The recommendations by the taskforce to improve the MBS are refreshing in many ways. There is a move towards strengthening GP stewardship, voluntary patient enrolment, more non face-to-face care, a simpler careplan program and increased support for home visits – which seems sensible and is addressing the frustrations of many about the current Medicare system.
It appears there are a few things missing. For example, there is no recommendation to spend more time with our patients by committing to an increase in the schedule fee of longer consultations (item numbers 36 and 44). This would have been more useful for most patient encounters than a new one-hour plus item number.
I believe the residential aged-care item numbers will need more investment when the SIP incentive ceases to exist. There is mention of outcome-based payments which requires an explanation. The lack of detail about the dollar values makes it challenging to predict the impact on general practice and primary care.
In an ideal world the recommendations could result in an invigorated, modern, patient-centred health system. However, if history repeats itself, the result will be a simple cost-saving exercise, dressed up as clinician-led, evidence-based healthcare reform.
In 2019, the Department of Health, via its practice incentive scheme, will not only start setting the key performance indicators of general practice but also further tighten its grip on practice data. It is not unlikely that the Department’s strategy will create the same issues the National Health Service is currently encountering: loss of patient-centeredness of care, unreasonable KPIs and low doctor morale.
The redesign of the Practice Incentive Program (PIP) has been in the cards for a while. The introduction of a new quality improvement (QI) payment system was deferred for 12 months in May 2018 because of concerns that it was not fit for purpose.
Central role of PHNs
If it goes ahead in May 2019, the impact of the new scheme will be significant. The big change will likely be that Primary Health Networks (PHNs) become exclusive “QI providers” for general practice. This means that they will extract, analyse and store practice data and present GPs with benchmark reports. Many PHNs have already started collecting data in anticipation of the changes.
To be eligible for quality improvement incentive payments, practices will have to demonstrate to PHNs that their performance is on par with the Department’s KPIs. Although analysis and benchmarking of clinical data are becoming increasingly important to improve patient care, there are many issues with the proposed PIP overhaul.
Initially, there was talk about more organisations becoming QI providers, such as the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners (RACGP) and the Improvement Foundation, but, according to Medical Observer, it looks like there will be no profession-led alternative to the PHN model and, as a result, practices will not be given a choice of QI providers.
General practice is at risk of gradually losing control over its quality improvement processes, which will no doubt leave many grassroots GPs dismayed.
The main issue with the scheme is related to professional buy-in. The Department of Health has gone through the usual process of consulting the profession, but it has always been clear that the PIP redesign was going to occur regardless of the opinion of GP groups.
The Department may claim in its communications that the KPIs are supported by the various professional bodies, but the level of engagement, trust and satisfaction with the new QI system will be low for various reasons.
First, this is an example of a top-down government solution, largely designed by the Department of Health. As we have seen with the My Health Record and Health Care Homes, this approach usually creates just as many problems as it is trying to fix.
Similarly, there has been a lack of engagement with the e-health PIP (ePIP) scheme, which requires practices to upload shared health summaries to the My Health Record to remain eligible for incentive payments or ePIP. This may have given the Department a countable number of uploads, but there is no evidence to suggest that it has improved meaningful use of the My Health Record or quality of care in general practice.
In the PIP redesign process, only payments to practices have survived. For example, the aged care incentive payment to GPs providing care to patients in residential aged care facilities will be scrapped. This incentive is worth $3000–$5000 per doctor. Many have argued that it is incomprehensible that funding benefitting aged care is removed at a time when residential aged care facilities need more support to provide the medical care required.
By stopping these service payments to individual doctors, the incentives will be one step further removed from those who are responsible for the actual quality improvement activities. Again, this does not inspire confidence in the Department’s new QI system.
Measuring performance against KPIs in combination with performance payments will almost certainly create new problems. Quality indicators used by governments around the world are often easy to measure isolated parameters that have limited valuefor complex systems such as general practice.
The evidence to support financial incentives is weak, and the British Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) pay-for-performance system has illustrated what can go wrong: QOF has not improved care but did result in the loss of the patient-centredness of care and has created a significant decrease in doctor morale.
No funding priority
The new QI PIP will be subsidised by a shift of funding from other PIP and SIP incentives — which has been labeled as “robbing Peter to pay Paul” by the Australian Medical Association. In 2016, $21 million were removed from the PIP budget to partially fund the Health Care Home trials. The last budget announcements made it clear that there will be no increase in PIP funding in the near future. The PIP scheme, introduced in the 1990s, has never been indexed.
