Extracts from debate in House of Representatives on Bill to establish a National Rural Health Commissioner (NRHC)

Debate was 20 March 2017

The full transcript is at: http://bit.ly/2nNcnk9 (go to ‘Bills’ at two places down the right-hand side)Extracts begin:

Tony Zappia, Member for Makin, Shadow Minister for Medicare:

“It is seen by Labor as a step in the right direction in bridging the health divide between urban and outback Australia. So Labor will be supporting this legislation. However, we believe that the legislation falls well short of what was hoped for. I particularly note that the Commissioner’s appointment is for a two-year period. The Commissioner’s position will be abolished in just three years’ time, in July 2020. The Commissioner will have to rely on negotiations with the Health Department for any staff requirements. It could also be a part-time position. Furthermore, there is a very strong emphasis on the position being primarily to establish a national rural generalist pathway, as important as that is.”

– – “This government is failing rural health students, having cut $72.5 million from health workforce scholarships.” – – “The Health Workforce Scholarship Program, which amalgamates six scholarships into one program, was to be ready for the 2017 academic year but has now been again delayed. Those delays are already causing problems for students. For example, the interim funding arrangements for the Nursing and Allied Health Scholarship and Support Scheme have left a cohort of students beginning their studies in 2017 with funding uncertainty for future years.”

– – “It would seem to me that by the time the Commissioner is appointed and proceeds with the establishment of the national rural generalist pathway there may not be a great deal of time or scope for the Commissioner to do much else beyond that.”

Ted O’Brien, Member for Fairfax:

– -“The government has committed $4.4 million to create and support the Commissioner, who will provide frank and fearless advice and have the ability to influence the future of our country’s rural healthcare policy.”

– -“I am delighted, therefore, that the National Rural Health Commissioner will be taking responsibility for rural workforce issues. Innovative and sustainable medical practice solutions are exactly what is needed for smaller, harder to reach regional towns. Critical to this is the development of a national rural generalist pathway—a core step towards strengthening the rural medical workforce. A rural generalist pathway is not a new concept. There are varying degrees of support and infrastructure available at a state level, but what is not currently available is a coordinated national approach, and this is the gap that will be filled by this legislation.”

– -“Not only is the Sunshine Coast the healthiest place on Earth and the lifestyle capital of Australia but also, like all regional and rural areas, we benefit enormously from a supportive community, high rates of volunteerism and more social capital than our city cousins.”

Steve Georganas, Hindmarsh:

– -“I suppose it is the nature of Australia, with its scattered rural and remote populations, that providing essential services to these communities is costly. But it is also absolutely necessary, regardless of the cost. It highlights the dangers of privatising certain aspects of these essential services. This is why we must be vigilant.”

– -“The government had the opportunity to establish a Commissioner’s office with real political support and clout, which could put rural and remote health on the agenda, bringing those levels back up to the level of what we have in the cities, or close to it.”

Damian Drum, Murray:

“It was great that we had a situation where someone with an extensive knowledge of the health industry—a gastroenterologist—was able to talk on issues surrounding rural health, and that someone who has spent an enormous amount of time in the rural health sector as a professional is able to then adjudicate over the introduction of this Commissioner.”

Warren Snowdon, Lingiari:

– -“Aboriginal people in my electorate have the worst health outcomes of any people in Australia, yet they are very concerned about the nature of health services that get delivered to them. I would have thought that the job of this new person, this position, should be expanded well beyond the scope of what is currently being envisaged and should talk about the panoply of issues that confront the health workforce, for example—not only in employing more doctors, but we know that we have an emerging health crisis in this country around the shortage of nurses. That will impact upon the bush. We know that in all areas of allied health care there are shortages of workers, particularly in the bush. We know there are shortages of Aboriginal health workers in the bush, and we know that government—any government—is yet to really embrace the idea of physician assistants and giving them a role in the bush.”

David Littleproud, Maranoa

“I think it is also important to recognise that this Bill is about actually getting back to having the grassroots drive the outcomes, and not having Canberra go out there and tell the people of rural and regional Australia exactly what they should have. This is about letting the community drive the outcomes and putting in place an environment where a Commissioner can connect with the local community to be able to drive the outcomes that they are looking for—not what Canberra is looking for.”

