Transcript: Media Doorstop, AMA President Andrew Pesce, AMA NSW House, Sydney

Subjects: Coalition Health Policy; NSW local health networks

ANDREW PESCE: Thanks for coming.  Well there's been a lot of comment that there hasn't been enough health debate in the election so far, but I think it's going to change after today.

The Coalition has announced its health policy and we can now begin to compare, contrast, and make decisions based on the two sides of politics and their approach to taking the health agenda forward over the next term of Government.

The Coalition has announced its plan today.  The AMA recognises that there are many aspects of its plan which show that it has listened to the concerns of the AMA and the medical profession and has responded in ways that we have to be happy about.

The commitment to enhance the support for general practitioners to look after their patients is a good one.  There's extra funding available for doctors to look after their patients both in terms of improving the rebates that patients get for their services and also spending on infrastructure to help GPs expand their practices so they can put in more rooms and see more patients, which is something that most in the community understand really is needed.

The enhanced access to after-hours care is hopefully going to be improved with better rebates for GPs and incentives to provide after-hours care.

The approach to hospitals shows an understanding that it's important to make sure that we do get more hospital beds.  And the AMA welcomes the commitment to extra hospital beds, although it's very important that the Coalition, if comes to Government, is very proactive in making those beds appear and not just fund ones that the States might decide to open.

We welcome the commitment to community boards to help manage local hospitals.  We believe that that's a good step forward to make sure that more decisions are made locally whilst allowing governments to fund the hospitals as necessary.

There is still a split between the Commonwealth and State Governments’ funding of our hospitals.  The AMA has called for a single funder to end the blame game and cost shifting, and the Coalition's announcement still, apparently, from what we can understand, leaves room for that.  So it doesn't address the blame game.

So, all in all, the announcements today show that the Coalition is making a serious attempt to respond to the concerns that have been expressed by the AMA and the profession.  We look forward to seeing more detail, working through how the extra funding can result in better services for patients, and possibly further announcements.

One glaring omission is still no message on e-health.  It's very, very important that we do have a bipartisan approach to this – a commitment from both sides to go forward and deliver an e-health system, and get it up and running within the next term of Government.

QUESTION:  If we had to choose one of the Government and the Coalition, which would get the better score, from the AMA's perspective?

ANDREW PESCE:    The AMA will not take a party political partisan approach to this.  We will analyse the announcements as they come through and we will make comments on them.

To be honest, there are some aspects of the health agenda where the Government seems to have put more thought and more resources and more effort into solving problems, and there are others where the Coalition is ahead.  So it's not possible for me to say that I prefer one side over the other.

QUESTION:  Just on the New South Wales Government announcement today about expanding the rezoning of the local health networks.  Do you welcome that announcement?

ANDREW PESCE:    I think that the New South Wales Government has also to be commended for listening to the concerns raised.  It's heard the problems that were expressed in the COAG process.  It's heard the frustrations expressed by clinicians, doctors, nurses, local communities, in terms of the lack of their engagement in decision-making processes.

And it is a very, very credible and honest response of the Government to say they're willing to change the system to take account of those concerns and restructure the governance of our hospitals, to make them more responsive to local needs.

QUESTION:  How does that approach compare to the Coalition's local hospital laws?

ANDREW PESCE:    The Coalition's announcement hasn't been worked through in as much detail.  My understanding is that they want local management to be determined by community boards.  These will apparently be based around hospitals where there is a major referral hospital and the surrounding hospitals within that area.  That is a reasonable structure.  I don't think we could afford to return to single hospital boards for every hospital in this country.  And I think doctors and nurses understand they have to work together with their colleague hospitals to make sure the communities get all of the services they desire.

So both the Coalition's structure and the Government's local hospital network structure, if delivered as promised, would appear to deliver on that need for reform.

QUESTION:  Are you worried that these new local health networks will just add more levels of bureaucracy and more confusion for patients?

ANDREW PESCE:    Well, it's important that they don't.  We didn't go through all this process for that to happen and I don't believe that's the intention for Governments or the Opposition to do that.  We realised that we do need a structure to organise services, so that, by definition, is a bureaucracy.

What we need to make sure is resources are focused as much as possible at the patients' bedside, at the patients' chair side in the waiting rooms, and not spent on administration.  And not have responsive decisions held up because it needs approval from several layers of bureaucracy to make it go forward.

So what we need are responsive local management systems that deliver funding to where point of care is: near the patient.  That's where we want the funding to be directed.

QUESTION:  You mentioned you want to see a bipartisan approach towards e-health.  What are some other key factors that you would have liked to have seen during this election campaign by either the Coalition or the Government?

ANDREW PESCE:    I would have liked to have seen a bipartisan approach on mental health.  I mean this is a sector where we really can't afford sort of political conflict.  That section of our health system is chronically under-serviced - often for services that patients who aren't able to well articulate their own needs - and it really relies on Governments to advocate and act on their behalf.

So, a bipartisan approach on mental health would be very good as well, with a significant commitment to the services needed both in specialist psychiatric care in outpatient clinics and community settings such as headspace.  All of these things would be good as well.

I think we do need to move forward with dental care as well.  We really need to make sure that people who can't afford the necessary dental care to improve their health do get support for that.  These are all issues that we really need to see further progress on.

Ends …

 

---

 

5 August 2010

CONTACT:              John Flannery                       02 6270 5477 / 0419 494 761

                            Geraldine Kurukchi                 02 6270 5467 / 0427 209 753

Follow the AMA on Twitter: http://twitter.com/amapresident