Today: Fri 3 Sep 2010
Ben Harris   Not you? Log out  
Printer Friendly
A A A

Poll: GPs fail to see merits of Medicare Locals

28th May 2010
Caroline Brettingham-Moore   all articles by this author
5 comments

THE Federal Government is facing an uphill battle to convince GPs that Medicare Locals are worthwhile, with a recent MO poll indicating that half do not see advantages in the new bodies. 

The national poll of 150 GPs revealed just 14% were on board with the pending transformation of divisions of general practice. The Federal Government has budgeted $290.5 million for the transformation. 

Eighty-three per cent of those surveyed did not believe the new bodies would lead to improved planning of primary health care services – a key objective of Medicare Locals. Seventy-two per cent did not believe the bodies would create better links between GPs and allied health.

The poll, conducted for MO by Cegedim Strategic Data, highlighted GP fears that Medicare Locals would create new layers of bureaucracy and blame-shifting, and would divert attention from local issues. 

“The spin is that they will be closer to the community but in fact, because of their size and complexity they will be much more distant,” said Dr Leon Massage, CEO of the Greater Monash GP Network. 

Dr Adrian Sheen, president of Doctors Action, said he was “absolutely frightened” at the level of bureaucracy that would be created by Medicare Locals. “The bureaucrats running these organisations will be increasingly remote from the local GP and the patient in front of them,” he said. 

AGPN chair Dr Emil Djakic was not surprised GPs were anxious about the change, but said he was encouraged by the number of respondents who were in favour. 

Nick Zwar, professor of general practice at the University of NSW, agreed GPs were typically cynical about change. 

“GPs are skeptical about change unless they can clearly see the advantages of what is being proposed for their patients and/or their practices – and this has not been well articulated to date with [Medicare Locals],” he said. 
Medicare locals poll graph - advantages

 


 

Medicare locals poll graph - disadvantages

This poll was conducted for Medical Observer by Cegedim Strategic Data research company

Tags: Medicare Locals, Dr Adrian Sheen, Dr Emil Djakic, AGPN, Professor Nick Zwar, University of NSW.

Share: submit to reddit


Jobie
24th May 2010
2:02pm
NZ appeared to have led the way of having similar structure, called Primary Health Organisation, for a few years. I wonder if anyone has any researched information with regard to change in number of hospital admissions, deaths from chronic conditions, and control of diabetes mellitus that could be attributable to the development of these Primary Health Organisations?
gravitas
24th May 2010
9:49pm
The support that general practice needs is at the coal-face. The interaction between the GP and the patient in the consulting room. For 'standard consultations'. At the beginning of Medicare, that was a 15 minute event. Now, for equal earnings (considering the increase in the cost of living) that can only be an 8 minute event. One problem, no extras. Commonly terminated with a script, a pathology or an imaging request. It is a simple way to terminate the consultation and get the patient out the door. And back in later for another fee. And they wonder why the costs generated by general practice are so high! But they will not pay us more for time - even though that increased payment might save them money. They simply do not trust us. So they are putting the money into external organization and supervision. We know just how little that will achieve for our patients. But they are not interested in our opinion. They, who have not practiced a day, know what is best for us. It is structure and organization parked on structure and organization. And we think it is a load of malarkey. We simply do not trust them. With good reason.
Watcher
31st May 2010
10:29am
Just who are "they" gravitas?
gravitas
5th Jun 2010
6:31am
Watcher, I thought it was obvious from the context. There is Medicare, politicians (on both sides of the house) and quasi (non) government organizations that have had, do have and/or will have an influence on the way general practice is funded and does its job. The point of my opinion is that now, neither side trusts the other.
Interested spectator
10th Jun 2010
7:14am
"Watcher" has a point. Although a useful pronoun enables clear, logical discussion of the points "Gravitas" has made, "They" need identification . "They" function as the ENEMY - Ours. During the 20th century, there has been a consistent, persistent attack on our Profession, our Patients' standard of care and our good name; and therefore, also, on the rights of the average citizen. Much of it has been organised; but much more has been facilitated by self-interested groups with their own axes to grind. Why do our "representative" organisations not identify "Them" by documenting a history of our Profession's and our progressive fall from grace. In this heavily censored society that seems Taboo. We would be in a far better position had we continued to charge private fees as have all the "Allied Health" groups now so eager to poke their snouts into the public trough. In the long run, the enemy has been us!
To make a comment, please update your profile to include a nickname