Brian Mitchell, Lyons

“There are 1,560 allied health professionals across Tasmania. Our training sector to boost and strengthen this cohort has been negatively impacted by the stripping back of TAFE training services and the deregulating of university courses. All the loops in the chain of health care in Tasmania are cracking and breaking. We welcome this initiative today, but it is not enough.”

George Christensen, Dawson

“Unfortunately, most of the Australian population is based in capital cities and most people are very insulated from what might happen outside those capital city limits. Again, unfortunately, most of the representatives in this place also live in, and represent people from, those capital cities. That is why it takes a strong voice from those rural and regional communities to ensure their needs are not forgotten or swept under the carpet.”

– – “Rural, regional and remote Australia is the heart and soul of this country, providing so much in productivity and economic benefit, of which few people in the city are aware. Regional and rural communities put food on the table; they put clothes on our back. And yet a national survey in 2012 found that three-quarters of year 6 students thought cotton socks came from animals and a quarter of students thought yoghurt grew on trees.

Remote communities provide the nation’s wealth through mining and exports, and yet activists in the cities want to shut down the very industries that provide jobs and the taxes they want the government to spend. There is a disconnect between cities and the real world. It is almost as if out of sight is out of mind. We cannot allow the health of our rural Australians to be left out of sight and out of mind. When the regions are so important to the health of the nation and the health of our economy, the very least we can do is to ensure the health of those living in the rural, regional and remote communities is good enough for them to continue to live there and continue to do the hard work for this country.

Rebekha Sharkie, Mayo

– – “In December 2015 the Regional Australia Institute released figures showing that collectively Australia’s regions account for approximately one-third of our total economic output. Their report said: “were it not for the regions, Australia’s economy today would only be the size that it was in 1997 and Australia would no longer rank amongst the world’s largest economies”.  We are prosperous nation because of regional Australia. And yet, despite this stunning fact and the fact that one third of our country’s population lives outside of the major cities, the regions are being left behind on a wide range of issues when it comes to policy development. Nowhere is this felt more than in health.”

– – “there is a constant battle getting new (medical) graduates to move out to regional areas. The latest data from the Medical Schools Outcomes Database survey reported that 76 per cent of domestic graduates are living in capital cities. If you expand the definition to include a major urban area, that figure increases to 84 per cent. Eighty-four per cent of Australian graduates live in a capital city or a major urban area, while a third of Australians live in a regional or remote area. I believe that we need to put measures in place to entice medical students to look for jobs in regional and rural areas. I do not believe that we need more medical schools; rather, we need to take a strong, hard look at the schools in what they are doing to implement an outreach training into the regions. I believe that if we can encourage more young people from the country to pursue a career in medicine, it is more likely that they will want to return home to their community to practice. The current minimum intake is 25 per cent of students from a rural background. That is a good start, but I support the Australian Medical Association’s stance on lifting the benchmark to at least 30 per cent of all students.

It is more than offering a place to a young person; it is also about connecting them to rural health from the beginning of their degree. It is about connecting them with rural health practitioners from the beginning of their degree so that potential doctors can build relationships and create opportunities in regional Australia and can see where their career could take them. Currently just 25 per cent of medical students are required to undertake at least one year of clinical training in a rural area. I would like to see a more ambitious stance to be taken, that every Australian medical student be required to undertake a clinical placement in a regional or rural area.”

Cathy McGowan, Indi:

– – “while doctors are really important, they are only one part of what is a system. For many, many people, their place of health and health care is not the doctor; it might be their home—it is the parents, it is the mother looking after the kids, teaching the children about hygiene and how to have exercise and how to be safe. For me, the home—along with the parents—is a fundamental place for health care. And once we have the home looked after and we have educated our families and our parents well, the next circle of influence around health is our schools. I am really pleased that the Victorian government is doing some fantastic work on trialling doctors in schools and working in that context—a great approach.

And the next circle out from our schools is our communities. In country areas, it is not only community health that is important; the other community workers play a really important part. Aged-care workers, childcare workers, local government workers and health inspectors—what an important role they play in our health.”

