.

Friday, April 22, 2011

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.

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

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

Sunday, April 17, 2011

SSWAHS = SWSLHN + SLHN and the Medicare Locals - 31

It seems that there have been almost as many leaks from Canberra about our pending May 2011 Federal Budget, as there have been with a cup of water in a sieve! Most attention has been on the scientific Research and Development grants which are expected to be chopped by the Federal government.

Most recent news has been the means testing for family allowances and child care, and health and education projects.

Let's make the suggestion now that, if health cuts are required, the Federal Government should, first of all as a matter of priority, consider stopping the roll out of the Medicare Locals ($500,000,000 savings) and the funding for the Local Health/Hospital Networks (LHNs) which are incorporated in the Federal-State governments funding agreement.

In NSW, which is the only State that may have implemented the LHNs since 1st January this year, it appears to have rolled them out on the promise of the funding. However, all the previous NSW government seems to have done is add another bureaucratic layer to an already over-corporatised health system.

As reported in this blog previously it would seem that the Federal government has already told the previous NSW state government to get rid of the LHNs that they have rushed to implement.

Obviously, if the Federal-State health budgets are going to be impacted by the soon to be announced Federal Budget cuts, then the funding for the not wanted LHNs will be top of the list.

If these obvious cuts are, in fact, brought into reality it would be up to the new coalition NSW State government to decide whether their State Budget can maintain the additional funds needed to support the LHNs and the state's Medicare Locals. Socrates's hope is that they recognise that the NSW population can do without the additional mis-management that such poorly run and poorly considered projects can introduce.

It would be hoped that both the Federal and NSW governments will see that some of the current applications for Medicare Locals from NSW are very short on the necessary community consultation and colloboration with other public and private healthcare providers. The latter is best exampled by the recent application by the Macarthur-Southern Highlands Division of General Practice consortium. The contrast has been the very extensive consultation and collaboration done by the Bankstown GP Division and their SWS Health Coalition.

Friday, April 15, 2011

SSWAHS = SWSLHN + SLHN and the Medicare Locals - 30

AGPN calls for more Medicare Locals to start in July
AGPN calls for more Medicare Locals to start in July

The AGPN is urging the Federal government to fast-track its plans for Medicare Locals after the first round was inundated with applications.

AGPN Chair Dr Emil Djakic is calling for more than the planned 15 Medicare Locals to be implemented in July after 58 bids were submitted from across the Divisions of General Practice.

Dr Djakic said that the high response rate proved the network was “willing to transform primary health care services”, although five Medicare Local areas did not attract any applications.

“The AGPN is urging the Federal government to support the commencement of as many as possible in this first round if more than 15 applications meet the eligibility requirements,” he said.

“The sooner these organisations can be established in communities across the country, the sooner the benefits to the local health system will flow to those communities.”

As reported in 6minutes, the application process has triggered disputes among some of the divisions who have been unhappy with the government’s planned boundaries for the Medicare Locals.

An independent mediator had to be called in to help resolve a row between the Sydney consortiums - the South West Health Coalition (SWSHC) and the Macarthur and Southern Highlands Divisions - who both submitted bids for a Medicare Local in the south west."

Socrates wishes good luck to the SWS Health Coalition in achieving the outcome they seek. Their preparation and community consultation places them poles apart from the secretive "Boards only" process adopted by their competitors. I hope that if the SWS Health Coalition is the successful applicant for the SWS Medicare Local, they will aim to expand their network to include the Wollondilly and Wingecarribee LGAs.

If the SWS Health Coalition can't extend their reach to the Southern Highlands area then perhaps they can give some good advice to the Macarthur and Southern Highlands Division about how they can improve their game. That is, of course, if those Divisions of General Practice retain their current funding. After all, the Medicare Locals are meant to replace the Divisions, are they not? And in the context of the proposed Budget constraints and cuts, perhaps a cut to the funding for Divisions of General Practice would be helpful.

SSWAHS = SWSLHN + SLHN and the Medicare Locals - 29

It would appear that Socrates is not alone in beginning to see that the concept of Divisions of General Practice should NOT be the fundholders to provide, purchase or even determine how the Medicare Local should direct how local health practitioners - private as well as public - should provide the health services to the residents in their jurisdictions.

The majority of general practitioners have indicated as much in this recent AMA survey of NSW members.

The question now could be asked: "If budget savings have to be made federally this year, should the government be putting $500,000,000 into a project that appears to have little support from the people who are meant to run the Medicare Locals. In fact, should the government be funding even those current Divisions of General Practice which are not even reflecting the beliefs of their members?"

