Subscribe
×

Preference: Government and politics

MBS Reviews – A long way to go, and a lot of improvement needed

BY DR ANDREW MULCAHY CHAIR, MEDICAL PRACTICE COMMITTEE

Members will recall that the AMA cautiously welcomed the MBS reviews in 2015, noting it was a far-reaching exercise with an ambitious two-year timeline.

The AMA’s support for the MBS reviews has always been contingent on the review being clinician-led and having direct and early involvement of the specialist colleges, associations and societies (CAS). The AMA has called for the review to be fully transparent from decision making through to implementation, and be underpinned by a scientific approach. There must also be scope to add new items to achieve the overall aim of ‘modernising’ the MBS.

In March, the AMA entered into a compact agreement with the Government for a shared vision for Australia’s health system. We committed to support in principle the ongoing operation of the MBS Review Taskforce, including a transparent, consultative clinician-led approach to high-value care and future-proofing the system. During that time the Government extended the review another three years to 2020.

Under the compact, the AMA is committed to work with the Department of Health to deliver on agreed recommendations arising from the MBS Review in conjunction with the relevant sectors. The AMA will continue to identify areas to improve the review process and recommendations.

The AMA’s approach to the MBS review has always been to defer recommendations relating to specialty items to the relevant CAS groups, and comment on the broader policy.

Now two years into the review, the AMA is continuing to press the Government to ensure that reviews remain more than just a cost-cutting exercise, or a mechanism to meddle with the scope of clinical decision making.

In this context, the AMA reviews concerning recommendations against a set of key principles to determine if a response to the Taskforce is necessary.  This work is undertaken through stakeholder consultation with an AMA Working Group drawing from the broader membership, and the Medical Practice Committee. AMA also facilitates an annual CAS meeting for stakeholders to air concerns and receive information as the reviews progress.

Based on these feedback mechanisms, the AMA has responded to every single MBS review consultation – raising issues from across our membership, while stressing where systematic improvements need to be made. The AMA Secretariat and the President have done this through direct representations with the Health Minister, the Department of Health and in writing to the Chair of MBS Review Taskforce.

In our latest submission to the MBS Review Chair, the AMA highlighted a number clear deficiencies and significant variations in the process adopted by the MBS Review Taskforce and the Clinical Committees.

Noting the commitment made by the profession to sit on the Clinical Committees and Working Groups, the AMA has continued to stress that there must remain absolute transparency of the review process.

In particular: where a decision is being made in contradiction to the advice of the profession, there should be clear evidence and data to support such a decision.

We also called for early engagement of CAS on each of the Clinical Committees to ensure recommendations are practical and consistent. We have called for complete transparency, starting with how Clinical Committee members are selected and details of the Committees’ scope of work. Finally, the AMA has strongly recommended the Clinical Committees engage early with other Department areas including the Medicare Compliance and Professional Services Review to ensure that any changes to the schedule are practical for clinicians and do not result in sub-optimal care for patients. We all know a poorly worded MBS item can set up a practitioner to fail.

What we don’t want to see is a confusing MBS schedule, with medical practitioners as scapegoats.

With more than half the Clinical Committees yet to be established, there is still a long way to go. The next round of public consultations is expected to occur in February, 2018, commencing with the anaesthesia and oncology reports. The AMA continues to monitor with interest, and encourages the profession and the CAS to engage in the consultation and review process early. The full schedule of MBS reviews can be found on the Department of Health website: http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/content/MBSR-about

In the meantime, the AMA has and will continue to hold up our end of the compact with a commitment to a stronger MBS review. Government must ensure the Review does the same through a significant improvement in the way they conduct it.

 

 

The road ahead for 2018

BY DR ROD McRAE, CHAIR, AMA COUNCIL OF PUBLIC HOSPITAL DOCTORS

Another calendar year has flown.  CPHD meets regularly to make sure AMA’s positions are informed by those with a Specialist qualification and choosing to self-identify as public hospital doctors.  This embraces the Specialist employed experience and the continuing quest for continuous public hospital medical quality and general systems improvement.  We have an influencing position that is enhanced by more members taking opportunity to solidify CPHD’s base and keep us rich with progressive ideas.  Industrial negotiations for employed medical practitioners are currently underway in several jurisdictions, many of which have been impacted by the federal government’s alteration of previously understood arrangements related to salary packaging.  It will be of acute interest to observe how these negotiations are managed, as most have mandated elections from the time of my writing to October 2018.