– – “So while I welcome the support for GPs it makes me really sad that we have missed the opportunity to do so much more. I acknowledge that this was an election commitment—and it is important that we fulfil election commitments—but I really do feel that it lacks ambition.”

– – “But this system approach that I have been talking about works well because we have a dedicated internet service. Ideally, we would have access to quality internet services everywhere in Australia, particularly in rural Australia. Sadly, that is not the case—and I am not even hopeful that the NBN service will deliver the expertise we need. But if we do get it, it will absolutely revolutionise the ability of our hospitals, our GPs and our medical professionals to provide services to people back into the other parts of the system—the homes, schools, workplaces and other areas where health and healing are practised.”

– – “Multipurpose services are no longer popular. It is such a pity. In our rural communities they provide health and aged care, and they employ doctors. In Corryong, they employ doctors to come and do the health and community work that we need doing. The model of funding has not changed in years, and we absolutely need to review that multipurpose service funding and reintroduce a 21st century approach, because hospitals like Corryong provide such a service in my community and, if we cannot get the funding right and they close, we will have no doctors there, because the only doctors in Corryong are the multipurpose employed ones. So, if we do not have the MPS providing the service, that whole community will be bereft.

In a similar way, I would like to acknowledge Alpine Health. Alpine Health is another MPS, and it works in Mount Beauty, Bright and Myrtleford. That MPS is particularly noteworthy, because of the health promotion work that it does. It provides that extension to the community, families, workplaces and community health and does such a good job in actually keeping people out of hospitals and out of our GP services through its health promotion.”

“One of the things that I am really disappointed about in this legislation is that we do not talk about health promotion. We have not talked about how stopping people getting ill is a really important part of the whole role.”

– -“One of the things the Minister said in his second reading speech was that this was going to be an independent position. Sadly, I do not accept that, if you put a person working in a Health Department, they will be independent. I do not see how that is going to happen.”

– -“At the moment, as the legislation stands, this position does not report to Parliament – – The legislation says that the Commissioner has to report every year on what they are doing, but the final report goes to the Minister. It is my belief that the final report should come to Parliament.

Editor’s note: Cathy McGowan’s amendment to require the Minister of the day to table the final report within five sitting days was agreed.

Rowan Ramsey, Grey

[He suspects that the establishment of the NRHC will make little difference.] “We should be seriously looking at postcode-specific Medicare provider numbers. – – I am not suggesting for one minute that we should tell doctors that they can or cannot set up practice anywhere in Australia; what I am saying is that we should tell them, ‘You can only deliver a service here if you want to access the public subsidy,’ which is the Medicare provider number. ‘If you want to charge full tote odds for your services, go ahead.’

– -“By and large, I find that rural doctors are very supportive of the proposals that I have put forward. Of course, there would be all kinds of give and take around the edges and, in particular, I think we would have to grandfather all the current doctors and say, ‘These rules will not apply to you,’ so that it will be a slow change to the system. But they actually understand the real challenges in getting doctors to come and work and practise in the country”

– – “over 50 per cent of the doctors in rural South Australia are overseas born and trained. We will stop importing those doctors almost imminently, because the pipeline coming out of the universities now is strong. In fact, we are probably training too many doctors for our future. There is a double-edged sword here. I believe we are heading for greater shortages in the country and we are heading back into over-servicing in the cities. It is not that hard for a doctor to over-service; you ask the patient to come back more often for a refill of a prescription or order a few more tests. We need to be aware of these looming issues before we get to them.  If we neglect reform in this area now, in five or six years’ time, when we have chronic over-servicing in the cities, we do not have enough doctors in the country and we stop importing doctors from overseas, we will be in an almighty mess.”

Stephen Jones, Whitlam:

– – “I do not say it is a bad thing, but it falls a long way short of a great breakthrough.”

– – “there is a very stubborn link between health inequality and wealth inequality. When one goes up, the other goes up as well. The disease risk factors are higher in areas of lower income and lower wealth, and access to preventive health measures are lower as well. This flows through to life expectancy. In our capital cities, the median age at death is 82.2 years. In outer regional areas, that drops to 79.2 years and 73.2 years for people living in remote Australia. The relative risk of mortality between the poorest and the richest income quintiles translates to a life expectancy gap at age 20 years of six years. Diabetes, just one of the chronic diseases rampant in regional Australia, is 3.5 times more common in working-age Australians in the poorest areas as it is in the wealthiest areas. Of course, the majority of those poorest areas are in regional, rural and remote Australia”

– – “There are a lot of priorities that we need to focus on in rural and regional health care, and creating a new position or a new specialist called the GP rural specialist, as important as it might be, is not going to address all of those important healthcare issues.”