The Department of Health has not yet provided clarity on what the PIP scheme will look like beyond May 2019. This lack of transparency about long term planning creates uncertainty for practices. Although the expectations will start off low, it is to be expected that the Department will adjust the KPIs upwards over time, wanting more for less.
One of the PIP eligibility criteria for practices is accreditation against the RACGP’s Standards for general practices, and it will be interesting to see if upcoming changes to the PIP scheme will affect the percentage of practices that take the effort to go through the accreditation process.
Finally, general practice is not only facing loss of control of quality improvement but is also about to miss out on an opportunity to become custodians of its clinical data. Although the QI PIP data will be extracted from GP practices, it will likely be managed and controlled by PHNs and other government agencies, such as the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare.
When the government defunded the Bettering the Evaluation and Care of Health (BEACH) study in 2016, general practice lost its most important longitudinal source of data. It doesn’t take much imagination to figure out what will happen with the QI PIP data when, in a future reform cycle, PHNs or other government agencies involved are subject to funding cuts or cease to exist altogether.
The Department of Health’s underlying thinking seems to be that the responsibility for quality and data should be taken away from the profession, even though the government’s own data governance practices don’t always inspire confidence.
The department should have given professional organisations the responsibility to execute a mutually agreed strategy, acceptable to all parties, including custodianship of data for quality improvement purposes.
Our peak bodies are working hard behind the scenes to negotiate the best possible outcome. It is more important than ever for the profession to work through any differences and present a united front. The question remains, can we stem the tide of increasing departmental control or has general practice definitely moved one step closer to the NHS?
Given longer consultations are associated with better health outcomes, the Medicare Benefits Schedule should be restructured to incentivise appropriate consultation time in general practice.
It is estimated that doctors are making an incorrect diagnosis in up to 20% of cases, and up to 30% of investigations may be unnecessary. It is often thought that medical knowledge and skills are the culprit, but there is another reason for the majority of medial mistakes.
Doctors need time to listen and think. General practice’s inherent time pressures, interruptions and the need to record information on computers can be distracting and cause cognitive errors. Our thinking process is also influenced by our emotions; for example, as a result of work stress or running late.
This is not rocket science and has been well documented. For example, in his New York Times bestseller, How doctors think, Harvard professor Jerome Groopman described how snap judgments and other cognitive errors by doctors can lead to medical mistakes.
In a television interview, Professor Groopman explained how over the years the consultation time gradually had to drop from 30 minutes to about 12 minutes. A doctor can’t think, he said, with one eye on the clock and the other eye on the computer screen.
In Australia and New Zealand, chronic conditions account for 85% of the total burden of disease, and a chronic disease is a contributing factor in nine out of 10 deaths. The increasing multimorbidity and complexity of care requires that doctors spend more time with their patients. Managing several medical and psychosocial problems in a 15-minute consultation is increasingly challenging for doctors and many patients.
It is not surprising that longer consultations seem to be associated with better patient outcomes. The benefits of extended consultations of 20 minutes or more for certain patient groups have also been explored overseas. More time with patients may lead to higher patient satisfaction, fewer errors and a lower volume of prescriptions, investigations, referrals and hospital presentations.
It is time to slow down. At the moment, the Medicare Benefits Schedule (MBS) fails to recognise this growing problem as it encourages throughput. For example, seeing patients in blocks of four 15-minute appointments per hour is valued at $148.20, but two 30-minute consultations per hour is worth a total of $143.40.
Health Care Homes
Is block funding such as proposed in the Federal Government’s Health Care Homes model encouraging more time with patients? Probably not. In fact, one could argue that it incentivises less face-to-face time with the GP and more contact with nursing staff and other team members.
Our patients deserve our time. The MBS schedule could support our patients with chronic and complex health conditions by better rewarding longer GP consultations.
I was asked to address the Committee for Economic Development of Australia (CEDA) about how to place health consumers at the centre of future healthcare reform and the delivery of health services. ‘Less is more’ is the presentation I gave on 2 November in Brisbane.
I would like to take you with me this morning to my practice in the Sunshine Coast hinterlands and introduce two of my patients. For privacy reasons their names and details have been altered.
To refer or not to refer?
My first patient is Susan, age 24. Susan requests a referral letter to a plastic surgeon. When asked she explains that she thinks her breasts are too small, and that she wants a breast enlargement.