COAG – Public Hospital funding Agreement

In July 2017, the States and Commonwealth executed a health care funding Agreement out to 2020.  It laudably touts incentives aimed to reduce avoidable sentinel events, hospital acquired complications and avoidable readmissions.  However, if a State does not achieve an arbitrary benchmark, the otherwise locked in 45 per cent of their public hospital funding could be at risk (including a slice of an additional $2.9 billion of capped services growth funding). 

There becomes a risk that any public hospital not adequately meeting its risk improvement targets, irrespective of cause, will then bear funding cuts, yet still be required to meet the defined Agreement imperatives (thus a potentially downward spiral of ‘doing more with less’).  Such a hospital would be incentivised to rapidly make change in the hope of reducing its funding loss.  Public hospitals may insist members work unsociable hours (for alleged quality & efficiency reasons), roll-out an unmanaged expansion of private practice arrangements (to cover funding shortfalls) and redirect Doctor’s clinical support time to the design of new systems (all to avoid the penalties).  CPHD will work on these and a host other concerns that require our reasoned and measured response.  In 2018, CPHD will monitor against such potentially perverse outcomes that may arise from the underpinning by an ultimately penalty-based regime, let alone the potential for cherry-picking. 

Private Practice

For this health care funding agreement round, the Commonwealth seems to have flagged its willingness to consider change to the arrangements applying to private patients admitted to public hospitals.  As discussed in October, there are good reasons why CPHD is concerned about any attempt to substantially reform existing arrangements, including availability of specialist clinical skills & equipment, supplementation of public hospital income and breadth of case mix available for optimum teaching, training and research.

CPHD recognises and supports the long-standing rights of public hospital patients who elect to receive services as a private patient, but appreciates there does need to be balance.  It is a no-brainer that clinical need, not private/public status, must be the determinant for patient prioritisation and that the patient must be free to make informed choice without unfair inducements or undue pressure to convert to private insurance.  Equally, Doctors must be assured of their right to provide care without undue pressure to encourage conversion from public status.  CPHD will be at the vanguard of any mooted change agenda. 

Personal Safety

In my August Australian Medicine piece I expressed how I am regularly horrified at the experiences of violence in our community and our workplaces.  Therefore, CPHD motives are obvious in its lead advocacy for better investment in security, awareness, technology and facilities to make all employees safe when at work.  It seems to me our response should be health professional holistic rather than just doctor specific (i.e. protecting the team).  We still want accessible and personable care for the public so excessive responses are to be avoided (think armed security in Victorian emergency departments previously batted off by AMA because the idea presented more dangers than it solved).  CPHD will produce an AMA position to reduce workplace dangers in light of escalating population growth, mental health / substance abuse presentations and the anger born amongst some from frustrations at the lack of public hospital responsiveness and capacity. 

Overall, your Council of Public Hospital Doctors is in the business of emerging trend identification and response.  No doubt in 2018 some ‘curly’ policy pronouncement will emerge from government ranks but we are consultative, responsive and equipped to ensure our public patients and our public employed clinical ranks are protected from the excess of public service thought bubbles or political ideology.

I offer season’s greetings to all of our AMA membership family.  It is important for all to ensure they have a sensible break and attend to personal well-being, family and friends, and to start 2018 refreshed and invigorated.  See you in the New Year! 

 

[Viewpoint] Saving lives efficiently across sectors: the need for a Congressional cost-effectiveness committee

In the preamble of the United States Constitution, a primary goal of government was established: “to promote the general Welfare”. Upon the opening of budget deliberations for the 115th US Congressional session, we suggest an evidence-based approach for the new Congress in aligning the budget process more closely with this national goal. In particular, we underscore the efficiency of the US public health sector in promoting societal welfare, and reveal a relative underinvestment in public health compared with other sectors.

GPs are tops – ABS latest stats

Australians still love their local doctors.

At least that is the finding of the latest Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) data, which shows that patients around the nation are satisfied with their GPs.

The ABS’s latest Patient Experiences in Australia Survey reinforces previous findings that Australia’s dedicated GPs are meeting increasing demand and providing quality services.

GPs attracted a very high satisfaction rating from patients in the survey.