Dr David Gillespie, Lyne – Assistant Minister for Health

– -“I anticipate that the role will indeed achieve its broader objectives in helping to deliver all the critical outcomes about which many of us are in furious agreement as to the need for reform and better outcomes. I am hopeful that, in the future, further support can be obtained in both a budgetary and a legislative context.

– -“Several people have spoken up about the scope of work the Rural Health Commissioner will be asked to perform, and I would just reinforce – – that it will be the first and most pressing duty of the Rural Health Commissioner to address the issue of the medical workforce and coordinate with all the various stakeholders, which are numerous, in the development of a rural generalist pathway.

The Commissioner will provide advice in relation to rural health beyond that. There are very many other matters in which the Rural Health Commissioner will have to be involved, in policy development and championing causes: While the development of the pathways will be the Commissioner’s first priority, the needs of nursing, dental health, pharmacy, Indigenous health, mental health, midwifery, occupational therapy, physical therapy and other allied health stakeholders will also be considered.”

– -“we have already set up a rural stakeholder round table, which last met on 16 November 2016, and the idea that they would work with the Rural Health Commissioner has been established. There were 18 attendees at the last meeting, across all the stakeholder groups in the rural health space.”

– – “workforce distribution has been raised as a big issue, and within the Department I am establishing a distribution working group that will also work with the Health Commissioner, and there will be representatives from rural health stakeholders as well. The Commissioner would be a member of that distribution working group and could use the group to take advice on other of the Commissioner’s functions.”

end

Quad bike accidents: “It’ll never happen to me”

This is the second piece I have written about quad bikes for this blogg. The first (Quad bike safety, 20 July 2016; in the Rural health section) gives background information about the issue and makes the case for a ‘mixed mode’ response to quad bike accidents and fatalities:

” – it is not sensible to rely only on technical or engineering fixes. It’s also about behaviour and attitudes to risk. Many organisations – – are urging farmers to attend training courses about safe riding, following manufacturers’ instructions”.

For that first piece a couple of practising farmer friends contributed thoughts about some of the realities of the (proper) agricultural use of all terrain vehicles – and about some of the non-farm reasons for accidents:

  • the effect of mandatory wearing of helmets on attitudes to risk;
  • the impracticability of banning children from riding them; and
  • the particular risks associated with visitors to the property.

Accidents are still occurring, some of them fatal, so the question of how much regulation is the right amount remains an issue. Somewhere on the spectrum between anarchy and ‘A Nanny State’ is the right spot for dealing with the matter.

This second piece provides a little more history, evidence of how reactive and ad hoc the approach to regulation currently is, and some links to further information.

The Mount Isa Statement

The 6th biennial Are You Remotely Interested? Remote Health Conference, held in Mount Isa in August 2012 incorporated Farmsafe Australia’s Conference. One of the outcomes was the Mount Isa Statement on Quad Bike Safety.  (https://sydney.edu.au/medicine/aghealth/uploaded/Quad%20Bike/mtisa_statement.pdf)[1]

The Statement reports that fitting crush protection devices (CPDs) could reduce the number of quad bike deaths by up to 40 per cent. It asserts that the science underpinning the manufacturers’ opposition to such devices has been demonstrated to be invalid.

The Statement proposed that CPDs be mandated for all quad bikes, with technical standards for them having been developed. New sales of child size quad bikes should be stopped and children under the age of 16 should not be allowed to ride quad bikes of any size.

That was in August 2012. Two years later a report on progress with recommendations from the Mount Isa Statement, written by Richard Franklin, Sabina Knight and Tony Lower, was published in the on-line journal Rural and Remote Health. (www.rrh.org.au/publishedarticles/article_print_2687.pdf)

That journal article reiterated the immediate steps people can undertake to keep themselves and others safe when using a quad bike: initially selecting safer vehicles to use; fitting them with crush protection devices; not carrying passengers or overloading the quads; and wearing helmets.