You be the judge: Dump the yet to be accepted Medicare Locals project, or dump the scientific research programs that are known to deliver positive health outcomes for our country's, and the world's, population.

Results from first quarterly GP e-mail survey

There was an excellent response to our first single-issue email survey of GP members, with over 150 responses in 5 days. The full report can be found below.

The message seems clear – GPs are opposed to Medicare Locals as they are currently proposed.

Should they be established (as seems likely), Divisions should get involved in the tendering process but the roles of Medicare Locals should be limited to the types of things that Divisions currently do. GPs are strongly opposed to roles that include the provision or purchasing of health services.

Demographic Information

Question: Are you male or female?

Number who answered: 159

Male 103 65%
Female 56 35%

Question: Where is your practice located?

Number who answered: 159

Gosford, Newcastle, Sydney or Wollongong 97 61%
Rural / Regional 62 39%

Question: What age group are you in?

Number who answered: 159

Younger than 40
9 6%
40 to 49
29 18%
50 to 65
97 61%
Older than 65
24 15%

Question: What sort of practice do you work in?

Number who answered: 159

Solo GP
22
14%
Group practice
114
72%
Corporate
12
8%
Other answers
11
7%

Support for the AMA position and GP Divisions

Question: Do you support the AMA position on Medicare Locals?

Number who answered: 143

Yes No
123 20
86% 14%

Question: Do you support the concept of the replacement of GP Divisions with primary health care organisations?

Number who answered: 139

Yes No
40 99
29% 71%

Question: Do you support the continuation of Divisions?

Number who answered: 99

Yes No
75 24
76% 24%

Roles and management of Medicare Locals

Question: What roles should primary health care organisations undertake?

Number who answered: 134

Activities currently undertaken by Divisions 84 63%
Training for practice nurses and allied health practitioners 63 47%
Improving integration between primary care and hospital services
97 72%
Development of local primary health care policy 70 52%
Identification of gaps in local primary health care services 92 69%
Employment of nurses and allied health practitioners 35
26%
Provision of primary health care services 27 20%
Purchasing health services from GPs and other primary health practitioners 26 19%
Managing Commonwealth and/or State primary health care funding 27 20%
Other answers
15 11%

Question: Do you support Divisions tendering for the right to run Medicare Locals?

Number who answered: 134

Yes No
83 51
62% 38%

Tuesday, April 12, 2011

SSWAHS = SWSLHN + SLHN and the Medicare Locals - 27

With the close of the submission phase for the funding of the Medicare Locals perhaps it is timely for us to "go back to the future" and ask the bleeding obvious. Given that we have not had any discussion with, or debate from, the Macarthur-Southern Highlands Divisions of General Practice, is it pointless to expect that a Medicare Local, managed by the corporatised Macarthur-Southern Highlands Divisions of General Practice, will ever improve the health services the residents of both jurisdictions, seek. Sadly, Socrates, says "Yes, it is pointless".

What could have been a great step forward for health providers in the private and public sector, and the health consumers, to provide and access a cohesive, diverse and well funded point of contact and coordination, a future Medicare Local is unlikely to enhance any of the existing, or future, health and welfare services in the Southern Highlands. Just in the same way that the current Division of General Practice is failing to deliver the support and services expected, and required, by the general practitioners in the Southern Highlands.

What will we learn from the Medicare Locals tender documents?
Melissa Sweet

The tender documents for the first of the new primary health care organisations known as Medicare Locals are expected to be released any day now. Presumably, this is the place to keep an eye for them.

Dr Harry Hemley, president of the Australian Medical Association Victoria, has some questions about how they will work, as per his piece below.

Croakey has plenty of other questions too – including what will be their impact on the inverse care law, and population health more broadly? And will they entrench or address some of the problems associated with fee-for-service health care?

Are there better alternatives to Medicare Locals?

Dr Harry Hemley writes:

Prime Minister Gillard’s revised health proposal is an improvement on Kevin Rudd’s complicated hospital financing plan, with promises to deliver increased funds, more beds, transparency, greater clinical input and less red tape.

But the PM’s proposed expansion of Rudd’s Medicare Locals could prove a costly exercise without improving access to GPs and allied health providers in the community. So far Medicare Locals are mysterious bodies that promise to increase bureaucracy and reduce patient choice – not a wise investment if we’re striving to keep patients out of hospitals.

And given the current boundaries span hundreds of kilometres, they may not even be local.