What would you do if you were in my shoes? Can I please see a show of hands: who would refer Susan? Who wouldn’t?
This is of course about shared decision-making. I noticed Susan was slightly uneasy, she clearly felt uncomfortable about something, so I decided to explore her request a bit further. During our conversation Susan broke down in tears and told me that it was actually her boyfriend who thought her breasts weren’t the right size.
Our conversation about relationships and body image went on for over 20 minutes. Susan decided she needed some time to think things over and talk to good friends, and that she would come back if she needed further assistance.
Susan could also have gone online to an automated referral website.
This is a screenshot from a real Australian online referral service. Here, Susan would have had to fill out a brief online questionnaire, pay with her credit card and she would have received a referral instantly via email.
But Susan decided to make an appointment with me instead and left without a referral. She could have ended up with implants she didn’t really want or need – and a large bill.
Never just about a script
My next patient this morning is John. He comes for a repeat prescription for blood pressure pills. When he sits down the first thing he says is: “Doc, I can do my banking online, why can’t I just send an email to request my scripts?”
John has a blood pressure machine but hasn’t been able to use it recently as he has been overseas.
I take his blood pressure which is very high. I notice John has gained weight since his last visit. He tells me he has a new job and works overseas as a plant operator for a mining project– and hasn’t had much physical exercise. He suddenly also remembers that he needs boosters for his travel vaccinations. As I check the records I notice his blood tests are overdue.
Although John came in for a script it looks like there are several health issues he may want some help with. Email contact would have been more convenient for John – but some problems would have gone unnoticed if he hadn’t come in.
In my job it’s never just about a script or a referral. Opportunistic screening and preventive care are key elements that make general practice effective.
At the same time we must ofcourse find ways to increase the uptake of digital health solutions. Telehealth, video consultations and asynchronous consultations with the usual GP practice have many advantages including potentially reducing travel and waiting times for our patients.
Unfortunately, one of the main reasons for the low uptake is that Medicare currently subsidises face-to-face GP care only.
High value care
Good doctors know when not to ask for a test, when not to prescribe antibiotics or opiates, when not to refer and when not to operate.
There are some great initiatives appearing that promote ‘less is more’ healthcare such as ‘Choosing Wisely Australia’. This initiative brings consumers and health providers together to improve the quality of healthcare through reducing tests, treatments and procedures that provide no benefit or, in some cases, lead to harm.
On the other hand we are seeing more disruptive, commercial, mainly profit-driven healthcare: Competitive markets built around growth, turnover and profits, and as we all know corporate medicine can drive resources away from patient care to meet market priorities.
This chart shows what happened after the rapid expansion of after hours home visiting services operating outside the more traditional medical deputising approach.
The two bottom lines show the explosion of visits by after hours home visiting doctors, funded by Medicare, with no meaningful reduction of emergency department visits – the top line.
Although the service is convenient for patients, the question has rightly been asked: does it represent high value care?
Health Care Homes
A solution suggested a few years ago by the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners (RACGP) was the patient-centred medical home, which concentrates care and funding for a patient in one preferred general practice.
The model was meant to enhance patient-centered, holistic care. It included for example:
Support for coordination of care, to improve the patient-journey through the various parts of the healthcare system;
Support for practices providing a comprehensive range of services locally;
A complexity loading which would support practices to respond to socioeconomic and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander status, rural status and the age profile of their local community, and reduce health inequalities.
This concept was reviewed, adjusted, modified, tweaked and tuned but what the Department of Health eventually came up with was a very different model; a model that simply pays practices a capitated lump sum for patients with chronic health conditions, and removes the fee-for-service system for chronic care – without significant extra investment to keep Australians well and in the community.
The department’s version of the ‘healthcare home model,’ which doesn’t necessarily solve our main problems such as poorly integrated care, is being trialled but the profession is lukewarm at most.
What about performance indicators, targets and pay-for-performance? This seems to be a hot topic in Australia. It is tempting to pay doctors when their patient loses weight, has a lower blood pressure or improves sugar levels.
Pay-for-performance schemes have been tried elsewhere in the world but the results are disappointing.
For example, performance management has gone wrong in the British Quality and Outcome Framework pay-for-performance system and has resulted in:
only modest improvements in quality, often not long-lasting
decreased quality of care for conditions not prioritised by the pay-for-performance system
no reduction of premature mortality
loss of the patient-centeredness of care
reduced trust in the doctor-patient relationship
reduced access to GPs
decreased doctor morale, and
billions of pounds implementation costs
As Goodhart’s law says: “When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure.”
