×

[Comment] Offline: 13/11—The flames of war

It’s likely there will be many accusations of failure in the wake of the appalling terrorist attacks in Paris last week. Failures of intelligence. Failures to take the threat of attack seriously, especially following the murders at Charlie Hebdo and a Jewish supermarket in January. But one aspect of the events that took place on the evening of 13/11 was certainly not a failure—namely, the response of France’s emergency, and specifically medical emergency, services. French health workers deserve international tributes for their professionalism in the face of such harrowing circumstances.

‘We are professional on social media’ medical students say

The Australian Medical Students’ Association has hit back at claims that a third of medical students post inappropriate material to their social media accounts.

AMSA was responding to a recent survey, published online today in the Medical Journal of Australia, that found 34.7% of respondents reported posting unprofessional content in their social media accounts. Intoxication was the number one ‘inappropriate’ posting, followed by illegal drug use and posting of patient information.

AMSA President James Lawler said he was proud of their members and the professionalism they display on social media.

“AMSA has played a leadership role in giving students clear advice on how to manage their engagement with social media and believes the overwhelming majority of students are acting in a professional and responsible way.

Related: MJA InSight – Students behaving badly

“The MJA study clearly has a number of limitations in its methodology.

“While it makes a contribution to the debate over social media, its results need to be interpreted with caution.”

880 students voluntarily completed the survey over 6 months in 2013.

The authors of the paper, Drs  Christopher Barlow  and  Stewart  Morrison from  The  Alfred  and  St  Vincent’s, acknowledged the limitations of the study, including that it included a small proportion of the 16 993 medical students enrolled that year.They also said most of the participants were from a small number of universities which may limit the generalisation  of the results. The survey also relied on self reporting and recruitment was done on social media.

Related: Social Media for Health Professionals – Benefits and Pitfalls

35% of respondents changed their social media privacy settings as a result of the survey, suggesting that education and reminders could be a simple and effective intervention.

Mr Lawler said that social media is an important communication tool and shouldn’t be demonised.

“There are also a range of benefits from social media in medical education, such as the Free Open Access Medical Education movement ( #FOAMed).

“AMSA will continue to work closely with medical students to maximise the benefits of social media in their studies, on the path to a medical career.”

AMSA and the AMA created guidelines in 2010 for the professional use of social media for doctors and medical students.

Latest news:

 

Gatekeeper role of GPs under scrutiny in MBS review

The crucial gatekeeper role played by GPs is coming under scrutiny as the Federal Government explores a possible overhaul of the operation of Medicare as part of its review of the MBS.

While around 35 Clinical Committees will be set up to conduct an item-by-item review of the MBS, a memorandum by Review Taskforce Chair Professor Bruce Robinson shows “high-level” issues affecting the overall functioning of the Medicare system are also under active consideration.

The Review Chair was at pains to insist that there was no set savings target for the MBS Review, but added there was “a need to look at the full breadth of the $19.1 billion MBS spend, not just general practitioner services”.

His comments came as it was revealed the final results of the MBS Review would not be submitted to the Government until December 2016, almost certainly putting them beyond the next Federal election, which is due by late next year.

Much of the attention so far has been on the Review’s appraisal of more than 5700 items on the MBS, and the fact that it also encompasses an examination of the over-arching rules governing the operation of Medicare is less well known.

But the far-reaching possibilities this entails started to become clearer at a series of stakeholder forums organised by the Taskforce, including fundamental changes in professional roles and responsibilities, models of remuneration, and the use of the MBS to “actively guide” clinical decision-making.

In his report on consultations, Professor Robinson said some had complained that the gatekeeper role played by GPs was limiting the effectiveness of team-based care, such as by requiring all referrals to be made through the GP.

The Taskforce Chair said that though some participants reaffirmed the importance of GPs as gatekeepers, there were suggestions that specialists be able to make direct referrals in selected cases, such as a physiotherapist requesting a knee x-ray.

Suggestions of any dilution in the central role played by GPs in coordinating care fly in the face of the latest advice from health experts here and abroad, who have argued that, far from diminishing the position of the family doctor, governments should enhance it.

In its latest review of the Australian health system, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development argued strongly against any further fragmentation of the health system, and urged that primary health care be strengthened.

And University of Sydney researchers last month reported that GPs were holding health costs down by coordinating the care provided by hospitals, specialists, allied health professionals and community and aged care services.

