The start of a new year, in conjunction with the appointment of a new federal health minister, raises hope. An agenda of important health matters awaits her attention.
Incoming Health Minister Sussan Ley takes up her portfolio with strong professional experience in guiding education policy through community consultation in city and country. These skills should serve her well in the health portfolio.
Related News: 6 questions for the new health minister
First, however, the ground must be cleared of the wreckage of the co-payment proposal.
Driven by ideology, uninformed by policy or accurate analysis of the health system, it was always going to be a debacle. In its latest manifestation, the co-payment plan, which will see doctors forego income, is festooned with a host of confusing exceptions.
Beyond this ‘Medimuddle', there are actions of far greater substance needed to help secure the future of healthcare in Australia.
Related News: The new co-pay plan: full details
First, energy should be applied to clarifying for all the purpose of the health system and explaining how it has come to be. We need a narrative about why we invest public money in healthcare. We pay for Medicare to meet the needs of all Australians.
The equity thing — a ‘fair go' — is an honoured Australian value. When it comes to healthcare, those who can pay more do so already. We recognise that much illness can strike anyone, and we seek to help those who get sick or injured. That's the story of us, but we need to hear it retold quite often.
Chatter about the necessity for an additional price signal for healthcare, on top of the ones we have already, has never made sense.
We aim for a universally accessible system because as a society we care about the health of all our citizens. We care and value equity.
We are a remarkably altruistic community and we do not neglect those who need care simply because they are poor. We placed many wreaths recently because we care. This narrative needs to be clarified, corrected and repeated.
Second, because money does matter in health, waste should be rooted out. The principal areas of waste in healthcare are attributable to archaic management, most notably failure to apply IT where we can. Yes, we have done well in bringing the computer into the surgery and ward, and into pathology and radiology services. But there is so much more we can do to unite the fragments of healthcare by wiring them together.
Then there is the matter of lots of medical and hospital care provided in the face of evidence that it does no good or is unnecessary. The unnecessary parts should not be confused with humane care or time spent in doctor—patient communication, and in showing concern and compassion. That's quite different.
Waste is not simply a matter of too much hi-tech machinery, but as was shown decades ago, the accumulated waste of doing and repeating far too many small-ticket investigations and prescribing little dollops of unnecessary medication (and this still includes unneeded antibiotics).
Waste is also to be found in the overpricing of generic pharmaceuticals where we continue to pay considerably more for many generics than is the case in, say, Canada.
To tackle this waste will require political skill in negotiating and implementing policy, because professional groups often become vigilant and aggressive custodians of the waste product and the income it generates.
Third, repair work is needed in general practice, especially where the co-payment train wreck blocks the tracks.
There is an urgent need to reduce red tape and improve quality of care in general practice, and to increase its availability in rural and regional Australia and on the edges of our cities.
Most economically advanced countries now recognise the critical importance of general practice in providing co-ordinated care and a medical home for the growing number of people with chronic health problems.
Damage to primary care harms both patients and the bottom line of the national health budget.
Health has many determinants — education, income, environment, diet, genes — and the healthcare system is complex. But these features are no excuse for the substitution of ideology and thought bubbles for a careful and steady approach to the changes needed to secure quality healthcare for all Australians.
Let 2015 be the year when health policy that enables this to occur reappears and is implemented.
Professor Leeder is an emeritus professor of public health and community medicine at the Menzies Centre for Health Policy in the University of Sydney.
Published in Australian Doctor 19 January 2015 http://bit.ly/1J1CHeH
Incoming Health Minister Sussan Ley takes up her portfolio with strong professional experience in guiding education policy through community consultation in city and country. These skills should serve her well in the health portfolio.
Related News: 6 questions for the new health minister
First, however, the ground must be cleared of the wreckage of the co-payment proposal.
Driven by ideology, uninformed by policy or accurate analysis of the health system, it was always going to be a debacle. In its latest manifestation, the co-payment plan, which will see doctors forego income, is festooned with a host of confusing exceptions.
