Why the ‘You’ve been targeted’ campaign against the co-payment was so successful

“We don’t have to engage in grand, heroic actions to participate in the process of change. Small acts, when multiplied by millions of people, can transform the world.” ~ Howard Zinn

Not many people know that the main message of one of the most successful campaigns of the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners (RACGP) against government policy was largely inspired by one patient.

At the height of all the commotion about the co-payments, patient advocate Ms Jen Morris posted a message on Twitter suggesting a different response to the government proposals: Instead of focusing the campaign on doctors, she said, we should be focusing on the consequences of the policy for patients.

We’re sorry

I used her simple but powerful message in a leaflet (see image). It said:

We’re sorry to hear your rebate will be slashed. (…) It’s not that we haven’t tried, but the Government doesn’t seem to listen to GPs. They may listen to you.”

We are sorry
The original design inspired by Ms Jen Morris.

Not long after I posted it on my blog and social media channels, the RACGP President contacted me. He wanted to include the message in a national campaign. I thought it was great that the RACGP was using social media and that they took notice of what was being said. Not long after, the You’ve been targeted campaign was unleashed by the college. The message was similar to the original, inspired by Jen Morris:

“Your rebate from Medicare will be CUT (…). We have been vocal with Government but it’s falling on deaf ears. They haven’t listened to us but they will listen to you.”

The RACGP had listened to patients and many of their members who wanted a patient-focused campaign. The You’ve been targeted approach showed that every GP surgery in Australia can be turned into a grassroots campaign office if necessary. After other groups, including the Consumers Health Forum and the AMA, increased pressure on the government, the co-payment plan was dropped.

I spoke to Ms Jen Morris and RACGP President Dr Frank Jones about the role of patient input, the use of social media and what we can learn from the remarkable campaign – as there is still a lot of work to do (for example to reverse the freeze on indexation of Medicare rebates)

A pay cut for wealthy doctors?

Morris: “I opposed the co-payment, but was concerned that the original approach adopted by doctors’ organisations misjudged the public’s values, as well as public perceptions of doctors’ wealth and social position. In the initial stages of the campaign against the proposed co-payment, doctors’ organisations, and thus media coverage, were framing it as a pay cut for doctors.”

“Misframing the situation like this made it harder for those of us opposing the changes to explain the various proposals, including Medicare rebate freezes, in a way which the public could understand. It also made it easier for the public to write the problem off as not their concern, but rather a pseudo ‘workplace relations’ issue between doctors and Medicare.”

“At the time, the public were reeling from a budget widely touted as disproportionately impacting the most vulnerable and disadvantaged people. In a social context of widespread public perception that doctors of all stripes are wealthy. So there was little public sympathy when the doctors’ lobby cried foul because the government was trying to ‘cut their pay’. There was a sense that as well-off professionals, GPs should take their fair share of the fiscal blows and ‘cop it on the chin’.”

“The government played perfectly into the combination of these two problems. By later touting the co-payment as ‘optional’, they painted GPs who chose to charge it as opting to squeeze patients rather than take a pay cut.”

‘Extremely poor policy’

Jones: “The RACGP repeatedly raised its concerns with government over many months regarding the impact of a co-payment on the general practice profession and its patients. As GPs we have an obligation to speak up and oppose any policy that will impact on our patient’s access to quality healthcare. We know that poor health policy drastically affects the ability of GPs to deliver quality patient healthcare, and this was extremely poor health policy.”

“When it became apparent the RACGP’s concerns were not gaining the traction required to influence change, we decided it was time to increase pressure. While advocacy has always been a major component of the RACGP’s work, it has recently taken a more public, contemporary approach to these efforts.”

“In the case of You’ve been targeted, this meant ensuring patients were also included in the conversation and encouraged to stand united with GPs to protect primary healthcare in Australia. We collectively see hundreds of thousands of patients a day and knew that a campaign bringing GPs and patients together would present a strong united voice.”

You've been targeted
The succesful RACGP You’ve been targeted campaign

The strength of the campaign

Morris: “Like most public policy debates, successful campaigning against the co-payment was contingent on securing public support in a political PR contest, which means getting the public on side. I believed that re-framing the issue around patient interests was the key to changing public perceptions, and winning the PR battle.”

Jones: “The RACGP took notice of what patients were saying about the co-payment and listened to our members who were telling us they wanted a campaign that focused on how their patients would be impacted. This is what led to the creation of You’ve been targeted.”

“The response to the RACGP’s change.org online petition was a big step for the campaign, with more than 44,800 signatures obtained in less than one week. While the campaign gained momentum through protest posters, use of the social media hashtag and sending letters to MPs and this allowed for concerns to be heard, the online petition was a collective demonstration of the sheer extent of those concerns.”

“A campaign’s strength is intrinsically connected to how powerfully it resonates with its audience and You’ve been targeted hit all the right buttons in this respect campaigning on an issue that affected every single Australian, young and old.”

Novel approaches

Morris: “If doctors and patients can capitalise on common ground and present a united front from the outset, the weight of political force will rest with us.”

Jones: “In terms of closer collaboration on advocacy campaigns, the RACGP feels there will be significant opportunity to work with health consumer organisations, given the mutual priorities of better supporting patient care.”

“The RACGP has already partnered with consumer organisations including the Consumers Health Forum (CHF) with whom it produced a number of joint statements. Most recently, the RACGP and CHF partnered in a joint submission regarding the deregulation of pharmacy locations and ownership.”

“The RACGP has consumer representatives on its key committees and boards. We have a history of working with consumer groups on important issues, and will continue to do so moving forward.”

“In light of the RACGP’s recent campaign successes, we will increasingly use social media as a platform to act as a voice for Australian GPs and their patients. Social media is new age media and the RACGP is committed to keeping pace with technological advances to ensure its members are effectively represented.”