“If general practice wasn’t at the core of our health care system, it is likely the overall cost of health care would be far higher,” the researchers said.

The MBS Review process has also included discussion about a shift away from the fee-for-service remuneration model to pay for performance – an issue being explored in detail by the Primary Health Care Advisory Group being led by former AMA President Dr Steve Hambleton.

“While many participants felt the MBS could improve quality of care by paying for performance, concerns were voiced that clinicians may be averse to taking on high-risk patients who are unlikely to achieve target outcomes,” Professor Robinson reported. “Furthermore, some rebates may need to reflect the additional risk that providers would be taking on – potentially a complex analysis.”

In addition to exploring so-called ‘macro’ issues, Professor Robinson provided more detail on how the review of individual Medicare items would proceed.

He said each of the Clinical Committees would conduct an initial “triage” of usage patterns, evidence and descriptors to identify items in need of more detailed investigation.

It would then conduct a rapid evidence review and make recommendations to the Taskforce based on its appraisal.

Given the scale of the task, Professor Robinson said the Committees, which would be peer-nominated and clinically-led, would be likely to appoint subsidiary working groups.

Already, six pilot Clinical Committees have been established, including in obstetrics.

The Taskforce Chair said items suggested for review fell into one of six categories: they were obsolete, misused, under-utilised, placed undue restrictions on providers or did not reflect modern practice.

He said participants stressed the importance of Taskforce plans to share the evidence used to support recommendations about items, to improve clinical practice and inform the future direction of research.

The Review Taskforce is due to provide an interim report to the Government by the end of the year.

Professor Robinson’s Memorandum of the MBS Review Taskforce November 2015 Stakeholder Forums can be viewed at: sites/default/files/Summary%20Memorandum%20MBS%20Review%20Stakeholder%20Forums%20November%202015%20%282%29.pdf

Adrian Rollins

 

[Comment] Nature’s bounties: reliance on pollinators for health

Human demands and impacts on the Earth’s life-support systems are at an all-time high. With the sixth mass extinction,1 climate change,2 and other major anthropogenic disturbances underway, understanding the wide range of vital benefits that societies derive from nature has become a global priority. A key research frontier is in characterising and valuing these ecosystem services systematically to inform investments in conservation of service-providing species and their habitats. Worldwide, about 75% of leading crops have improved yield and quality thanks to pollination by animals,3 primarily bees followed by a plethora of wild insects, and in some cases birds and bats.

The challenge for GPs: potential early cancer diagnosis vs over testing

General Practitioners face a balancing act when trying to trying to rule out an early cancer diagnosis in their patients.

Professor Jon Emery, the Herman Professor of Primary Care Cancer Research at the University of Melbourne wrote in the Medical Journal of Australia that GPs might only see 5-10 cases of non-cutaneous cancer each year among their several thousand consultations.

As a result, “even red-flag cancer symptoms have low positive predictive values”, he wrote.

“Only a few symptoms, such as [coughing up blood], breast lump and [blood in the urine], have a greater than 5% chance of being due to cancer in primary care. Most symptoms of cancer have more common benign causes in general practice. Further, cancers in general practice often present initially with more subtle non-specific symptoms.”

He said GPs are faced with the pressure of over-investigating patients who are unlikely to have cancer and the resultant costs to the patient and the health care system.

Related: Colorectal cancer screening and subsequent incidence of colorectal cancer: results from the 45 and Up Study 

GPs also have limited access to key tests which leads them to order less appropriate ones.

There are a new range of risk assessment tools (RATs) such as the charts developed by Hamilton and colleagues and the QCancer model for men and women of Hippisley-Cox and Coupland.

However Professor Emery said  “there is limited evidence on how GPs will use such tools or what impact they will have on diagnostic decision making”.

Read the full article in Medical Journal of Australia

Latest news:

2015: a year of action on many fronts

It has certainly been a year of pressing issues for the Council of Salaried Doctors. Some we’ve been directly involved in, others we’ve observed with interest. There are too many issues to cover in detail, but here are the highlights:

Bullying and harassment in the medical workplace

You can’t be precious when you work in a medical workplace. People say things in the heat of what is frequently a tense health care moment that may shock those from other environments. At other times, staff need firm direction, even performance management. Australian workplace law recognises that “reasonable management action” is not harassment.

