Dr Kerryn Phelps, AMA President, Sydney

PHELPS: The situation was inevitable but we're now facing the potential catastrophe that was bound to arise from this issue unless we see a coordinated response from governments and we need to see it soon because essential health services are now at risk.

QUESTION: Will doctors continue practising if they can't get cover?

PHELPS: If doctors can't get cover they can't keep practising because their registration depends on having comprehensive cover. The other thing that is important to know is that doctors are at risk of bankruptcy if they are to be sued without insurance cover.

QUESTION: So what should happen now? Is it still up to the Federal Government to bail out UMP?

PHELPS: We have to look to the Federal Government. The State Government in New South Wales has done all it can but this is a national crisis, it crosses state boundaries. Of course, it's worse in New South Wales because that's where UMP covers the most doctors but UMP also covers doctors right around Australia and about 60% of Australia's doctors are covered by the one insurance indemnity provider.

QUESTION: The Federal Government though appears to be standing firm and are saying that they will not add to the $35 million they've already- -

PHELPS: The Federal Government has made a couple of statements. One is that they're not going to provide any further support for UMP as it was but they did say that they'd work with the administrators once they're appointed and they have said that they wouldn't allow essential services to be affected. Now, you can't on the one hand say they're going to do nothing further and on the other hand say that they're not going to allow services to suffer because services will suffer. It will happen from today unless we get a very rapid and effective response from Federal Government.

QUESTION: The Federal Government has just given an assurance that doctors' services won't be disrupted. You're saying they will. Who do we believe?

PHELPS: There's a great deal of uncertainty. We hope that we can believe the Federal Government when they say that essential health services won't be disrupted. What I've heard in preliminary information that I have is that certain groups of doctors will not be able to work as of today until they get assurances as to what is happening. It's not good enough for them to go to work with the risk hanging over their heads of the possibility of something going wrong and then being sued without insurance cover.

QUESTION: So what groups of doctors are they and how many?

PHELPS: The neurosurgeons have indicated that they're very concerned and that would be all of the privately working neurosurgeons in certainly New South Wales. I haven't heard from all of the doctors' groups at this stage but what I do know is that there is a tremendous amount of insecurity, a great deal of uncertainty. The Federal Government needs to have a plan in place, I would say within the next 24 hours, unless they're expecting to lose those essential services they say that we won't lose.

QUESTION: So if there isn't a plan in place that quickly, what will happen as of tomorrow?

PHELPS: I think doctors are going to have no choice but to stop working in those high risk areas until they have some degree of certainty and that certainty requires a plan to be articulated by the Federal Government which is acceptable to the medical profession and to the community because at the moment patients who have suffered from medical accidents will not be covered.

QUESTION: So what percentage of doctors do you honestly believe will close down in the next 24 hours if there's no action?

PHELPS: It's hard to talk about percentages and I don't want to go into panic mode here but we do need to take a very sensible and measured approach to this. The AMA has been working with government over some months in putting forward short and long term solutions. The medical indemnity summit last week came up with a good range of long term solutions and every state and territory government has committed to those solutions.

What we need to see now is a short term plan that will save essential services in the short term, as in today, tomorrow and next week.

QUESTION: So are patients' lives at risk? If there are patients out there that need urgent or emergency treatment?

PHELPS: Public hospital services will continue because we have cover for the doctors working with public patients in public hospitals but there will be an increased load on the public sector if private sector medicine is unable to continue working even in the short term.

QUESTION: Do you think they could be turned away from surgery within the next day?

PHELPS: There could be a problem with non-emergency surgery but there's no question that doctors will continue to provide emergency services for their patients.

QUESTION: But will they be putting themselves at risk when they do that?

PHELPS: Doctors won't be putting themselves at risk in the public sector in public hospitals because they are covered for that under the Treasury-managed funds plan of the New South Wales Government and in other states as well that applies so I think that anybody who needs urgent medical treatment of an emergency nature over the next days and weeks, that will be available to them.

Of concern is what happens now with less urgent treatment and also the backlog of cases that will now come unless we get a solution and the solution has to come quickly, we can't really afford to twiddle our thumbs on this one.

QUESTION: What do you perceive the solution to be?

PHELPS: I don't want to pre-empt a solution but we do need to see an indication of government support particularly for cases that may have been in train for some time and for incidents that happen from today on. And unless we get some form of plan that is put into place to guarantee that certainty, then we're going to be in a very insecure situation.

QUESTION: What advice is the AMA giving to doctors who are affected by today's decision?

PHELPS: A lot of doctors have been looking at other indemnity-providers over recent times and the doctors who are not able to get cover from other providers have no choice but to just sit tight and wait until we get an announcement from government which we're hoping will come within the next day or two.

QUESTION: Is all of this just an indication that the government needed to act a lot earlier?

PHELPS: I don't think that we can really have the luxury of if-onlys. This was an inevitable situation. We saw it coming and we indicated to government that it was coming and we've moved as quickly as we possibly could. The state governments are only now starting to look at the importance of tort law reform. The Federal Government, I think, needs to act very quickly now. The crisis is upon us.

Ends