Like the rest of the nation, we are still waiting to see who will form minority Government following the tightest election since 1961.

Regardless of the outcome, there is no doubt about the level of influence that the AMA had on health policy leading into and during the election campaign

Our Key Health Issues document and our regular media commentary on the election commitments not only helped shape the major parties’ policies, it influenced the media and public reaction to those policies.

The important thing for the AMA is that we remained engaged with both sides of politics. We had direct contact with Prime Minister Gillard, Opposition Leader Abbott, Health Minister Roxon, Shadow Health Minister Dutton, and their advisers. As a result, we had more influence on the health policies of both sides of politics than any other organisation leading up to the election.

The AMA’s policy and advocacy was clearly reflected in the best of Labor’s health platform.

We influenced Labor proposals to achieve better clarity and transparency of Commonwealth and State Government funding commitments to various parts of the health system.

Our influence secured a significant funding commitment for additional medical workforce training places.

We obtained a commitment for representation of doctors in governance and decision making at all levels in the health system.

Labor agreed there is a need to have more transparent and nationally consistent performance monitoring of public hospitals to keep Sate Governments honest and accountable.

The AMA secured a sensible approach to activity-based funding for public hospitals that takes into account the need for different funding mechanisms for small and rural hospitals.

We won a commitment to 1300 additional sub-acute care beds.

We won a commitment to additional capital funding for hospital infrastructure improvements.

And we negotiated the introduction of a sensible and safe framework for collaborative care with midwives and nurse practitioners.

Meanwhile, the Coalition health policy during the election mirrored key priorities of the AMA, especially in regard to general practice, hospital beds and local boards.

We influenced the Coalition proposals to retain and increase existing fee for service and PIP for after hours GP and practice nurse services.

We influenced the Coalition commitment to provide additional infrastructure grants to GP practices instead of investing in new GP Super Clinics.

We won Coalition support for our plan to enhance care for patients with chronic disease through increased rebates for longer consultations and reduced red tape, rather than introduce capitated payment for diabetes care.

The Coalition was strongly guided in its commitment to invest in 2800 new public hospital beds by the AMA’s continuous call over many years for specific funding to increase the capacity of public hospitals by funding extra beds.

And they responded to our continued calls for significant additional investment in mental health.

Throughout the election period, the AMA was regularly asked by the media to comment on individual policies and to compare offerings between parties.

We regularly provided comment on specific policy proposals and announcements, using our own policy document as our benchmark in assessing the pros and cons of what was being proposed.

Labor in Government invested significantly in a research and consultation process to study what the problems are in our health system and where we need to go to improve them.

They put together commissions and taskforces and then toured the country to hear from the coalface what the problems were. So it's not surprising that their election platform was all about fundamental and ambitious projects for health reform in this country.

The Coalition’s health package was more targeted to smaller and more specific areas of the health system where they'd identified things that weren't working well and they could build on existing structures, rather than involving themselves in a more ambitious reform agenda.

There are a lot of doctors who are very excited by a commitment to make some fundamental changes to a health system that is really creaking at the seams.

On the other hand, there are those, especially our general practitioners, who have been complaining for years that the current system needs to be enhanced, not reformed, to allow them to deliver good health care.

The same could be said of voter expectations – big reform or incremental reform?

Whatever the case, the AMA put forward strong evidence-based views on what would work and what wouldn’t.

Looking at a minority Government, powerful Independents, and a very changed political landscape in Canberra, there is going to be a crying need for a very engaged and very influential AMA over the next few years.

What do you think about the priorities and possibilities for health reform over the next three years under a minority Government led by either Labor or the Coalition?