Doorstop AMA President, Dr Bill Glasson, Canberra - Medical indemnity crisis
GLASSON: I understand, this afternoon, the Minister has made a statement about the meeting this morning with various college groups and the AMA. I understand from that statement that there's an indication that the doctors said that they had a liability.
Can I suggest to you that I think the system has a liability rather than, actually, the doctors. As I keep saying, it's the wrong tax on the wrong doctors and on the wrong patients at the wrong time. And so, I suppose, it's a good starting point. However, from the meeting that we did have and I'd like to think that we can move forward from here to look, as I say, to a long-term sustainable solution, because the reality at the moment is that we have an unaffordable and broken medical indemnity system and what we'd like to see is the Government, to take this issue in hand, try and stabilise the situation with our doctors leaving the workforce and, as I said, come forward with proposals that will lead to a sustainable long-term solution.
JOURNALIST: Who should be paying for these medical indemnity claims, then?
GLASSON: Well, the reality is that we'd like to have the whole figure re-analysed. Our feeling is that the $420 million is very fudgy. We'd like, in fact, to have all the current notices withdrawn and, in fact, have a reassessment of the true liability probably in twelve months' time. And that's a discussion we're currently having with the Government.
JOURNALIST: But, isn't this effectively what will happen - they will do a recalculation on the actuals during the eighteen month moratorium?
GLASSON: Yes, essentially, that's what we'd like to happen. By the middle of next year, we feel that at that stage, it will be an appropriate time to actually re-analyse the value of that IBNR and then look at those doctors, specifically, that have got exceptional circumstances where they have either given up practice or where they have changed their practice considerably since June of 2000.
JOURNALIST: So, how many doctors will benefit from this moratorium, given that it's only above $1000?
GLASSON: Well, I mean, the number of doctors in high risk areas, will, when I say benefit, we've got a deferment here. But I'll reiterate the fact that we want to address the problem so we can find the solution. My concern here is that if we put this off we actually won't come up with a sustainable solution. So, I think the message from the profession out there ... are they are happy to actually have the figure re-analysed. There is a liability out there - we know. But, in reality, we'd like to make sure that if we're going to fund that liability, we can do it within the financial means of the practitioners that are currently out there.
JOURNALIST: Is it correct to say that 93 per cent of doctors have levies below $1000, so aren't really affected by today's decision?
GLASSON: Can I suggest to you that the majority of doctors who are currently walking out of public hospitals have liabilities in excess of $100,000 and it's these doctors who are walking with their feet, so to speak, and leaving the public hospital system. So it is the doctors at the top end of the system, those doctors who are paying $100,000 to $250,000 that are saying that this is unaffordable and they're not willing to put more money into the system that they say is broken, and I think that's the message that we're getting out there. This system is broken, it needs to be fixed. And that we need some method by which we can move forward on this issue.
JOURNALIST: So what's your estimate of the number of doctors who are helped or are affected or are included by today's decision?
GLASSON: I don't think anybody is necessarily helped. I suppose what it does signal to the doctors out there is the Government is acknowledging there is a problem - for the first time. And this is more than just a doctors problem, it's a patients problem, it's patients trying to access services in our public hospitals and so I think it's the acknowledgement that actually will send a clear signal to the profession that this Government is serious about trying to address it, and I want to make sure that the profession understands that the AMA will stand up on this issue and stand up on behalf of our patients until we can get an acceptable solution that we can take back to them that we can actually move forward on.
JOURNALIST: And how do you rate Tony Abbott in getting an early result on?
GLASSON: Well, I think Tony Abbott's very sharp. And in discussions I had with him today, I think, were very fruitful. I think he's a man that understands situations very quickly. And I'm hopeful that the health portfolio will move ahead and be given the profile that it should have in the context of the Australian population.
JOURNALIST: So, in summary, what's your summation of today's developments? Just enough, and just in the nick of time?
GLASSON: I think you're right. I think it's been positive, but I can't go back to my members and say that we've had an absolute positive outcome, at this stage. All I can say is that I want to give this new team time to settle in, a new team to come up with some reforms that are acceptable and so I suppose, hopeful that we can develop a good working relationship with this new team in the interests of the Australian population.
JOURNALIST: And in the meantime, these doctors in Sydney should go back to ...?
GLASSON: Well, the doctors in Sydney have to consider what we have on offer, at the moment. Now, it's not a lot, but all I can say to them is that I feel confident that Tony Abbott and his team will endeavour to address this issue. I do want to work constructively with him in trying to get an outcome in the interests of our doctors and our patients. And so hopefully, over the next week or so, I can come back to them with a much more constructive proposal.
Ends