The survey produced positive results for medical specialists and emergency department doctors as well, but GPs are the doctors who have the most frequent contact with patients.

According to the survey, 83 per cent of Australians saw a GP in the last 12 months and around 78 per cent of patients have a preferred usual GP.

AMA President Dr Michael Gannon described the results of the survey as outstanding.

“Importantly, the proportion of people waiting longer than they felt acceptable for a GP appointment decreased from 23 per cent in 2013-14 to 18 per cent in 2016-17,” Dr Gannon said.

“Of those who patients who saw a GP for urgent medical care, 75 per cent were seen within 24 hours of making an appointment.

“The survey shows that cost is not a barrier to accessing GP care, with only 4 per cent of respondents saying that they at least once delayed seeing a GP or did not see a GP when needed due to cost.

“Of those patients who saw a GP in the last 12 months, 92 per cent reported that the GP always or often listened carefully to them, 94 per cent reported that their GP always or often showed them respect, and 90.6 per cent reported that their GP always or often spent enough time with them.

“These results are outstanding when you consider the pressure under which our GPs are working today.”

Dr Gannon said GPs are a critical part of the health system, and they must be valued and supported.

General practice remains under significant funding pressure due to cuts by successive governments, he said, but GPs continue to provide high quality and accessible primary care services across the country.

“When people are sick, they want to see a GP,” Dr Gannon said.

“As the Government looks to shape the future of our health system, it needs to build its investment in general practice, which remains the most cost effective part of the system.”

CHRIS JOHNSON

 

AMA PHN member survey

In response to the recommendations of the Hovarth Review into Medicare Locals (the Hovarth Review), the Government established 31 Primary Health Networks (PHNs) across Australia, commencing in July 2015. These replaced Medicare Locals (MLs) that were established by the previous Labor Government.

The fundamental purpose of PHNs is similar to that of their predecessors “to facilitate improvements in the primary health system, promote coordination and pursue integrated health care.” However, GPs are expected to play a more central role in PHNs than they did in MLs. PHNs are also expected to focus more on improving the linkages between primary and hospital care.[1][2]

In 2013, leading up to the Hovarth Review, the AMA conducted a survey of GP members to gauge their views on the performance of MLs. More than 1,200 GPs participated in that survey, with members particularly critical of  their engagement with GPs and the extent to which many had failed to help improve patient access to primary care services. This survey formed the basis of AMA submission to the Hovarth Review, which recommended significant reforms including a more central role for GPs.

The AMA recently conducted a similar survey to provide members with the opportunity to give us their views on the performance of PHNs to date. Participants were provided with a number of statements and, were asked to select the options (strongly agree, mostly agree, neither agree or disagree, mostly disagree, or strongly disagree) that best reflect their opinion.

A total of 399 GPs participated in the survey, which represents a much smaller sample size than the 2013 survey. Nonetheless, it does provide a snapshot of the views of those members who participated in the survey and the results should be used to provide helpful guidance on areas where PHNs need to increase their focus.  

The survey results are summarised as follows:

Understanding of the role and functions of PHNs:

  • 61.5 per cent of respondents indicated that they have a reasonable understanding of the role and functions of PHNs (comparative data is not available for MLs).
  •  Information about activities and services:
  • 47.9 per cent of GPs surveyed believe they have not been kept informed about the work their PHN is undertaking and the services it supports (48.9 per cent for MLs).
  • GPs access to information and events of relevance:
  • 51.4 per cent indicated that they have not been provided with information and access to events of relevance to day to day practice (57.8 per cent for MLs).
  • PHN engagement with local GPs:
  • 62.6 per cent indicated that their PHN had failed to engage and listen to them about the design of health services needed in the local area (68.8 per cent for MLs).
  • Practice staff access to useful and effective education and resources:
  • 46.3 per cent of GPs surveyed indicated that their practice staff have not been provided with access to useful and effective education and resources (comparative data is not available for MLs).
  • Valuing GP contribution:
  • 52.8 per cent believed that their PHN does not value or recognise the inputs of local GPs (60.8 per cent for MLs).
  • Timing of meetings and information sessions:
  • 46.1 per cent indicated that their PHN was holding meetings and information sessions at times that were not easily attended (52.4 per cent for MLs).
  • Supporting targeted programs for disadvantaged groups:
  • 50.6 per cent indicated that their PHN has not been supporting well targeted programs that could help patients, particularly those who are disadvantaged (comparative data is not available for MLs).
  • Facilitating services that complement existing general practice:
  • 52.8 per cent indicated their PHN is not focused on facilitating services that complement existing general practice services s (comparative data is not available for MLs).
  • Practice support for MyHealth Record:
  • 57.4 per cent indicated that their PHN had not provided effective support for practices to implement the MyHealth Record (56.6 per cent for MLs re PCEHR).
  • Access to psychological services:
  • 48.0 per cent indicated that their PHN had failed to improve patients’ access to psychological services (48.9 per cent for MLs regarding improved Access to Allied Psychological Services (ATAPS)).
  • Accessible mental health services for ATSI patients:
  • 35.5 per cent of GPs surveyed indicated that their PHN had not facilitated appropriately funded and accessible services to meet the mental health care of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander (ATSI) patients (comparative data is not available for MLs).
  • Delivery of mental health and suicide prevention services and supports to ATSI patients:
  • 43.3 per cent of GPs surveyed indicated that their PHN had not been able to improve the delivery of mental health and suicide prevention services and support to ATSI patients (comparative data is not available for MLs).
  • Access to services for patients requiring mental health care, but who are not eligible for National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) packages:
  • 52.7 per cent indicated that their PHN had been ineffective in facilitating for the needs of patients requiring mental health care, but who are not eligible for NDIS packages (comparative data is not available for MLs).
  • Psycho-social supports for patients with mental health problems:
  • 55.9 per cent indicated that their PHN had been unable to ensure effective and timely psycho-social supports to patients with mental health problems (comparative data is not available for MLs).
  • Overall PHN performance:
  • 58.0 per cent indicated that their PHN had not improved local access to care for patients (73.0 per cent for MLs).
  • Overall delivery of primary care:
  • 62.6 per cent indicated that their PHN had not improved the capacity to deliver better quality healthcare overall (71.6 per cent for MLs).

PHNs have an important role to play in improving the integration of health services within primary health care, enhancing the interface between primary care and hospitals, and ensuring health services are tailored to the needs of local communities. They have the potential to have a strong impact on aged care services, mental health outcomes, chronic disease management, Indigenous health services, and services for the disadvantaged.  

The AMA believes that for PHNs to be successful they must: have a clear purpose, with clearly defined objectives and performance expectations; be GP-led and locally responsive; focus on supporting GPs in caring for patients and working collaboratively with other health care professionals; have strong skills based Boards; be appropriately funded to support their operations, particularly those that support the provision of clinical services; focus on addressing service gaps, not replicating existing services; not be overburdened with excessive paperwork and policy prescription; and be aligned with Local Hospital Networks (LHNs), with a strong emphasis on improving the primary care/hospital interface. [3]

They should focus on the following areas:

  • Population Health – Identifying community health needs and gaps in service delivery; identifying at-risk groups; supporting existing services to address preventive health needs; and coordinating end of life care.
  • Building General Practice Capacity – Supporting general practice infrastructure to deliver quality primary care through IT support; education and training of practices and staff; supporting quality prescribing; training to support the use of e-Health technology and systems; enhancing practices capacity and capabilities to embrace the principles in being a medical home to their patients, and facilitating the provision of evidence-based multidisciplinary team care.
  • Engaging with Local Hospital Networks (LHNs)/Districts – Identifying high risk groups and developing appropriate models of care to address their specific health issues (e.g. those at high risk of readmissions, including non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus, congestive cardiac failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and other chronic diseases); and improving system integration in conjunction with local health networks.[4]

Given that PHNs are still a relatively new feature on primary care landscape, the jury is still out on the performance of PHNs. The AMA believes that they should be given every chance to succeed and intends conducting the same survey in a couple of years’ time to see how much of a difference they are making for GPs and their patients.

Dr Moe Mahat
Manager Policy
AMA General Practice Section

[1]Ducket et al (2015) Leading change in primary care: Boards of PHNs can improve the Australian health care system.

[2] Prof. John Hovarth AO (2014) Review of Medicare Locals: Report to Minister for Health and Minister for Sport.

[3] AMA Position statement Primary Health Networks 2015  position-statement/primary-health-networks

[4] Op Cit.