In the next year, 2015, 15 people were killed while using quad bikes on Australian farms (http://sydney.edu.au/medicine/aghealth/publications/reports.php).

Ad hoc regulation and incentives

In May/June 2016 there were two fatal accidents in Victoria involving quad bikes. On the last day of National Farm Safety Week that year (22 July 2016; http://www.farmsafe.org.au) the Victorian Government announced that $6 million would be available to help farmers buy roll over protection bars for quad bikes. Farmers were able to access $600 per bike for fitting operational protection devices for a maximum of two rebates per farm business, or get a rebate of $1,200 towards the cost of buying a new vehicle with safety protection already installed.

The farm lobby welcomed the announcement and again argued that manufacturers should start providing roll bars on new quad bikes as standard. Manufacturing groups continued to argue that the money and effort would be better spent elsewhere, with helmets being the number one priority and rider training also important.

WorkSafe Victoria tightened the rules around quad bikes, requiring businesses to install roll-over protection devices on such vehicles used on a work site.

Typical compensation claims from an employee injured in the agriculture sector involve one and a half weeks off work. Overall, claims by employees in agriculture require longer periods off work than those in any other industry in Australia. (http://www.safeworkaustralia.gov.au/sites/SWA/about/Publications/Documents/759/Work-related-injuries-fatalities-farms.pdf)

The focus of National Farm Safety Week in 2016 was that safe farms are more profitable farms. One of the agencies promoting this message was the Primary Industries Health and Safety Partnership, which has produced and published some useful materials on the subject. (www.rirdc.gov.au/PIHSP)

On Sunday 5 March 2017 two people died in NSW as a result of quad bike accidents: a 60-year-old man and a six-year-old girl.

On Thursday 9 March the NSW Government announced a doubling of the $500 rebate on the purchase of suitable helmets or safer side-by-side vehicles for riders.

To qualify for the rebates, farmers need to have completed an online course and attended a SafeWork NSW training day or met with an inspector.

In February 2017 the ABC reported that free quad bike safety courses run by SafeWork NSW and TAFE had been cancelled due to a lack of numbers.  (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-02-07/quad-bike-courses-cancelled-lack-of-interest-despite-deaths/8247216)

Quad bike riders in Queensland must now wear a helmet on public roads and are prohibited from carrying children under eight years old.

There is discussion about making motorcycle-type helmets compulsory when riding quad bikes on private property.

There is a wide range of views on the best way forward.

And everyone agrees on one thing:

“It will never happen to me.”

 

 

[1] all of the links in this piece were checked and accessed on 17 March 2017.

Comments on accepting Louis Ariotti Award for Excellence, 6 March 2001.

Note: that year there were two recipients: Sabina Knight and Gordon Gregory. Following are the comments made by the latter on receiving the award.

This is a great honour.  I would like to thank the Toowoomba Hospital Foundation and all of those associated with the award.

I want to make three points.

Everything you do affects your health.  The time you get out of bed.  What you have for breakfast.  Whether the roof leaks and whether you have a car in your garage.  Whether you have a roof, whether you have a car, whether you have a garage.  Whether you have a job to go to and if so, what sort of job it is and how well you are paid.  The ethnic and cultural group to which you belong.  Whether you smoke.  How much you drink.  Whether you can read and write, and what age you were when you left school.  Whether you exercise.  Your gender.  Your genetic make-up (it seems ironic that you may be able to understand and even control the health impact of your personal genetic make-up before you can understand and control the health impact of housing, nutrition or employment on your own community)).

Most intriguing of the things that affect your health is whether you know the names of your neighbours – and whether you are a member of the local bowls club or its equivalent.

What all of this means is that we have to be working with interest groups and professional organisations across the board: in education, transport, economic development, taxation, community services, housing, arts and recreation.  It must be our goal as people interested in health outcomes to think, act and work on a broad front.  We must get architects, economists and sociologists to attend health conferences.  We must get shire clerks, sports organisers and regional development officers to attend conferences like this.