Since the Commonwealth Government first announced Medicare Locals in April last year, health workers, consumers and even state government representatives have puzzled over their role and how they will work. And if these health care providers and bureaucrats are puzzled just imagine the need to provide clarity to the people who will be dependent upon the Medical Locals - the health consumers.

The health sector is awaiting the release of the tender documents from the Commonwealth that should make it clear what these new Medicare Locals will actually do. So far we have just been told that Medicare Locals will make things better, but not how.

We know they will provide (or maybe coordinate) after-hours care to communities and coordinate access to specialists and allied health professionals but we don’t know who will run them, whether they will offer health services, and whether they will be an improvement on current services. Socrates notes that none of these questions have been discussed with, let alone, described to, the local communities and service providers of the Southern Highlands and the Macarthur area by the respective Boards of the Divisions of General Practice.

With an initial price tag of almost half a billion dollars, this was an enormous cost for such vague objectives. We have been asked to take on Medicare Locals as an act of faith.

To justify such a cost, the Commonwealth needs to show how patient care will be improved with Medicare Locals. I’m yet to be convinced.

One of the biggest frustrations in primary care is patients’ difficulty getting an appointment to see a GP. There are no quick fixes to increase the supply of GPs – it takes around ten years for a GP to finish their training – and Medicare Locals are certainly not going to produce more GPs. In actual fact, given the primary care gatekeeper role that Medicare Locals will provide, it is conceivably possible that only those general practitioners and the Division of General Practice's "preferred" clinical practitioners will be receiving the referrals of patients from the Medicare Local.

My fear is that Medicare Locals could actually reduce patients’ ability to choose their health care provider. If a new central bureaucracy is in charge of rationing care and linking patients with providers, what is to stop them attempting to contain costs by referring the patient to the least expensive provider? Or only those practitioners who are in favor with the Division's "Medicare Local"

GPs currently coordinate the care of patients with chronic diseases such as diabetes, cancer and heart disease and the conditions that lead to these diseases like obesity. For a diabetic patient, for instance, their GP would oversee their care and coordinate the services of a diabetes nurse, a dietician, a podiatrist, and an endocrinologist. So what will change with a Medicare Local run by the Macarthur-Southern Highlands Divisions of General Practice?

There are flaws to this system but these would be fixed with minor adjustments, such as an increase in patient rebates to see their doctor, nurse or allied health practitioner, and better rebates for longer consultations. It’s not a system that requires a complete overhaul, especially when the alternative is care coordination on a bureaucratic scale. So, do we really need a Medicare Local - or would us having access (as we now do) to our preferred General Practitioner simply suffice? After all, not even the current Divisions of General Practice have the veracity and collegiate governance to inspire all general practitioners to want to join them! Will a Medicare Local be any better for the residents of the Southern Highlands? Do we even need a local Division of General Practice?

With extra funding for general practice clinics to take on additional nurses or expand their premises to accommodate extra psychologists, dieticians, other allied health providers (and even specialist doctors), patients with chronic diseases would see vast improvements.

Another cheaper and more effective way to improve the care coordination of a patient with complex medical needs is to fund care coordinators within primary care settings. This would ensure patients connected with all of the services they needed – meals on wheels, home help, their pharmacist and home nursing care – and allow their clinic-based doctors, nurses and allied health practitioners to spend more time seeing patients rather than organising services.

The PM has promised that access to after-hours medical care would improve with Medicare Locals. The plan is to establish an after-hours national call centre which can refer to a nearby after-hours clinic. This makes for a great announcement but it fails to address the problem: GPs are reluctant to open after hours because patient rebates barely cover the cost of opening, paying reception staff, hiring security guards and attracting practice nurses.

Again, some improvements to the current system would achieve better access for patients. With fair funding for general practice clinics to remain open after hours, patients would be able to visit the clinic of their choice at a time convenient to them.

Prime Minister Gillard has given herself and the states until the middle of the year (2011) to work out the details of the health deal. No level of tweaking can fix the problems with Medicare Locals. The whole concept – spending half a billion dollars to employ bureaucrats to coordinate the care of patients they’ve never seen – is flawed. The Prime Minister should consider simpler and more streamlined alternatives. It could even save millions of dollars. Given the current discussion about the severity of the proposed Budget cuts for existing programs to enable the Federal government to bring the Budget back into surplus, perhaps this is one program where the "less rather than more" principle can apply to the proposed Medicare Locals, especially here in the Southern Highlands and the Macarthur areas. Socrates would be happy to have no such Medicare Local, or even a Division of General Practice if it meant that other more worthwhile programs could continue to be funded.

Dr Harry Hemley is president of the Australian Medical Association Victoria