Primary care is a complex system. Quality improvement processes that are traditionally applied to linear mechanical systems like isolated single-disease care, are not very useful for complex systems.
We know that countries with a strong primary care system have better health outcomes and more efficient health systems. An important ingredient is continuity of care by the same general practice team.
It involves empowering patients to drive their own care as well as improvements in the healthcare system. We need to listen to our patients. This may also mean that we need to slow down. Less is more.
The RACGP believes that when GPs can spend more time with their patients, this enhances continuity and quality of care and will result in less prescribing, less pathology tests, less referrals and, importantly, less hospital presentations.
This chart, based on data from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, shows that General Practice services represent less than 9% of total government recurrent expenditure on health. Less than 9%…
In comparison, expenditure for hospitals represent 46%. Are we really doing everything we can to keep people well, in the community and out of hospital?
4 take-home messages
I have four take-home messages for you today:
#1: Take the good, leave the bad
We need to test new models of care in the Australian context, but we must avoid making the mistakes others have made before us, such as the UK performance payment schemes.
#2: Slow down
Let’s slow down. Allow patients & doctors to spend time together when needed. High turnover or profit-driven healthcare is not healthy for patients, doctors and our health budget.
#3: Convenience ≠ high value
We have to find a balance between convenience and value. Convenience is important, but it is never just about getting a referral letter or a script.
#4: Keep people well in the community
If we want to make a difference we must strengthen healthcare in the community, when people are relatively well, not just in hospitals when they’re terribly unwell. Rechanneling funding from hospital to primary care would achieve this.
Doctors have called on the Federal Government to delay the implementation of the Health Care Homes model from the current starting date of 1 July 2017 by at least three to six months. Here’s why.
United General Practice Australia, which comprises the leading general practice organisations RACGP, AMA, RDAA, GPSA, GPRA, ACRRM and AGPN, has serious concerns regarding capitated funding for chronic disease management and treatment. It may harm patients, and it may undermine GP-led care when funding runs out.
Additional time to plan for the Health Care Home model is required to get the nation’s healthcare system right and properly consider, design, and implement the supporting tools, information and adequate funding mechanisms.
The extended timeline would allow stakeholders time to ensure the instruments and tools being used are appropriate and validated by evidence.
Health Care Homes: the background
A Health Care Home (HCH) is not a place but a partnership between a patient, their GP and the primary care team. Health Care Homes are general practices and Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Services that coordinate the ongoing comprehensive care of patients with chronic and complex conditions.
As part of the 2016-17 Federal Budget, the Government announced the Healthier Medicare: Reform of the Primary Health Care System package. The core element of the package was the staged rollout of Health Care Homes in selected Primary Health Network regions starting in July 2017.
The Government has re-directed $21.3 million from the Practice Incentive Program and is redirecting a further $93 million in MBS funding to support the HCH trial.
HCHs have the potential to drive a fundamental shift in Australia’s health services toward patient-focused health care practices and are a modified version of the Patient-Centred Medical Home (the Medical Home).
The HCH aims to facilitate a partnership between individual patients, their preferred GP, and the extended healthcare team. The model should enable better-targeted and effective coordination of clinical resources to meet patients’ needs.
Patient-centred Medical Homes have been associated with increased access to appropriate care and decreased use of inappropriate services – particularly emergency departments – for patients with chronic and complex conditions.
The clinical team– which may include GPs, nurses, nurse practitioners, Aboriginal health workers, care coordinators, allied health professionals and other medical specialists – collectively provides care for patients.
The HCH aims to meet as many of the patient’s healthcare needs as possible and for collaborating with other health and community services.
In the current proposal Health Care Homes will receive monthly ‘bundled payments’ on a per patient basis, depending on each eligible patient’s level of complexity and need. The payments will be paid to the Health Care Homes, not GPs.
All general practice healthcare associated with the patient’s chronic conditions, previously funded through the MBS, will be funded through the bundled payment. Regular fee-for-service will remain for routine non-chronic disease-related care patients.
Funding for services provided by allied health professionals and specialists, as well as for diagnostic and imaging services are not included in HCH bundled payments and will continue to be funded through the MBS.
Stage one is limited to Medicare-eligible patients with two or more complex or chronic conditions. Patients that fall within three identified tiers will be eligible to enrol in a Health Care Home.
