Health Minister Abbott and AMA President Dr Haikerwal Media Conference on IFC - Transcript

This is the coming together of the drive of the Minister and the commitment of the Government to private health insurance. And of the AMA to ensure that doctors have all the tools to do the right thing by their patients. It's very important the patients know what to expect in terms of doctors' fees up front. And this is to make sure that they have every opportunity for that to happen.

Our aim is to make sure we get our rates of consent around medical procedures up from the current 81-plus per cent, and we believe with elective surgical procedures and elective hospital admissions, we can get pretty much near to the 100 per cent. We've done our bit, the Government's done its bit, and I think it's time that other people, including the insurers, do their bit. Minister…

TONY ABBOTT: Thanks, Mukesh. Well, I'm very pleased to be here to help launch this AMA campaign. I'm delighted to be able to co-sign the letter with Mukesh, which is now going to go out to about 54,000 doctors around Australia. I'm pleased that the Government has been able to assist the AMA with this campaign to the tune of almost $300,000. It is, as Mukesh says, very important that every patient undergoing an elective procedure has the opportunity to provide informed financial consent.

We don't normally take our car to the garage without getting an estimate of what it's going to cost.

We don't normally get plumbing and electrical work done without having at least some idea in advance as to what it might cost. And it's only fair and reasonable that patients have a pretty good idea of what their procedures might cost them.

At the moment, about 19 per cent of privately insured episodes involve gap payments, for which no informed financial consent was obtained. That's about a half million procedures a year. It's far too high. I'm very pleased that the AMA and the other medical groups acknowledge this.

I particularly want to compliment the Australian Society of Anaesthetists for the good work that they've been doing in this area. It's great that the AMA and the other medical groups acknowledge it. And I think that this campaign is an important component of getting those informed financial consent rates up.

I've said it before; let me say it again. I don't particularly want to regulate in this area. I'd be disappointed if the Government does have to regulate in this area. But if we can't ensure by the middle of next year that informed financial consent is the norm for all elective procedures, and for as many as possible non-elective procedures, we will have to do it. But I think that this campaign by the AMA shows that the profession is serious. I'm very happy to back it. And let's hope that it brings about the desired result.

MUKESH HAIKERWAL: Any questions?

QUESTION: Do you think, a question to both of you, this will actually reduce those out of pocket expenses, and there will be more publicly available information on just what the cost will be?

TONY ABBOTT: I'm not sure that it's realistic to expect out of pockets to go down as a result of this measure. But certainly the out of pockets, which annoy people so much when they're nasty surprises after the event, won't happen. I think people understand that nothing comes for free. Even medical procedures can't always happen for free. So I think people accept that. I think what they rightly don't accept, is significant bills that they weren't told about in advance. And that's what this is designed to prevent.

MUKESH HAIKERWAL: I'd agree. The significant problem is that there are people that the patient won't know have been part of the care. Where there's the anaesthetist or the assistant, or there's the person doing the x-ray or the blood test. And they need to be aware that there's a question they have to ask - will these be part of my care of not?

And I think those sorts of things we need to be upfront about.

We need to drag the administration of these sorts of the procedures into the twenty-first century. And the twenty-first century we're doing this, is to be up front and open, and talk about fees.

QUESTION: Can I ask you about the stem cell debate as well? Minister, you've virtually been conspicuously quiet so far in the past week on this. But where do you stand on the bill that's likely to come forward from Kay Patterson?

TONY ABBOTT: Well I've responded to questions whenever I've been asked by the media. I haven't sought a fight on this issue. But certainly everyone knows where I stand on the issue. I am against so called therapeutic cloning. I'm certainly all in favour of medical research.

All of us want to find cures to the terrible diseases which still afflict people. But I think good science has got to be ethical science. And I have very serious reservations about so called therapeutic cloning. That's my position. Now I accept that not all of my colleagues agree with me. And I respect their view. But if and when it comes to debate in the parliament, that certainly will be my position. I guess it's boring and it's predictable, but it's consistent.

QUESTION: Do you actually support the idea of a debate?

TONY ABBOTT: Well plainly, there are people in the parliament who feel very strongly about this. A lot of people who voted for the 2002 bill to prohibit human cloning have changed their mind. They're entitled to change their mind. I'm surprised that the unanimous vote against human cloning in 2002 is apparently out of date so soon. I

I think that it does vindicate the slippery slope argument that was put by people back then. But nevertheless, people have a right to change their mind. And if they now want to revisit that which was absolutely settled forever in 2002, let's revisit it. But my view will be the same now, as it was then.

QUESTION: Will you be giving your colleagues any statistics or expert opinion, steering it in the sort of direction that might convince them against this sort of change?

TONY ABBOTT: I imagine that various colleagues will be seeking various advice and guidance and information. And I would be surprised if all sorts of people aren't providing them with assistance. If people want to ask me questions, I'll do my best to answer them. But I'm not a scientific expert. And I'll be, I guess, asking some scientists what they think about various issues, just as others will.