Federal Council communiqué – meeting of 17 and 18 November

Federal Council met in Canberra on 17/18 November. The meeting came in the midst of the political uncertainty arising from measures to deal with the citizenship status of federal politicians, the voluntary assisted dying debates in the parliaments of Victoria and NSW, and the strong majority poll in favour of same sex marriage reform announced during that week. 

The President reported on his activities over the past three months since the last meeting of Council in August. Among the highlights were his attendance at the meeting of Confederation of Medical Associations in Asia and Oceania (CMAAO) in Tokyo in September and the Council meeting and General Assembly of the World Medical Association (WMA) in Chicago in October. The WMA adopted a modernised version of the Declaration of Geneva which was also adopted by Federal Council at its November meeting.

The Secretary General’s report focused on the breadth of submissions, Parliamentary committee appearances, and inquiries to which the secretariat has responded in the last few months, continuing a trend observed throughout 2017.

These included a submission on the security of Medicare cards; several reviews of training funding arrangements and workforce distribution; improving Medicare compliance; secondary use of Medicare data; coordinated advocacy with State and Territory AMAs to change the requirements for mandatory reporting under the National Law; medical indemnity changes; codeine scheduling changes; and ongoing negotiations with Minister Hunt on several issues including the future funding of after hours GP services.

The AMA’s engagement with the MBS Review process and the Private Health Ministerial Advisory Committee continue. Federal Council noted the release by Minister Hunt during October of the first tranche of reforms to private health insurance. Key reform areas remain under review including the scope of benefit cover in the proposed gold, silver, bronze, and basic policies; insurance cover of private patients in public hospitals; and a process to improve transparency of medical fees and out of pocket costs. This latter subject was a focus for discussion by the Council in one of its two policy sessions.

In considering an approach to improved transparency of medical fees and out of pocket costs, Federal Council noted the Government’s proposal to establish an expert working group to consider the most effective way to communicate medical fees and out of pocket costs. Federal Council also noted that informed financial consent was key but not uniformly practiced. Federal Council reiterated its position statement in support of doctors charging an amount appropriate to the service and the patient, while condemning excessive charging. Federal Council agreed principles to guide AMA input into the expert working group.

Federal Council noted the array of AMA’s public health advocacy including an appearance before a parliamentary inquiry into e-cigarettes and consideration of the AMA’s broader tobacco advocacy. Federal Council approved two public health position statements, one dealing with nutrition and the other, road safety. The Council passed unanimously a motion calling on greater transparency of the conditions under which the asylum seekers and refugees on Manus Island are being held and offering an independent assessment by doctors of the health situation.

Continuing areas of public health policy attention include men’s health, sexual diversity and gender identity, and social determinants of health. A new working group was established to review the AMA position statement on drugs in sport.

Federal Council received a presentation from Scott McNaughton, General Manager of Participation Pathway Design with the National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA) in the second policy session. Councillors were interested to learn about the role of medical practitioners in providing NDIS assessments; and the processes to access appropriate medical and psychosocial supports for people with mental illness. The presentation provided essential information and highlighted the steps underway by NDIA to fully implement the NDIS.

The Equity, Inclusion and Diversity Committee of Council reported that it proposes to publish an annual report on progress to achieve equity, inclusion, and diversity in the AMA.

Federal Council received a report on the successful forum in October on reducing the risk of suicide in the medical profession which was convened jointly by Federal AMA, AMA NSW and Doctors Health Services Pty Limited. The two key themes that came from the forum were the impact of culture and the need for compassion. A full report will be published in due course.

At the conclusion of the meeting the Secretary General reminded Federal Council that 2018 is an election year for positions on the Council, with a call for nominations to go out to all voting members in February. Federal Council draws its standing from its representative structure, with representation of members from across the country, and all specialties and stages of practice.

Dr Beverley Rowbotham
Chair Federal Council

Secretary General to change next year

AMA Secretary General Anne Trimmer will next year leave the organisation she has led since 2013.

Ms Trimmer recently announced she has decided to pursue a different career direction when her five-year contract with the AMA expires in August 2018.

She informed the AMA Board of her decision before announcing it to staff in November.

AMA President Dr Michael Gannon Ms Trimmer had provided strong, stable leadership of the AMA Secretariat.

Under her direction, he said, the Secretariat had delivered a well-informed and strategic platform for the work of the AMA’s President, Vice President, Board, and Federal Council.