The Department of Health is developing a patient identification tool to be used by HCHs to identify eligible patients as per the tiers. The Department states that the tool will attribute a risk score to each patient, which will determine the level of care required and subsequently the value of quarterly bundled payments that HCH will receive.
Unfortunately details on the eligibility assessment tool have not yet been released, but will likely draw upon information the practice already has on the patient (for example previous hospital admissions, diagnosis, medications, clinical risks), as well as non-clinical information such as demographic and psychosocial factors.
The patient identification process will be the same across all stage-one HCHs, regardless of whether or not they are in rural and remote areas.
The Practice Incentives program (PIP), a key driver of quality care in general practice, is currently undergoing reform. The redesigned PIP program will reportedly introduce a quality improvement incentive to replace the clinical specific incentives in the current PIP and provide a ‘flexible and supportive structure to the HCH implementation’.
Stage one of the implementation is currently set to commence on 1 July 2017 and run for two years until 30 June 2019. It will involve approximately 65,000 patients and up to 200 general practices or Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Services.
Why doctors have expressed concerns
One of the key recommendations by the Primary Health Care Advisory group was to encourage patients to be engaged in their care (recommendation 3). Although the model was intended to be ‘patient-centred’, the patient somehow seems to have been lost in the discussion around the current model.
For example, it is not clear how the proposed model will encourage better coordination or comprehensiveness of care to improve the patient journey (recommendation 7).
For a long time the RACGP and other professional groups have been actively offering to work with the Government on the development of an appropriate model, but the RACGP and other GP groups were not consulted in this case. The general practice representatives on the Government’s implementation committees are not representing their professional associations and furthermore have had to sign confidentiality agreements so therefore cannot discuss ideas and recommendations with peers or policy development staff.
The RACGP has called for a rigorous trial subject to academic and scientific evaluation, rather than rushing into a phased rollout. The HCH implementation evaluation methodology is still under development. Health policy needs to be evidence-based and the evidence should to be carefully developed – otherwise it will fail patients and the Australian health system.
A correctly designed trial will properly address the challenges facing Australia, strengthen access to the delivery of high-quality care and ensure patients have a stable and ongoing relationship with a general practice.
The proposed model capitates funding for chronic disease management and treatment in general practice. It may harm patients and undermines GP-led care when funding runs out.
This major reform, which is expected to save millions of dollars in hospital care, did not receive additional funding. GP groups are concerned that the federal Government’s Health Care Homes model is inadequately funded and will not improve health outcomes for millions of Australians living with chronic and complex conditions.
An example of concerns
HCHs will be required to have a service or care coordinator for enrolled patients. As funding allocated to the HCH is in fact reallocated funding from PIP and Medicare, there is no additional money available to support this role.
There is presently not enough information available for practices to make an informed business decision about their involvement with the HCH.
Information released by the Government does not provide details on any additional support for e.g. practices in rural and remote areas and no additional funding is being provided for these areas, where there are higher costs and complexity in providing chronic health care.
The original RACGP Medical Home vision includes incentives for practices and GPs to facilitate patient-centered care, for example a complexity loading to support the delivery of patient services in areas of community need.
The RACGP vision also recommends a comprehensiveness loading: GPs and general practices that provide a comprehensive range of services can respond to the needs of the community they serve. Enhancing the comprehensiveness of services provided in the primary health sector will reduce demand for more complex and expensive services in the secondary and tertiary health sectors.
The Department has indicated that payments made to a HCH are also intended to cover after-hours services where they are provided in the practice rooms. Some practices may achieve efficiencies by providing some care for enrolled patients over the phone or electronically.
Each practice will need to determine if the allocated funding in the proposed model is sufficient to provide the additional care required under the HCH model.
The Department has stated that successful HCH applicants will receive a one-off payment of $10,000. The RACGP believes that an appropriately funded HCH trial would require an average of $100,000 per practice per annum, in addition to current funding allocations for chronic disease management items and other MBS items.
As the funding of the HCH by the Federal Government is minimal, additional funding from State Governments and Private Health Funds may be necessary to make the model a success. The federal Government could assist by negotiating such payment levels as part of the HCH.
The RACGP is prepared and ready to work closely with the Federal Government on this major health reform – let’s not miss the opportunity to make Health Care Homes a success.
This article was originally posted on Croaky. Dr Edwin Kruys is vice-president of the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners (RACGP).