The key thing for us is to recognise when things can go too far, or when there is deliberate sexual or other harassment of a staff member. That is not acceptable, and we must speak out about it. The AMA, along with its associated body, the Australian Salaried Medical Officers Federation, is developing a Position Statement on sexual harassment in the medical workplace to give doctors a framework for appropriate behaviour and responses to harassment.

End of Life/ palliative care

Demand for palliative care is increasing as our population ages. Patients and their families are seeking access to services to provide relevant care to people who are actually dying from their chronic and complex conditions. 

Gaps remain, as our health system is not always able to offer the care that is sought. In an ideal world, governments would work together to provide the necessary funding, as well as a strong legal framework within which patient-centred palliative care can be conducted with dignity and certainty. We intend to keep this important issue in our sights.

Employment issues

Once again, the medical workforce has faced challenges to its structures and ability to cope, particularly related to teaching, research and substitution.

The China-Australia Free Trade Agreement may allow Australian health care providers to set up private clinics in China, but its effect on pharmaceuticals and other areas of health care in Australia are, as yet, undetermined.

Activity-based funding has created a situation where funding models may not adequately compensate hospitals in certain areas, leaving salaried doctors to do more work with fewer resources.

The appearance of hospitalists has been considered by the Committee and the Industrial Coordination Meeting (ICM). There aren’t many yet, but numbers are likely to increase, so we are monitoring the situation, and there will be an update of our Position Statement. We don’t want the hospitalist role to usurp that of either Visiting Medical Officers or Doctors in Training.

Safety of doctors in the workplace

The AMA has highlighted evidence that doctors are at greater risk of stress-related problems than the general population. This is why doctors’ health services are vital to both the profession and the public good.

Doctors need physically safe workplaces. They need to be sure that they are safe from hostile patients. Sound policy and proper funding are vital to this. The AMA is reviewing its Position Statement on Personal Safety and Privacy for Doctors, and the Committee is providing valuable input.

The Australian Border Force Act (ABF Act)

The ABF Act threatens two years’ jail for health workers who speak out against conditions in immigration detention centres. Despite this, more than 400 Royal Children’s Hospital Melbourne staff have refused to discharge patients who face being returned to detention, and have demanded that all children be released from detention. The ABF Act is an outrage to medical independence, clinical judgment and the industrial wellbeing of those involved in treating asylum seekers. We will continue to make representations to the Government on this issue. 

Alterations to salary packaging arrangements

The Government announced in its 2015-16 Budget that it would introduce a cap of $5000 for salary sacrificed meal entertainment allowances from April 2016. A consultation process saw more than 64 submissions received, AMA included. This change affects salaried doctors more than any other group of doctors. We are greatly concerned about its potential effect on the ability of hospitals to attract and retain staff, especially struggling rural hospitals. Let’s hope the Government recognises the value to hospitals of this small incentive, though to date senators appear unmoved on the issue. 

Medicare Benefits Schedule Review

On 22 April, the Government announced a review of the more than 5500 items on the MBS. What this will mean for rights of private practice (RoPP) in public hospitals is not clear yet, but various governments have in the past targeted RoPP with outrageous and unsubstantiated claims of impropriety. Let’s hope we’re not facing another witch hunt, and that the benefits of RoPP will not be overlooked.

This is the final report from the Committee for the year, so I bid you farewell until next year. Enjoy a well-earned break as we prepare for another, doubtless hectic, year ahead. Best wishes for the Festive Season. 

Mapping differences in care

The AMA’s Health Financing and Economics Committee (HFEC) considered the issue of healthcare variation at its meeting on 10 October.

Members of the Medical Practice Committee joined the meeting to receive a briefing on the nation’s first Australian Atlas of Healthcare Variation, which is due to published by the Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care this month.

Associate Professor Anne Duggan, who chaired the committee advising the Commission on the Atlas, told the meeting its purpose was to inform the development of strategies, resources and tools to identify and reduce unwarranted health care variation, and to drive further investigation into variation at the local area level.

 The HFEC and its predecessor, the Economics and Workforce Committee, have had a longstanding interest in health care variation, particularly how it reflects the impact of healthcare financing and funding arrangements on the delivery of health care. These are both key terms of reference for the Committee.

In its first iteration, the Atlas will be in hard copy, though later editions may be published in an interactive online format. Internationally, this is not new ground. Both the United Kingdom and New Zealand have published their own atlases of health care variation.