Second, health professionals might consider the impact of their professional self-interest on their own work and on the people they serve.  One does not see economists, physicists or sociologists banding together to promote their own profession at the potential expense of the field of endeavour in which they work, or at the potential expense of those affected by their work.  The health sector is characterised by an extraordinary level of professional fragmentation, by a mess of public service and private profit arrangements, and by direct conflict between the interests of professional groups and of the people they serve.  All of these are holding back the contribution that health professions could make to health gain.

Third, imagine what we could do if every individual and every organisation represented in this room agreed jointly on two or three demands of themselves, of their organisations and of governments, which were related to improved health for people in rural and remote Australia.  There is still much more to be gained from talking together, meeting together and working together in collaborative alliances for better health.

Thank you.

Health advocacy needs to be more specific, less ‘motherhood’

This piece was published in Croakey on 6 March 2017. My thanks to Marie McInerney.

On Friday, 3 March, the Australian Labor Party held a National Health Policy Summit in Canberra. Thanks to the endeavours of Croakey, and in particular to Marie McInerney, we were able to hear the views of some of the 150 experts there through Twitter, Periscope and Marie’s videoed online interviews.

This is not a piece about the relative value or effectiveness of the health policies of Government and Opposition. It concerns the difficulty health advocates seem continually to have in framing and agreeing proposals of the sort which might be adopted by the Government of the day or included by the Opposition of the day in its health policy platform for a coming election.

Everyone knows that advocacy should focus on answers, not problems. For the most part, politicians do not need to be reminded of what the issues are. But certain types of ‘answer’ are much more likely than others to be practicable and to improve health outcomes in the short term.

In meetings of health advocates, too much time is often spent on matters that are related to organisational principles, strategy, governance and (frankly) motherhood.

With the best will in the world, a Health Minister and their Department cannot operationalise generic principles. Nor are they what will really matter in an Opposition’s policy platform.

We can do much better.

Where the National Health Policy Summit was concerned, I read in Croakey that “there were benefits in having a big crowd of people committed to improving health in the same room, sharing an agenda with people outside their own ‘silos’ and reiterating key issues and messages with politicians and advisors that they often don’t get to reach”.

But how much more useful might it have been if there had been more focus on new policy proposals for this year’s and next year’s budget, and less on principles and strategic approaches!

This (untested!) observation led me to speculate about the type of initiatives on which health advocates currently spend their time, and what a more desirable mix would be.

Best use of an hour with the Health Minister

It is my belief that there are four classes of issue on which health advocates can work. They can be described as:

  • grand principles;
  • new national plans;
  • redistribution of existing program expenditures; and
  • evidence-based new policy proposals.

Such a classification could be applied to policies and programs which affect health but which are not within the health sector itself. That, then, would see it applied to the social determinants of health, including not just health risk factors but also, for example, proposals about taxation. However, for the purposes of this piece, I have restricted the analysis to matters that lie wholly or largely within the health sector and thus within the purview of Health Ministers and their Departments.

Table: Best use of an advocate’s one hour with the Minister of the day

 

Class of proposal or issue

Proportion of time/effort (%): Best: mins/hr. w. Health Minister of the day
Currently Desirably
1 ‘Grand principles’ 55 10 6
2 New national plans 30 25 15
3 Re-jig existing program expenditure 10 40 24
4 New Policy Proposals 5 25 15

‘Grand principles’

In the first class are what might be called strategic or organisational approaches to health. including such things as:

  • the aspirational importance of universal and equal access to health care;
  • the benefits of a primary health care approach to health and wellbeing – which includes many things outside the health sector itself;
  • the desirability of (but major challenge posed by) a whole-of-government or Health in All Policies (HiAP) approach;
  • the value of a strong primary care service;
  • the importance of continuity of care for individual patients of the system (through better integration of services);
  • the desirability of spending a significant proportion of the health budget on illness prevention and health promotion;
  • “regarding expenditure on health promotion as an investment not a cost” (rhetoric; motherhood);
  • “focussing on workforce retention as well as recruitment” (ditto);
  • “supporting Primary Health Networks to make a real impact on rural and remote health outcomes” (ditto); and
  • the desirability of consumer/patient involvement in the planning, management and evaluation of health services.