QUESTION: Should Senator Patterson have waited for the discussion in the party room to conclude?

TONY ABBOTT: I think that it became pretty clear in the hour or so discussion that we had this week, that there was a wide range of views, and that there was a real passion to reopen this issue from a significant number of colleagues. I think in the light of that, Kay was perfectly entitled to do what she's done.

QUESTION: Minister, you said that one of the reasons you're against therapeutic cloning is because it's unethical science. Could you expand on that a little bit further please?

TONY ABBOTT: Well I stress that I'm not a technical expert in this area. But my understanding of cloning, even so called therapeutic cloning, is that it involves the creation of an embryo, not for the purposes of giving birth to someone, but for the purposes of research and destruction. And I think there are serious ethical questions about that. I thought that in 2002, and I still think that.

QUESTION: Do you consider a five or six day old embryo to be a human life?

TONY ABBOTT: It's certainly human material. And as I understand it, it has human potential. So I think that entitles it to a degree of respect. Certainly, I think it should be afforded more respect than it will get if it is created simply to be destroyed.

QUESTION: Minister, do you think there's a difficulty between your views on therapeutic cloning and your position as Health Minister?

TONY ABBOTT: All of us are entitled to have a conscientious view on these subjects. And as a private citizen, I have a whole range of views to which I think I am entitled. And if I can argue them coherently and plausibly, I don't think anyone can complain about those views. As a Minister, I am charged to uphold the law, and to discharge the responsibilities of office. And I will do that.

QUESTION: Cabinet has already rejected the proposals of the Lockhart review. Should Cabinet ministers be bound by that decision?

TONY ABBOTT: Cabinet decided that the government was not going to seek to institute change, based on the Lockhart review. But we didn't decide that members of parliament were prohibited from bringing private members bills forward.

Now given that there will be, it seems, a private members bill come forward, given that these matters are appropriately matters of conscience, should they be debated in the parliament? Well cabinet ministers are perfectly entitled now to say their piece.

QUESTION: Dr Haikerwal, where do you stand on this?

MUKESH HAIKERWAL: The stem cell issue is as divisive within the medical profession and the AMA, as it is in the community, as it is in the parliament.

What we've been urging for really is a debate about it, so we actually are armed with the facts. And therefore we can make a decision based on what the facts are. I concur with the Minister, everybody is entitled very much to have their point of view, and to be able to express that. But ultimately it will need to be a decision of the parliament, with an open debate and armed with the facts.

QUESTION: Do you have a personal view?

MUKESH HAIKERWAL: No.

QUESTION: Will the AMA be lobbying government members? Will it take a position once it has a look at the debate and the facts?

MUKESH HAIKERWAL: Our point of view at this stage is still an older resolution, which is quite permissive in terms of what our resolutions allow. However, we understand that there is a significant polarisation of views within our community of medical practitioners. And therefore we want to make sure we have all the facts at our disposal, before we take any formal, significant position.

We had a discussion about this at the national conference in May, and it armed us with some more facts.

And it's important that we will be part of the discussion, appraising people of what the positive sides of it may be, and what the negatives are.

QUESTION: Mr Abbott, there's a Senate committee handing down a report today on advertising the Pregnancy Counselling Services. If that report finds that there's some false and misleading advertising, will you support measures to stop that?

TONY ABBOTT: Well I'll wait and see what the report says before I comment.

QUESTION: Do you think that they're - I mean, you must have seen some of the reports of what these people say is false and misleading advertising. Do you agree with those views?

TONY ABBOTT: Well let's wait and see what the Senate committee comes down with.

QUESTION: Minister, do you support the idea of pharmaceutical companies being more open about the services they're providing to the medical profession?

TONY ABBOTT: I think it's very important that ethical standards be maintained. There are, as I understand it, ethical standards in place. There has been, I think, a quite appropriate push to tighten up some of these standards. And I support that. I encourage that. I haven't had a chance to be fully briefed on the disagreement it seems between Medicines Australia and the ACCC, so I don't propose to make direct comments on that. Just to say that I think it is important that there be ethical standards. They should be high ethical standards, and they should be adhered to.

QUESTION: Dr Haikerwal, are you concerned about the prospect of pharmaceutical companies being forced to publish all the free meals and other goodies that they give to doctors?

MUKESH HAIKERWAL: We've had our position on this fairly clearly exposed in the last few weeks. We believe that the Medicines Australia's Code of Conduct is an important document and we support that. We believe that Medicines Australia and their Code of Conduct should be what governs the way in which the pharmaceutical companies approach the medical profession.

We have our own ethical guidelines as to how to deal with the pharmaceutical industry. And we think that those guidelines need to be adhered to. Whether an initial layer of bureaucracy is of any benefit, I think that that's what the appeal is about, and that's a matter for Medicines Australia to deal with the ACCC with.