The Australian Medical Association Limited and state AMA entities comply with the Privacy Act 1988. Please refer to the AMA Privacy Policy to understand our commitment to you and information on how we store and protect your data.

×

Search

×
01 Dec 2017

In response to the recommendations of the Hovarth Review into Medicare Locals (the Hovarth Review), the Government established 31 Primary Health Networks (PHNs) across Australia, commencing in July 2015. These replaced Medicare Locals (MLs) that were established by the previous Labor Government.

The fundamental purpose of PHNs is similar to that of their predecessors “to facilitate improvements in the primary health system, promote coordination and pursue integrated health care.” However, GPs are expected to play a more central role in PHNs than they did in MLs. PHNs are also expected to focus more on improving the linkages between primary and hospital care.[1][2]

In 2013, leading up to the Hovarth Review, the AMA conducted a survey of GP members to gauge their views on the performance of MLs. More than 1,200 GPs participated in that survey, with members particularly critical of  their engagement with GPs and the extent to which many had failed to help improve patient access to primary care services. This survey formed the basis of AMA submission to the Hovarth Review, which recommended significant reforms including a more central role for GPs.

The AMA recently conducted a similar survey to provide members with the opportunity to give us their views on the performance of PHNs to date. Participants were provided with a number of statements and, were asked to select the options (strongly agree, mostly agree, neither agree or disagree, mostly disagree, or strongly disagree) that best reflect their opinion.

A total of 399 GPs participated in the survey, which represents a much smaller sample size than the 2013 survey. Nonetheless, it does provide a snapshot of the views of those members who participated in the survey and the results should be used to provide helpful guidance on areas where PHNs need to increase their focus.  

The survey results are summarised as follows:

Understanding of the role and functions of PHNs:

  • 61.5 per cent of respondents indicated that they have a reasonable understanding of the role and functions of PHNs (comparative data is not available for MLs).
  •  Information about activities and services:
  • 47.9 per cent of GPs surveyed believe they have not been kept informed about the work their PHN is undertaking and the services it supports (48.9 per cent for MLs).
  • GPs access to information and events of relevance:
  • 51.4 per cent indicated that they have not been provided with information and access to events of relevance to day to day practice (57.8 per cent for MLs).
  • PHN engagement with local GPs:
  • 62.6 per cent indicated that their PHN had failed to engage and listen to them about the design of health services needed in the local area (68.8 per cent for MLs).
  • Practice staff access to useful and effective education and resources:
  • 46.3 per cent of GPs surveyed indicated that their practice staff have not been provided with access to useful and effective education and resources (comparative data is not available for MLs).
  • Valuing GP contribution:
  • 52.8 per cent believed that their PHN does not value or recognise the inputs of local GPs (60.8 per cent for MLs).
  • Timing of meetings and information sessions:
  • 46.1 per cent indicated that their PHN was holding meetings and information sessions at times that were not easily attended (52.4 per cent for MLs).
  • Supporting targeted programs for disadvantaged groups:
  • 50.6 per cent indicated that their PHN has not been supporting well targeted programs that could help patients, particularly those who are disadvantaged (comparative data is not available for MLs).
  • Facilitating services that complement existing general practice:
  • 52.8 per cent indicated their PHN is not focused on facilitating services that complement existing general practice services s (comparative data is not available for MLs).
  • Practice support for MyHealth Record:
  • 57.4 per cent indicated that their PHN had not provided effective support for practices to implement the MyHealth Record (56.6 per cent for MLs re PCEHR).
  • Access to psychological services:
  • 48.0 per cent indicated that their PHN had failed to improve patients’ access to psychological services (48.9 per cent for MLs regarding improved Access to Allied Psychological Services (ATAPS)).
  • Accessible mental health services for ATSI patients:
  • 35.5 per cent of GPs surveyed indicated that their PHN had not facilitated appropriately funded and accessible services to meet the mental health care of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander (ATSI) patients (comparative data is not available for MLs).
  • Delivery of mental health and suicide prevention services and supports to ATSI patients:
  • 43.3 per cent of GPs surveyed indicated that their PHN had not been able to improve the delivery of mental health and suicide prevention services and support to ATSI patients (comparative data is not available for MLs).
  • Access to services for patients requiring mental health care, but who are not eligible for National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) packages:
  • 52.7 per cent indicated that their PHN had been ineffective in facilitating for the needs of patients requiring mental health care, but who are not eligible for NDIS packages (comparative data is not available for MLs).
  • Psycho-social supports for patients with mental health problems:
  • 55.9 per cent indicated that their PHN had been unable to ensure effective and timely psycho-social supports to patients with mental health problems (comparative data is not available for MLs).
  • Overall PHN performance:
  • 58.0 per cent indicated that their PHN had not improved local access to care for patients (73.0 per cent for MLs).
  • Overall delivery of primary care:
  • 62.6 per cent indicated that their PHN had not improved the capacity to deliver better quality healthcare overall (71.6 per cent for MLs).

PHNs have an important role to play in improving the integration of health services within primary health care, enhancing the interface between primary care and hospitals, and ensuring health services are tailored to the needs of local communities. They have the potential to have a strong impact on aged care services, mental health outcomes, chronic disease management, Indigenous health services, and services for the disadvantaged.  

The AMA believes that for PHNs to be successful they must: have a clear purpose, with clearly defined objectives and performance expectations; be GP-led and locally responsive; focus on supporting GPs in caring for patients and working collaboratively with other health care professionals; have strong skills based Boards; be appropriately funded to support their operations, particularly those that support the provision of clinical services; focus on addressing service gaps, not replicating existing services; not be overburdened with excessive paperwork and policy prescription; and be aligned with Local Hospital Networks (LHNs), with a strong emphasis on improving the primary care/hospital interface. [3]

They should focus on the following areas:

  • Population Health - Identifying community health needs and gaps in service delivery; identifying at-risk groups; supporting existing services to address preventive health needs; and coordinating end of life care.
  • Building General Practice Capacity - Supporting general practice infrastructure to deliver quality primary care through IT support; education and training of practices and staff; supporting quality prescribing; training to support the use of e-Health technology and systems; enhancing practices capacity and capabilities to embrace the principles in being a medical home to their patients, and facilitating the provision of evidence-based multidisciplinary team care.
  • Engaging with Local Hospital Networks (LHNs)/Districts - Identifying high risk groups and developing appropriate models of care to address their specific health issues (e.g. those at high risk of readmissions, including non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus, congestive cardiac failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and other chronic diseases); and improving system integration in conjunction with local health networks.[4]

Given that PHNs are still a relatively new feature on primary care landscape, the jury is still out on the performance of PHNs. The AMA believes that they should be given every chance to succeed and intends conducting the same survey in a couple of years’ time to see how much of a difference they are making for GPs and their patients.

Dr Moe Mahat
Manager Policy
AMA General Practice Section



[1]Ducket et al (2015) Leading change in primary care: Boards of PHNs can improve the Australian health care system.

[2] Prof. John Hovarth AO (2014) Review of Medicare Locals: Report to Minister for Health and Minister for Sport.

[3] AMA Position statement Primary Health Networks 2015  https://ama.com.au/position-statement/primary-health-networks

[4] Op Cit.


Published: 01 Dec 2017