Doorstop AMA President, Dr Bill Glasson, Parliament House, Canberra - AMA has called on the political parties to present health policies that can be evaluated fully by the community; Free Trade Agreement; upcoming Federal election

And the first issue I've obviously highlighted was the importance of organ donations.  I've indicated that the best political legacy they can leave the Australian public is probably leave their bodies in the form of getting them to sign this organ donation form.

In the last few weeks we've had something like four and a half thousand people sign up Australia-wide to donate their organs to help people who are often in pain and suffering, and remember that each of you who donate can help something like 32 other people.  So I'd like to think the politicians can provide the leadership in that area, and we've asked them to sign as of today.

Obviously this year is an important year.  It's an election year and we raise issues around both the Medicare policies and issues around the workforce.  And in reality this whole election I feel in the area of health will be won or lost on health and will be won or lost on the policies around really how they're going to address this workforce shortage both in specialist and general practice areas.

And so we put the challenge to them and obviously we would like to think that we can have a number of parameters on which we can assess their policies in an objective way so that we can go back to the Australian public saying, well look, this particular policy will be in the best interests of your health and the best interests of preserving the high quality of general practice and specialist practice that we have traditionally had access to in this country.

So I suppose that's the broad message we got out there and hopefully, as I said, we'll get some response from them over the next few weeks.

QUESTION:      In terms of the Medicare package, it appears the Democrats may almost have sealed a deal but now the Government may be looking with the Independents.  What's your reaction to that?

GLASSON:       Look, we understand there's a lot of to-ing and fro-ing between the Democrats and Independents.  As you know, we've got a particular view that the safety net is very important.  It's very important for those people for those people who fall through the cracks.  And so, if a deal could be struck, it would be good.  I'd like to think that we don't have to sell our soul necessarily to do the deal.

And what I asked both the Labor Party and Independents and Greens, listen give this a run before the next election.  If it doesn't stack up, if it's not saleable, then obviously that can be profiled and highlighted at the election.  But if you just block it, in a sense the Australian public won't have the opportunity to experience it, to see how it really helps them from the point of view of affordability.  And so I think please give it a run.

QUESTION:      Just preference for the Democrats or the Independents deal?

GLASSON:       Not really.  At the end of the day it's being done behind closed doors.  There are issues around trying to get some access to improved allied health services.  We have obviously been highlighting the needs in the area of dentistry.  We think that's the area that the Independents and Greens should be targeting because in Australia the instance of dental decay and the costs associated with that in on-going medical problems is significant.

So a dollar spent in saving someone's teeth is often $5 saved further down the line in the cost to the Medicare system.

QUESTION:      Independent Senator, Len Harris, this morning said that there's only about $40 million in it.  Do you think Tony Abbott's just being pig-headed in not agreeing to that amount straight out?

GLASSON:       I'm not quite sure what the basis of the deal is.  So it's difficult to comment on that.  I mean if it's only $40 million, I'm sure Mr Abbott would come to the party.  Unfortunately we haven't sort of been on the inner so far as what the basis of the deal is.  And so, but I think at the end of the day, as I say, whether this is around supporting allied health, I'm not sure. 

But in reality we'd like to think it probably is broader from the point of view of supporting dentistry rather than necessarily bringing in a lot of allied health numbers, I suppose, across the system which may not necessarily deliver an improved health outcome, at least in the short term.

QUESTION:      Have you had a chance to have a look at or be briefed on the free trade agreement full text and, if so, do you have any concerns over the PBS?

GLASSON:       No, I haven't.  I have not seen the final sort of draft or details of that, of the PBS, of the free trade agreement, how it impacts on the PBS.  As you know, the PBS we said is not to be touched.  There are certain, I understand, implications in this free trade agreement as far as trying to review or have a mechanism when drugs are directed, are failed to be accepted on to the PBS, that there's a mechanism by which that can be reviewed.

Now I'd like to think that that is no way undermining the PBS and importantly not putting extra costs, unnecessary costs on the PBS because, as we said, the PBS is a very important aspect of the health system in this country.  It's a part of the health system that many countries around the world would like to emulate, and we certainly - the AMA and the medical profession and the community, to make very clear - do not want that PBS touched.

QUESTION:      So you have no problem with an internal review mechanism that would be available to drug companies?

GLASSON:       Yes, I mean as long as the internal review process doesn't mean that we somehow undermine the thrust of what the PBS is about.  If it means more expensive drugs, and it means less accessibility to the average Australian to drugs in this country, then we obviously wouldn't support it.

We have to have a system where drugs are affordable, that you and I with our children, or you and I with our grandparents are often on multiple drugs, don't have to go to the pharmacist and say, listen I can only afford two drugs.  Can you decide which two, and the other five I can't afford.  That's not good medicine.  That will cost the community more in the long term.

So please, let's fund this system properly because at the end of the day it will save us money in the long term.

QUESTION:      I don't want to put you on the spot, but can I quote something from the free trade agreement?

GLASSON:       Yes, certainly.

QUESTION:      Which is, 'Australia shall provide opportunities to apply for an adjustment to a reimbursement now.'

GLASSON:       I think that would probably relate to the current contract price that the Australian Government secures for various drugs.  And I presume that means that that may cost us more money.  I'd like - this is a worry.  Obviously if we put more pressure on this system unnecessarily and continue to fill the pockets of drug companies at the expense of the quality of health that the average Australian can access, then we wouldn't support it.

And so, I think the answer to the question is I would have concerns about any mechanism by which the Australian taxpayer has to pay more into a drug company's pocket.

QUESTION:      Doctor, why did you then welcome the FTA on the day that it was announced?  Was this after you had assurances from the Health Minister that there was no change whatever?  Did you accept those assurances from Tony Abbott?

GLASSON:       Look, when the draft was announced, we had little details of exactly what the implications were for the PBS.  We did have a reassurance, as you say, or semi-reassurance.  But we had no details, and nobody had any details.  And so we still don't have details really, and they're still very sketchy.

So we are still very guarded obviously about the impact that this will have.  And once we see the fine detail and see how it will impact on the access to drugs in this country, we can come out and give a more informed, I supposed, response.

QUESTION:      Do you feel mislead by the Government over this?

GLASSON:       Well no, no I don't.  I think at the end of the day, no one's actually seen the detail.  I think a lot of the, probably, the government members themselves have been commenting with really not having seen the fine detail of this agreement.  So I suppose until we see the fine details, then I'd prefer to say, listen, just to send a clear message that the PBS is not to be touched in the sense of undermining the principle of universal access to affordable drugs in this country.  And if there's any move to undermine that, then obviously the AMA and certainly the medical profession would be the first ones to be kicking up a stink.

Thank you.

Ends