The information in this article is based on public material provided by the Department of Health. Whilst all efforts have been made to ensure the details are accurate, information regarding Health Care Homes is subject to change.
A general practice or Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Service applying to be a Health Care Home must be within one of the ten selected PHN regions and needs to:
be accredited and maintain accreditation, or be registered for accreditation, against the RACGP Standards for general practices;
participate in, or be prepared to participate in, the Practice Incentives Program (PIP) eHealth Incentive;
register and connect to the My Health Record system and contribute to their enrolled patients’ My Health Records;
participate in the stage one HCH training program;
use the patient identification tool to identify the eligible patient cohort in their practice or service, assess individual patient eligibility and stratify their care needs to one of three complexity tiers according to their level of risk;
ensure that all enrolled patients have a My Health Record;
contribute up to date clinically relevant information to their patients’ My Health Records;
develop, implement and regularly review each enrolled patient’s shared care plan;
provide care coordination for enrolled patients;
provide care for enrolled patients using a team-based approach;
ensure that all team members have roles that utilise their qualifications and allow them to work to their scope of practice;
provide enhanced access for enrolled patients through in-hours telephone support, email or video-conferencing, as well as access to after-hours care where clinically appropriate;
ensure that all enrolled patients are aware of what to do if they require access to after-hours care;
collect data for the evaluation of stage one and for internal quality improvement processes.
Many of my patients ask for better quality of life, independence or patient-centred care. Patients also want their care teams to be on the same page. The government’s Health Care Home model seems to be about capitation and to some extent hospital avoidance, and may not address the needs of patients.
Although the model has some elements that may reduce potentially avoidable hospitalisations, it does so half heartedly. Participating GP practices will likely have to categorise their patients using a data extraction tool based on the UK’s QAdmissions algorithm and the Hospital Admission Risk Profile (HARP) questionnaire.
The patient risk selection tool, which has not yet been released by the government, will be going through GP patient databases like a big vacuum cleaner to determine disease complexity and predicted demand for unplanned acute care services. Higher risk categories will attract a slightly higher practice payment.
What’s missing is just about everything else – in particular a comprehensive multi-pronged approach shared by primary care providers and hospitals, incentivising multidisciplinary patient-centred team care.
Although the government talks about a new bundled payment approach, practices are paid a lump sum per patient regardless of how many services the patient receives – as far as I know this is the definition of a capitation system.
How will the proposed model further improve the way care is delivered to people with chronic and complex health conditions? Will it incentivise multidisciplinary care? Does it reach across silos and improve communication? Is the proposed change of payment system in combination with a hospital avoidance risk stratification tool enough to deliver the comprehensive, coordinated care many of our patients need?
The ‘biggest health reform in a generation’ did not receive extra funding from the government. I’m concerned that this is not yet the fundamental shift towards patient-focused healthcare as asked for by consumers and health professionals. What do you think?
The government seems to have lost the goodwill of the profession about their Health Care Homes model. On Friday afternoon the details of implementation stage 1 were published and it was underwhelming – to say the least.
A health reform like this, which should focus on better integration, coordination and team care, must be planned and rolled out in collaboration with the profession and consumers, not quietly published on a Friday afternoon.
Despite initial reassurances from Federal Health Minister Sussan Ley, there has been no consultation. Many GPs have expressed concerns during the weekend or indicated that they have lost interest in the model.
Several details of the government’s proposed model, including the risk stratification tool, are not yet available. What happened to support for multidisciplinary team care, comprehensiveness loading (incl for rural and remote areas) and realigning PIP and SIP funding?
Under the model support payments for chronic disease management will be bundled, with enrolled patients eligible for only 5 non-chronic disease related services per year. Restricting access to acute care for people with chronic and complex conditions is not helpful and puts patients at risk.
RACGP president Bastian Seidel said: “At best, it is a two year underfunded trial on the effects of inadequate capitation funding. It will put financially vulnerable patients at risk of not having access to Medicare rebates when they seek care that is not associated with their predetermined chronic health condition.”
It is difficult to comprehend that the government acknowledges there is a growing problem with regards to Australians living with chronic & complex conditions, it wants major reform to tackle this issue but is not prepared to invest in a sustainable, evidence-based and cost-saving model supported by the profession and consumers – and does not consult.
The proposed model is inadequately funded and will likely fail to improve health outcomes for Australians living with chronic and complex health conditions. I’m sure the government can do better than this.