Welcome to the Podiatry Arena forums

You are currently viewing our podiatry forum as a guest which gives you limited access to view all podiatry discussions and access our other features. By joining our free global community of Podiatrists and other interested foot health care professionals you will have access to post podiatry topics (answer and ask questions), communicate privately with other members, upload content, view attachments, receive a weekly email update of new discussions, access other special features. Registered users do not get displayed the advertisements in posted messages. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our global Podiatry community today!

  1. Have you considered the Clinical Biomechanics Boot Camp Online, for taking it to the next level? See here for more.
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Have you considered the Clinical Biomechanics Boot Camp Online, for taking it to the next level? See here for more.
Dismiss Notice
Have you liked us on Facebook to get our updates? Please do. Click here for our Facebook page.
Dismiss Notice
Do you get the weekly newsletter that Podiatry Arena sends out to update everybody? If not, click here to organise this.

Rudd plan for one-stop shop GP super clinics

Discussion in 'Australia' started by NewsBot, Aug 26, 2007.

  1. NewsBot

    NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

    Articles:
    1

    Members do not see these Ads. Sign Up.
    The Sydney Morning Herald are reporting:
    Rudd plan for one-stop shop GP super clinics
     
  2. ClintonAbel

    ClintonAbel Active Member

    The devil will be within the detail. Just as the GP controls the access to Enhanced Primary Care (which is their job to co-ordinate care!!), I can see an imbalance of power arising from this situation.
    Allied Health Professionals (AHP’s) are not going to specialise in chronic disease management if all remnants of incentive are stripped away.
    As I understand, the AMA was very vocal initially in the EPC program, wanting GP’s to be paid for AHP’s work, and they then pay the provider.
    If we are serious about making chronic disease management a rewarding career for providers, the issue of ownership, control and of course money will need to be considered.
     
  3. ja99

    ja99 Active Member

    Totally agree Clinton.

    Personally I decline to treat ANY EPC patients referred to me for several of the aforementioned reasons. Yet GP's who know me and know my policy continue to refer patients and simply tell the patients ;"...tell him the Doctor said he must !". Some Health care Providers are more equal than others perchance....

    I am in a fortunate situation where I can decline the EPC patients and still am very busy (NB: I do however, attend to a vast number of DVA patients) even to the point where several patients would rather pay me a private fee then go to a local colleague under the EPC scheme. This suggests that they also do not appreciate the limitations of choice that the scheme and GP's impose. So I wholehartedly agree with your imbalance of power / control sentiments.

    As to your assertion that initially the AMA wanted to be paid, then, pay the provider.....well sounds about right! :mad:

    Julian
     
  4. pscotne

    pscotne Active Member

    Why don't we all just move away from all this power/control thing - isn't it all about $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ anyway?
     
  5. ClintonAbel

    ClintonAbel Active Member

    Of course the whole world revolves around the almighty dollar. The 'power/control thing' is more about control over these so called 'super clinics', and not the control over the patients care. As I said in my initial post, GP's are better at control of care than anyone else, as they should be.
    The imblanance of power we need to be more concerned about, is the imbalace at a managerial/ownership level of these clinics.
    The reason we get into owning our own practices is to have some autonomy.
     
  6. LuckyLisfranc

    LuckyLisfranc Well-Known Member

    Whilst the medical profession continues to have control over other health professions, and hold governments over the barrel with threats and contempt when things don't go their way - nothing will change.

    We have a health workforce of 1000's of people who are not in medicine (ie nurses and allied health professions) screaming to be given greater clinical freedom and autonomy by government, but none of the major parties are interested in the type of wholesale changes in health policy that could facilitate solving the workforce crisis around the country within a few short years. Remember the Productivity Commission report - that went down like a lead balloon. Why? They are immensely afraid of the backlash from the AMA, RACGP, RACS and other professional societies in medicine. Obviously forget about the Liberal party, and even Labor would dare not tread there.

    Simple changes: e.g. free up PBS to non-medical prescribing, allow Medicare Item Numbers to be billed by any registered health provider and not just one professional group.