“Anne has maintained the AMA’s reputation as the peak medical advocacy group in the country and one of the most significant and successful lobby groups in Federal politics,” Dr Gannon said.

“The AMA has direct and personal access to the Government, the Parliament, and the bureaucracy from the Prime Minister down.

“Our leading and collaborative role in political and health circles is influential and agenda-setting.

“Anne has been at the helm through the controversial co-payment crisis, the subsequent Medicare freeze debate, the successful Scrap the Cap campaign against reforms to self-education expenses, the AMA’s survey of members to update our position on euthanasia, the AMA’s first ever Health of Asylum Seekers Summit, and the launch of our position on marriage equality.

“At the same time, she drove significant governance reforms for the Association, including establishing the AMA Board, implementing resource-sharing arrangements between the AMA and its subsidiary, the Australasian Medical Publishing Company (AMPCo), and building stronger relationships with the State and Territory AMAs, especially on membership issues.

“She is also the AMA’s representative on the Government’s Private Health Ministerial Advisory Committee (PHMAC).

“Anne has built strong personal and professional relationships with key decision makers in Canberra, which helped drive the AMA’s advocacy and influence in national politics.

“On behalf of the Board and the Federal Council, I thank Anne for her outstanding contribution to the AMA and the health sector, and wish her every success in her future endeavours.”

The AMA Board has commenced a process for a seamless transition to a new Secretary General in 2018.

CHRIS JOHNSON

Fees List finalised

The AMA List of Medical Services and Fees 2017 has been finalised, with a single indexation rate of 1.86 per cent across all fees, to take into account the rising costs of running a practice.

“Practice costs – such as wages for staff, rent, electricity, computers, continual professional development, accreditation, and indemnity insurance – have all increased, and must be met from the fees charged by the medical practitioner,” AMA President Dr Gannon said.

“The Government has frozen its contribution toward the cost of medical care – the patient’s Medicare rebate – since 1 July 2014, but the cost of providing that care has continued to rise.

“As a result, today there is a significant difference between the AMA fees – which reflect the real cost of providing care – and the Medicare rebates.

“Medical practices can’t absorb these increasing costs for five years in a row. They have to increase their fees – and without an increase in the Medicare rebate, patients will have to pay more out of their own pockets.”

This year’s 1.86 per cent rise is lower than last year’s average rise of 2.35 per cent.

The Fees List is now available online at: https://feeslist.ama.com.au/

New research project into type 1 diabetes funded

The Government has announced and funded a new researc hresearch project into type 1 diabetes.

The project will be run by St Vincent’s Institute of Medical Research in Melbourne and will bring together four of Australia’s top research teams. It will be headed by Professor Thomas Kay.

Type 1 diabetes, for which there is currently no known cure, represents around 10 per cent of all cases of diabetes and is one of the most common chronic childhood conditions. It affects approximately 150,000 Australians.

Although its onset occurs most frequently in people under 30 years, type 1 diabetes is emerging more in older people.

New research suggests almost half of all people who develop the condition are diagnosed over the age of 30.

The project will focus on three intersecting themes: 

  • early life and understanding why the disease develops;
  • prevention and seeking to identify new drugs to stop the disease from occurring; and
  • treatment aiming to improve therapies to replace the cells that are destroyed during the disease process.

This research will be critical to developing integrated approaches to assist those with the disease and to find ways to stop it occurring in the first instance.

Professor Kay said the emotional, physical and financial impacts of type 1 diabetes are far-reaching for those who are diagnosed with the disease, as well as for their families and friends. 

“It is our intention to make discoveries that positively impact on those living with the disease, and hopefully, prevent others from developing it in the future,” Professor King said.

“On behalf of myself (from St Vincent’s) and my co-chief investigators Professor Andrew Lew and Professor Len Harrison (both from the Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Research); and Professor Philip O’Connell from the Westmead Institute of Research and Westmead Clinical School (NSW)) – we are honoured to accept this substantial grant to undertake research into type 1 diabetes, and are grateful to the Australian Government for making this important, and potentially for some, life-changing announcement.

“Collectively, we have spent many years of our professional lives investigating type 1 diabetes, so we are keen and committed to do our best to make discoveries that will prevent or minimise, its impacts.

This funding is from the National Health and Medical Research Council’s grants program.

CHRIS JOHNSON