AMA steps up campaign to have COAG National Registration Plan scrapped

This comes on top of AMA meetings with politicians and officials at the Federal and State/Territory levels pushing the AMA's preferred model, which maintains separate registration and accreditation for each of the health professions while allowing greater mobility and portability for health professionals.

It also follows confirmation of Federal Government support for the AMA position in a speech by Health Minister, Tony Abbott, last Friday, in which he said '...it now seems that the best way forward is to have separate national registration boards for medicine and for each of the other health professions, supported by profession-specific committees in each of the States and Territories".

AMA President, Dr Mukesh Haikerwal, said today that the AMA position has the broad support of the medical profession, and the majority of other health professionals support the direction of the AMA proposals.

"In the interests of maintaining access to quality medical care for all Australians, it is vital that the State and Territory Governments see the danger in their plan and scrap it before it is too late," Dr Haikerwal said.

"The States and Territories are using COAG to pursue a system that neglects the many and varied distinct skills of each of the health professions.

"None of the professions is substitutable or replaceable - each has its unique and proud place within our healthcare teams. And each works with the others collaboratively in the interests of our ultimate goal, which is the good health of the patients in our care.

"The States' proposal threatens the safety and quality and professionalism of health care in Australia. It must be stopped."

The current COAG proposal involves creating a single national registration and accreditation system for doctors, dentists, nurses, optometrists, chiropractors, physiotherapists, pharmacists, psychologists and osteopaths.

Dr Haikerwal said the AMA, at Federal and State/Territory levels, will be urging all governments to scrap the current proposal and get behind the lead of the Federal Government in seeking a system that is best for patients.

AMA letter to the Prime Minister re national registration and accreditation

Dear Prime Minister

Re: Proposal for a national registration and accreditation scheme for health professionals

I am writing to you on these very important matters, which are to be discussed at the Council of Australian Governments' (COAG) meeting in April 2007.

The AMA believes the course that COAG is taking is the wrong one. It is a course that will lower the quality of medical care and the equity of access to quality medical care for the Australian people.

No Australian government would want to endure another scandal like the situation that occurred in Bundaberg with Dr Patel. But that is the risk with the current proposal.

The AMA has developed an alternative proposal. It offers a win/win/win solution if COAG chooses to take it.

The win for COAG is that it achieves national registration and accreditation of training for all nine health professional groups.

The win for the professions is that they have improved portability, national consistency of processes and retention of autonomy.

The win for Australian patients and communities is a quality skilled health workforce to serve their needs.

The medical profession suggested a move to national medical registration more than five years ago. In 2003, a model of national medical registration based on the harmonisation of State medical registration was achieved. Had this process not stalled in the legislative drafting stage, it could have been achieved by now.

The medical profession supports a model of national recognition of registration for health professionals which has:

• 1.A National Medical Registration Board (and similar Boards for the other eight professions), established under uniform legislation across all States with responsibility for development and maintenance of nationally applicable registration standards and processes for the medical profession, and which advises Health Ministers directly.
  
• 2.A Medical State/Territory Council in each State to actually carry out the regular functions of a current State/Territory Medical Board in accordance with national medical registration standards as determined by the National Medical Registration Board.
  
• 3.A National Health Registry with responsibility for the development and maintenance of separate national registers for the nine health professions. Such a Registry would have staff with expertise in large national database systems rather than professional standards issues.

In the case of the medical profession, we already have national accreditation of training arrangements through the Australian Medical Council (AMC). In our opinion, this Council works well and should not be disturbed or have its access to the Minister for Health and Ageing curtailed. We believe that, with some small adjustments, the AMC could carry out the role of the National Medical Registration Board and the National Medical Accreditation body.

These views represent the views of the medical profession broadly. We believe a majority of the other health professionals would support the broad direction of our proposals.

Australia's health workforce is the backbone of the health system. COAG should not and must not pursue a scheme that attacks the professionalism of doctors and discourages the personal commitment of medical practitioners to higher standards of care to benefit their patients.

Yours sincerely

Dr Mukesh Haikerwal
President