At its simplest, health care variation relates to the gap between what is known to be effective, based on the best available evidence and research, and what actually happens in practice.

Of course, there may be good reasons for variation across areas. When these factors are taken into account, what is left is often referred to as unwarranted variation – differences that cannot be explained by patient factors including illness or medical need, or by the evidence-based medicine that should apply.

How should we, as clinicians, approach the issue of health care variation and the Atlas?

Clinicians have a direct interest in understanding variation in the health care they provide. Knowing the results of the care we provide, how well this meets patient needs, and how these results compare (fairly and accurately) with care for other patients in other locations and from other health care providers, is an inherent part of clinical care. This is essential information for delivering effective health care and for continuing improvement as part of clinical stewardship.

As clinicians, and with and on behalf of our patients, we clearly have the most direct interest in data on health care variation. If clinicians do not engage with this issue, what is assumed to be unwarranted variation, and the actions taken to address it, will be decided by others.

But engaging with the data doesn’t mean slavish acceptance. When publications such as the Atlas are released, our first responsibility is to carefully and critically consider the data. This is essential to determine what is warranted, as opposed to unwarranted, variation.

Members of the Committee said it was important to consider why particular areas have been selected, and whether they reflect preconceptions and existing agendas about variations.

It is also important to understand what data sets have been used to provide the health care data, and whether they have particular limitations that affect comparisons across areas, such as different treatment protocols or different approaches to providing services in or out of hospital.

It should also be recognised that atlases of health care variation are unlikely to address some important factors, such as how the preferences of patients can influence the nature and location of care provided.

Overall, the Atlas should serve as a conversation starter. The data it presents (taking into account necessary qualifications) should be used to explore the amount of, and possible reasons for, variation. That is, it should be used to help inform the start, but not the end, of the health care story.  

 

‘Extreme’ GST on health makes no sense

The sickest and most vulnerable in society would be hit hardest if the Federal Government moved to impose a consumption tax on health care, AMA President Professor Brian Owler has warned.

The Turnbull Government has initiated a wide-ranging discussion on tax reform that has included suggestions the Goods and Services Tax be raised to 15 per cent or be expanded to include health care, education and fresh food.

Treasurer Scott Morrison has sought to distance the Government from what he has described as more “extreme” proposals, and it has been reported that health and education will remain exempt because of complexities in applying the indirect tax to these services.

But Professor Owler said it was nonetheless important to discuss why health should remain GST-exempt.

He said imposing a consumption tax on health would have a “very significant impact” on the cost of health care, particularly for the most unwell and chronically ill.

Consumption taxes, because they apply across the board, are seen as inherently regressive, and Professor Owler said that was particularly the case when they were applied to health.

“It doesn’t get much more regressive [than] when it comes to health care, because this is going to be a tax on the sickest, most unwell people in our society; those who can least afford to pay a significant increase in health care costs,” he said.

Professor Owler said Australian patients already paid among the highest out-of-pocket costs in the world for their health care, and adding a GST would exacerbate the situation, to the particular detriment of the poorest and sickest.

It has been suggested that the impact of a GST on health could be offset by compensation payments, but Professor Owler questioned the practicality of the idea, particularly in directing it to those who most need it.

He said if fresh food was to be kept GST-exempt, so should health care: “We are talking about excluding fresh food, presumably because we want to preserve people’s health. So it makes no sense, then, to apply the GST to health care when people are actually sick and when they can least afford it”.

Adrian Rollins

Govt slurs on doctors must stop: AMA

AMA President Professor Brian Owler has called for an end to sustained Federal Government attacks on the medical profession amid mounting evidence that GPs are playing a crucial role in keeping health costs down.

Responding to the latest salvo fired by Health Minister Sussan Ley in which she alluded to widespread misuse of Medicare among general practitioners, Professor Owler said the profession was getting “very weary” of the Minister’s attacks, which he said were aimed at creating the impression GPs were rorting the system as a way to justify cuts to health spending.

“The Government tries to come out with this narrative about GPs doing the wrong thing,” the AMA President told ABC radio. “We’ve seen this from this Government before, and I think it’s about time that this Government actually started to appreciate, particularly their general practitioners, and stop painting the profession as people doing the wrong thing so that they can just find more savings in the Budget.”

Professor Owler made his comments after Ms Ley seized on a report from the Professional Services Review (PSR) agency to claim that that an increase in incorrect Medicare claims by doctors may be just the “tip of the iceberg”.