An opportunity for the Government to develop a real health policy

“Health policy has proved, over the years, to be a bugbear for the Liberal Party. The Fraser Government had made numerous changes to its health policy, which had been both unsettling and politically damaging” ~ John Howard in Lazarus Rising

As they say, those who cannot remember the past are doomed to repeat it. Governments often make two mistakes when it comes to health policies:

  1. It is driven by dollars instead of health outcomes
  2. Advice from patients and health professionals is ignored

The current ‘health’ debate has, in reality, been a debate about the level of out-of-pocket expenses. The elephant in the room – more efficient funding – has been carefully avoided. We know there is too much waste and bureaucracy in the system – and many have argued the fee-for-service model is not ideal to manage chronic health problems.

If the Abbott Government is serious about tackling some of these issues, but wants to avoid the mistakes of the past, they should embrace the RACGP’s draft Vision for a sustainable health system. It is an opportunity to start a real healthcare debate.

The new model

As the draft document reiterates, health systems focusing on primary healthcare have lower use of hospitals and better health outcomes when compared to systems that focus on specialist care. It makes sense to fund a comprehensive range of services in primary care, based on local community needs.

The new vision proposes voluntary patient enrolment with a preferred practice to improve chronic care delivery and funding. It also recommends that current incentive payments are replaced by a payment system that facilitates the following five key activities:

  1. Better integration of care
  2. Supporting quality, safety and research
  3. Team-based nursing care
  4. Using IT and e-health to improve efficiency
  5. Teaching students

Acute care and fee-for-service are still part of the package, but practices and GPs delivering ongoing comprehensive and complex care will be better rewarded in the new model. It will also assist practices and doctors looking after disadvantaged patient populations.

Much needed leadership

Earlier this year the RACGP invited members to comment on a first draft. Yesterday RACGP president Frank Jones presented the current version to Federal Health Minister Sussan Ley. It’s good to see the RACGP welcomes further feedback. Personally I am particularly interested in the response from patients and consumer organisations.

It seems the blended payment model reflects the increasing focus on chronic disease management, while still rewarding acute care. As always, the devil will be in the detail. But to be fair, this is a draft (and if you ask me, a good one).

By starting the discussion the RACGP is showing leadership. Let’s hope the Federal Health Minister is appreciative and brave enough to take on the challenge.

Revised payment model
Revised payment model as suggested by the RACGP: The model blends fee-for-service with practitioner support and practice support payments. Source: RACGP

The Australian PCEHR: Success or failure?

Where are we at with the PCEHR? I asked four leaders in the field about their thoughts: Has it been a success or a failure? Can it still be improved and if so, how?

Dr Frank Jones, President of the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners: “The concept was always good, but it failed to engage with front line medical professionals and was hijacked by lawyers. I am also really unhappy with the government’s plan to upload results if not viewed by the requesting doctor after seven days – a disastrous situation!”

“The other thing that is never talked about and that people outside GP-land are unaware of, is that GPs can already access their practice patients’ notes, anywhere, anytime. GPs leading the way again – in many ways this has diminished the value of a PCEHR at a front line GP level.”

“Lets get the basics right first: Initially we need the information such as active relevant medical issues, allergies and OTD medications.”

In its present form a failure

Dr Brian Morton, Chair of the AMA Council of General Practice: “In its present form as a GP I would have to say it’s a failure. There is no recognition nor remuneration for GPs to spend the time to prepare and submit the data which must be done with the patient present. Professional clinical input to the design process has not been given the status needed to make PCEHR workable and relevant to medical practice.”

“Privacy and consumer political correctness have over-ridden safe principles of health care. The very poor uptake of the PCEHR is evidence of this. If we are to reap the benefits then recognition of the cost of data entry needs to be made.”

“Remove and prevent data which is not clinically relevant for care, for example Medicare billing data, as medical assumptions cannot be safely made based on a billing event. Identify clearly in the record that data has been removed or data hidden; the ability to over-ride the control of this is inadequate for safe care. Start the use of PCEHR with small and focused data entry such as active medical history.”

“Make a Medicare item number for the initial entry of data and an item for review yearly by the patient’s usual GP. Enable the functionality of automatic loading of diagnostic imaging & pathology data to the PCEHR when it is received and reviewed by the requesting provider. For example in our software: when it is transferred from inbox to patient record.”

A clear disaster

E-health blogger Dr David More says: “It is a clear disaster as it has failed to be utilised by, and successfully engage with, either clinicians or patients to any significant degree after what is over two years since initial implementation.”

“It should simply be abandoned and a new eHealth Strategy based on serving the needs of clinicians in information sharing and use developed. Patient engagement should be at the level of providing useful e-Health services to such as e-mail, repeats, referrals, results and record access via local practitioners.”

Effectively dead

Dr David Glance, Director Centre for Software Practice, University of Western Australia: “I would say that the PCEHR is effectively dead – there is some interesting commentary here. The liberal government has not killed it but they haven’t supported it actively either. Nor have they put forward any other strategy. So given the financial climate we are in now, I don’t expect that to change.”

“I fundamentally believe that Australia has a basic structural issue when it comes to implementing central strategies around eHealth. We are still lagging in electronic record adoption in our hospitals and public health services and to a lesser extent within the specialist community. Until that changes, any shared electronic health record will always have gaps and be less than useful.”

“Clearly NEHTA needs to be disbanded and something else put in its place. It was self-serving, bureaucratic and pretty hopeless when it came down to it.”

“With regard to opt-in/opt-out, I would say that opt-out is always a better option with a far easier access mechanism than was implemented for the PCEHR. But given how awful the implementation was, the point was moot. Talking of the implementation, given what we know about user interface, you would have thought that the interface to the PCEHR could have been a lot better than it was.”