When lobbying politicians or engaging with the media, health advocates should, for two reasons, allocate very little time to such matters. For one thing, there is precious little disagreement, in Australia or anywhere else, about their importance. For another, such matters can and do inform ongoing political decisions but are not the stuff of short-term change or new policy proposals.

New national plans

The second class of issue consists of strategies or plans (probably national) which are not currently in place but which, if adopted by government, would be the frame within which specific programs would operate and on which new health budget allocations would be made.

Different advocates will have different views on such potential new plans or program frameworks; some will argue that a particular plan should not be introduced.

This class includes such things as:

  • a proposal to provide new money to fund actions under the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Plan (at the moment all actions in the Implementation Plan are to be funded from existing program allocations);
  • the introduction of specific tax regimes for sugary drinks or alcohol which would be premised on their impact on population health through influencing levels of consumption;
  • the regulation of the marketing of certain foods, especially to children;
  • a Senate Inquiry into food security;
  • an integrated strategy to Closing the Gap for Vision, which would include a subsidised spectacle scheme for rural and remote areas and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities; and/or
  • development and funding of a National Child Health Action Plan (NCHAP).

Proposals for the redistribution of existing program expenditures

The third class comprises proposals relating to existing policies or programs, suggesting ways in which the effectiveness of expenditures already on budget could be improved. This would include, for example, suggestions about how existing mental health programs should be altered, extended or terminated; or revised regulations to be applied to incentives for general practitioners who work in rural and remote areas.

Such proposals would legitimise the redirection of funding or even the termination of particular health expenditures. Such changes are of great interest to governments, particularly in fiscally-challenging times when any new program expenditures must be offset by savings from within the portfolio.

This class would include things such as:

  • proposals to take a particular medicine off the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme or to add a new one;
  • a proposal to take a particular procedure off the Medicare Benefits Scheme or to change the schedule fee for it;
  • a proposal to switch some investment from, say, headspace to Mental Health Services in Rural and Remote Areas (MHSRRA);
  • a proposal to increase the difference in rates of payment to general practitioners who work in the major cities and rural/remote areas;
  • a proposal to switch health scholarship expenditure from, say, medicine to, say, allied health; and/or
  • a proposal to change the allocation of funds within the Tackling Indigenous Smoking program.

Evidence-based new policy proposals

These are potential new programs which are justified on the basis of evidence about particular aspects of health service need, and about the efficacy of particular approaches to its management and/or treatment.

Such programs are in effect ‘shovel-ready’, with the evidence collected and the case made – in all probability by one or more advocacy body with a vested interest in the plan (not necessarily to support it). With the evidence in, there will in effect be a contest of ideas between them all, with the question of which are adopted by government answered through normal political processes.

In this class might be:

  • a program to fund clinical pharmacy positions in Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisations to oversee the delivery of the S100 Remote Area Aboriginal Health Service Program;
  • a program to fund a specialist Parkinson’s nurse (or Neurological Nurse Educator) in the 40 electorates with the highest proportion of people with the condition;
  • work on a national, longitudinal health workforce data set that can inform workforce planning and incentive programs;
  • a program to expand access to Nurse Practitioner and allied health services under the MBS in rural and remote settings where there are demonstrated workforce shortages;
  • a program to grow and support local activity related to social approaches to end of life by a Compassionate Communities Network in Australia; and
  • a program for recruiting more allied health professionals to care of the elderly and , under the NDIS, to people with a disability.

There is a place for general principles and approaches in what might be regarded as the Foreword to a set of programs for improving health outcomes on the ground. But for the most part there is only furious agreement about these principles, and what really matters are specific new policy proposals.

We have to get over the situation in which, in a room of 150 health experts, each one feels a sense of duty towards their own job or profession – as if they are in attendance with a representational duty.

What this means is that it will be easy for them to agree with others about the importance of, for example, continuity of care, but much harder to agree that scarce health dollars should be spent on anything but their own interest. When advocates for each special interest area bring their Number 1 proposal to the table, a contest of specific ideas can take place. Evidence will be scrutinised, assumptions challenged.

And at the end of the day there will hopefully be sufficient collegiality in the sector as a whole for the most effective proposals to be unanimously supported.