The agency reported a 40 per cent jump in the number of cases of suspected inappropriate practice referred to it for investigation in 2014-15, from 44 to 62, with much of the increase involving claims made for chronic disease management items.

“The MBS items and their associated rules are necessarily somewhat prescriptive,” the agency said in its Annual Report. “This provides scope for less scrupulous practitioners to populate the clinical record of an attendance with copious ‘generic’ computer template material. PSR committees often find that these are of little apparent relevance to the particular patient.”

“PSR committees frequently find that some practitioners in large practices provide [chronic disease management] services opportunistically despite the lack of clinical relevance.”

The Agency reported that action was taken in 70 per cent of cases referred to it, including ordering 24 doctors to repay $2.6 million of Medicare benefits, fully or partially disqualifying 13 practitioners from Medicare for anything up to 12 months, and issuing six reprimands. A further $1.57 million was refunded in negotiated settlements.

Ms Ley said she was deeply concerned that grey areas and ambiguities in Medicare rules that made it hard to track and prove abuses by less scrupulous practitioners could mean many more instances of misuse and rorting may be going unreported.

“These findings show the importance of having clear, strong rules around the use of individual Medicare items to ensure they are clinically relevant and reflect contemporary practice, but also aren’t misused for financial gain,” the Minister said.

The attack came just weeks after Ms Ley echoed claims that around 30 per cent of services and procedures provided by doctors through the Medicare Benefits Schedule were unnecessary or potentially harmful.

But Professor Owler said the number of practitioners found to have engaged in some form of wrongdoing by the PSR was a tiny fraction of the 100,000 registered doctors working in the country, and it was wrong Ms Ley to attempt to “politicise” the Review.

“The Government has been too eager to use the inappropriate behaviour of a small number of doctors – which the AMA does not condone – to tarnish the reputation of all GPs,” he said.

A major study (see page 8) has found that GPs, far from being a drag on the health system, are playing a crucial role in keeping patients healthy and out of expensive hospital care, and should be a focus for Government investment.

Professor Owler said the results showed that the Government should be praising, rather than bagging, GPs, and, at the very least, should be removing the freeze on Medicare rebates.

“Instead, the Government is regularly engaging in criticism of hardworking GPs, calling them ‘rorters’ in its efforts to sell its cost-cutting MBS review model and in its unbalanced portrayal of the latest Professional Services Review (PSR),” he said.

Adrian Rollins

A health record for all to share

Patients will have full access to use and share their electronic health record as they see fit, including sharing with retailers and IT developers, under a radical proposal outlined by Health Minister Sussan Ley.

Ms Ley said it was time Government “got out the way” and allowed consumers to have open-source access to all their health data, enabling them to use and share it as they liked.

“What if we, as Government, got out the way and gave consumers full access to their own personalised health data and full control over how they choose to use it?” she said. “It’s a revolutionary concept in health – but it shouldn’t be – given it’s already happening with industries like finance across the globe,” the Minister told the National Press Club.

But a parliamentary committee on human rights has already raised concerns about possible privacy breaches around the storage and use of health records uploaded to the central database of the MyHealth Record system.

The committee, chaired by former Howard Government Minister Philip Ruddock, said the proposed system raised significant privacy concerns – particularly the proposal that a person’s electronic health record be automatically uploaded to the database unless they actively opted out of the arrangement.

Mr Ruddock questioned whether such an approach justified the potential breach to privacy.

He told Parliament that there need to be a substantial concern, not simply pursuit of a desirable outcome, to justify limiting human rights.

Ms Ley said consumers already had control of personal data in industries like finance and banking, and patients should be similarly able to use their personal health information to create a portfolio of products and services specifically tailored to their health needs.

“What if you, as a consumer, were able to take your personal Medicare and Pharmaceutical Benefit Scheme data to a health care service; to an app developer; to a dietician; to a retailer and say how can you deliver the best health services for my individual needs?

“Why can’t we allow someone’s doctor to use an app developed on the free market to monitor their patient’s blood pressure at home following an operation, or keep a real time count on their insulin levels?

“The answer is – we can, and allowing consumers open-source access to their health data is the way to do it,” the Minister said.

Ms Ley said this was an area she was “keen to explore” as a way to give patients greater control over their health.

Adrian Rollins