    I know of no other segment of our society where the taxpayer funds, almost to 100%, the cottage industry of solo and small group private GP clinics. What sense is there in this? GPs are even funded for such things as broadband access, "practice incentive payments", bonuses for doing immunisations - hello? - isnt that just part of the job?

    If we were serious about health reform, GPs would be salaried in public GP clinics, and those that chose to work privately would face the same funding model as other private health providers.

    Imagine the AMA revolt! :eek:

    LL
     
  7. pscotne

    pscotne Active Member

    Yep...it worked. Right on LL - it's not difficult to comprehend who/what 'controls' the health $$$$$.
     
  8. ja99

    ja99 Active Member

    Here..Here......... :D
     
  9. Tuckersm

    Tuckersm Well-Known Member

    this has recently happened for the Optometry profession, and once more state governments allow podiatric prescription, it should happen for us.

    http://www.health.gov.au/internet/budget/publishing.nsf/Content/budget2007-hfact15.htm

    The rest of it will be much tougher.
    The medical profession has a level of protection in the Australian Constitution, preventing "civil conscription" in Part V 51 xxiiiA.
    which is yet to be tested in the High Court, but caused a lot of fuss when Medibank was initially introduced in 1973. initially the AMA was very opposed to Medibank, and as part of the negotiation Dental and other AH services were not included.
     
  10. LuckyLisfranc

    LuckyLisfranc Well-Known Member

    Wow.

    I thought they were still working hard on that one.

    Leaves hope for us humble foot-fixers then...

    Thanks for the info.

    LL
     
  11. carolethecatlover

    carolethecatlover Active Member

    If the government was in any way serious about improving health services, it would make medicine and dentistry an undergraduate course with a complusory 5 year service in the rural areas. The gov. kowtows to the Unis in every aspect of health care, check out the UK entry rules with Aus entry rules. Why are pod courses here 4 years, and the UK 3? So the unis get an extra year of fees. carole
     
  12. pscotne

    pscotne Active Member

    :rolleyes: Hello Carol.

    The way podiatry appears to evolving in Australia, eg clinical service, what do you think of the idea that podiatry education should be...

    (1) under the auspices of a university Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry & Health Sciences, and...

    (2) a 5-6 year full-time medical degree that includes eg surgery?

    Pete the Pussycat Pod :D :D :D :eek:
     
  13. carolethecatlover

    carolethecatlover Active Member

    A two year course at Tafe, and so should Dental Hygiene, and nursing.
    Too much power, and not enough reasponsibility for getting people out there working is given to the unis. Carole
     
  14. LuckyLisfranc

    LuckyLisfranc Well-Known Member

    Provocative, Carole

    Perhaps you have spent too much time grooming you cats, and not enough time looking at the career you have chosen.

    Let's see what you say after you have been graduated a couple of years. Maybe you will then agree that 2 years would be OK if you wanted to graduate as simply a "podiatric hygienist".

    If you happen to graduate in Victoria from now on, with the responsibility of prescribing a range of significant S4 drugs, then I think the community will be safer with a 4-year graduate who has taken their time to learn these matters well. Just one example, lets not start on surgery...

    LL
     
  15. ClintonAbel

    ClintonAbel Active Member

    That's a great idea Carol!!! Then when a patient phones to say they can't make an appointment because they have a hairdressers appointment, they can be forgiven. After all my hairdresser has trained longer than 2 years.

    To continue to have a voice at discussions, like these Super GP clinics, we should be only moving forward! Certainly not loosing the ground we have already covered.
     
  16. pscotne

    pscotne Active Member

    :eek: Golly gosh, if that's the ideal educational way to go for such a rapidly progressing profession then I think I'll take 3...yes, THREE Apros and go back to seismic surveying. Banging wooden pegs and metal star droppers in the ground out in the Australian bush sure sounds a lot better than banging my head against the wall.

    :eek: Pete the Perplexed :D :rolleyes: :cool: :eek:
     
  17. Daniel Bagnall

    Daniel Bagnall Active Member

     
Loading...

Share This Page