It looks like a Scandinavian assemble-it-yourself gazebo built without instructions or an allen key.But unfortunately it is no joke. Were it to quietly disappear, a sigh of relief would be heard across the land. However, it is proceeding amid a storm of justifiable anger from GPs.
Beyond this ‘Medimuddle', there are actions of far greater substance needed to help secure the future of healthcare in Australia.
Related News: The new co-pay plan: full details
First, energy should be applied to clarifying for all the purpose of the health system and explaining how it has come to be. We need a narrative about why we invest public money in healthcare. We pay for Medicare to meet the needs of all Australians.
The equity thing — a ‘fair go' — is an honoured Australian value. When it comes to healthcare, those who can pay more do so already. We recognise that much illness can strike anyone, and we seek to help those who get sick or injured. That's the story of us, but we need to hear it retold quite often.
Chatter about the necessity for an additional price signal for healthcare, on top of the ones we have already, has never made sense.
We aim for a universally accessible system because as a society we care about the health of all our citizens. We care and value equity.
We are a remarkably altruistic community and we do not neglect those who need care simply because they are poor. We placed many wreaths recently because we care. This narrative needs to be clarified, corrected and repeated.
Second, because money does matter in health, waste should be rooted out. The principal areas of waste in healthcare are attributable to archaic management, most notably failure to apply IT where we can. Yes, we have done well in bringing the computer into the surgery and ward, and into pathology and radiology services. But there is so much more we can do to unite the fragments of healthcare by wiring them together.
Then there is the matter of lots of medical and hospital care provided in the face of evidence that it does no good or is unnecessary. The unnecessary parts should not be confused with humane care or time spent in doctor—patient communication, and in showing concern and compassion. That's quite different.
Waste is not simply a matter of too much hi-tech machinery, but as was shown decades ago, the accumulated waste of doing and repeating far too many small-ticket investigations and prescribing little dollops of unnecessary medication (and this still includes unneeded antibiotics).
Waste is also to be found in the overpricing of generic pharmaceuticals where we continue to pay considerably more for many generics than is the case in, say, Canada.
To tackle this waste will require political skill in negotiating and implementing policy, because professional groups often become vigilant and aggressive custodians of the waste product and the income it generates.
Third, repair work is needed in general practice, especially where the co-payment train wreck blocks the tracks.
There is an urgent need to reduce red tape and improve quality of care in general practice, and to increase its availability in rural and regional Australia and on the edges of our cities.
Most economically advanced countries now recognise the critical importance of general practice in providing co-ordinated care and a medical home for the growing number of people with chronic health problems.
Damage to primary care harms both patients and the bottom line of the national health budget.
Health has many determinants — education, income, environment, diet, genes — and the healthcare system is complex. But these features are no excuse for the substitution of ideology and thought bubbles for a careful and steady approach to the changes needed to secure quality healthcare for all Australians.
Let 2015 be the year when health policy that enables this to occur reappears and is implemented.
Professor Leeder is an emeritus professor of public health and community medicine at the Menzies Centre for Health Policy in the University of Sydney.
Published in Australian Doctor 19 January 2015 http://bit.ly/1J1CHeH
Thanks meant for sharing this type of satisfying opinion, written piece is fastidious, that’s why I’ve read it completely.Ernest Caracter
ReplyDeleteWell written post and you are giving good information to readers.
ReplyDeleteHome Health Aide | Houston, Dallas, Athens, Beaumont
The quality of your blogs and conjointly the articles and price appreciating.health-report.be
ReplyDeleteGood blog along with the excellent quality stuff and I’m sure this will be greatly helpful.Juicer Fanatics
ReplyDeleteThe writer understand better the mind of people what they want to learn through their writing therefore this article is outstanding. Thanks!!!theflexbeltlab.com
ReplyDeleteThis is really good information just what I needed. love the way your blog help me improve. Thanks again for your Blog.Best Juicer .
ReplyDelete