Telstra's priority phone service arrangements a cop-out - AMA
AMA President, Dr Kerryn Phelps, said today that Telstra's Priority Assistance Program is a cop-out because it attempts to get doctors to cover for its failure to provide adequate phone services for all Australians.
Dr Phelps said the AMA was approached to be part of the service earlier this year but declined because being a telecommunications provider is not core business for doctors.
"It is not a doctor's job to ration phone services," Dr Phelps said.
"It is Telstra's job to provide an affordable, efficient and equitable telecommunications service for all Australians wherever they may live, and that includes for people with life threatening conditions.
"People should not have to wait until they are seriously ill to get access to a phone or to get their phone repaired.
"I would suggest that Telstra's efforts would be better focussed on a Priority Phone Technician Program whereby people have guaranteed access to a phone and somebody to fix it within 48 hours, regardless of your medical condition.
"It is a cop-out to put doctors in charge of Telstra's 'too hard basket'," Dr Phelps said.
The AMA rejected the proposal because referring patients to a priority list would raise concerns under the Privacy Act, expose doctors to possible legal action, and create more red tape for GPs.
CONTACT: John Flannery (02) 6270 5477 / (0419) 494 761
Sarah Crichton (02) 6270 5472 / (0419) 440 076
Attachment: Letter to Department of Health and Ageing, April 2002
8 April 2002
Dr John Mathews
Deputy Chief Medical Officer
Commonwealth Department of Health and Ageing
GPO Box 9848
Canberra ACT 2601
Dear Dr Mathews
Thank you for your letter of 28 March 2002 to Dr Phelps concerning a meeting to develop a priority service for life threatening conditions. I am replying on
Dr Phelps' behalf.
The AMA is vitally interested in ensuring that people in life threatening situations have good telecommunications access and we would be happy to participate in a meeting designed to achieve this outcome.
As I indicated to you by phone, the AMA does not believe that the development of a list of life threatening conditions is the appropriate way to provide priority services to customers in life threatening health situations. Also, the AMA does not believe that it is the responsibility of doctors to implement policies of this nature.
The AMA has already had a meeting with Telstra where we explained that most medical conditions can be life threatening under certain circumstances and their list of priority customers would run into several million. In addition, we pointed out that it would be inappropriate to ask doctors to determine which patients should be on the Telstra list as the process would be time consuming, costly, raise a number of concerns under the Privacy Act and possibly expose doctors to legal action if they refused a patient's request to be put on the list.
We gave examples of the difficulties facing doctors over Centrelink requirements for assessing patients as to their ability to work, undergo training, etc and the problems that this causes for the profession, for the patients, and for the Commonwealth agency involved.
We suggested as an alternative a dedicated phone number and triage arrangements whereby people could apply directly for priority listing.
The representatives from Telstra showed little interest in the AMA's views and are obviously seeking to progress the proposal through other avenues.
Therefore, we see very little to be gained from a meeting involving Telstra based on the presumption that the correct approach is to develop a list of life threatening conditions and that AMA members will be largely responsible for implementing the policies.
As discussed, I await your further consideration of this matter before nominating an AMA representative to attend a meeting with Telstra.
Yours sincerely
Dr Robert Bain
Secretary General