I saw the post on Reddit and thought to share because I find it interesting.
The Numbers behind Why GP's Can Not Continue to Bulk Bill
Comments
They do charge for doing investigations but, which is what the GP is doing…
Those patient details and procedure summaries magically appear, you're right
Patient data and consult summaries are produced automatically via the medical software GP's work with, if required. Takes less than 10 seconds to produce if needed. GP practices don't charge each other to produce a medical summary and e-mail it, if required. They usually only charge if it's a large-scale document printed on paper manually, that requires posting via Aus Post.
How do you think the data that goes into those summaries is entered? Does it just magically appear while the GP is talking to the patient? The past history, the medication lists, the progress notes. They all need to be manually entered. Takes much longer than 10 seconds to do that.
@Raybert: The GP literally enters consult notes directly into the software as they are doing the consult.
The GP is already being paid to do that as part of the consult fee. Hence why they don't charge each other or patients for a medical summary.
@infinite: Not all of them enter consult notes with the patient in front of them. It is unpaid work if the GP is doing it & it takes them past the time limit for the consult, eg over 20 minutes for a 'normal' consult. Yes the GP is paid to enter that data, but again, it can be free if it takes them over the time limit. I imagine this would happen quite often with new patients who have a long medical history.
Not all of them enter consult notes with the patient in front of them.
It's literally the law that they must take consult notes during a consult.
If a GP continues taking notes after the patient leaves the room, the consult hasn't ended yet. They don't finish the consult and generate the billing codes for the front desk to charge the patient until they've concluded the notes and consult.
I imagine this would happen quite often with new patients who have a long medical history.
Most existing GP's aren't even accepting new patients unless it's a new born child of an existing patient. Existing GP's that are accepting new walk-in patients are doing so at a rate of maybe 1 week, with the exception of a brand new medical practice, in which case new patients are built into the budget costs of opening a new business, like any other.
Separate to that, there are substantially higher paying medicare billing codes for a first time patient to a GP. This is because Medicare pays GP's to have substantially longer first time consults, allowing for the fact that there will be time needed to obtain and enter a patients medical history and current state of affairs. If a new patient has multiple issues to be seen too, then the consult will be longer again and multiple medicare billing codes will be applied. GP's are not GP's because they are stupid - they know exactly how to work the system to ensure they are getting paid for every minute of their time where possible. You'd have to be staggeringly ignorant to think otherwise.
Separate to that, there are substantially higher paying medicare billing codes for a first time patient to a GP.
Yeah nah there isn't. Unless you mean long consults. Which isn't limited to new patients
Yeah nah there isn't.
I have no clue why you'd make that up.
There absolutely is, the CIC ten nine ten / eleven is the base first billing code used in that consult type.
The medicare title for the billing code is literally "Comprehensive Initial Consultation".
There absolutely is, the CIC ten nine ten / eleven is the base first billing code used in that consult type.
Do you mean MBS code 10910/1?
That's for optometrists
It's literally the law that they must take consult notes during a consult.
If a GP continues taking notes after the patient leaves the room, the consult hasn't ended yet. They don't finish the consult and generate the billing codes for the front desk to charge the patient until they've concluded the notes and consult.Notes do not have to be taken during the consult. It is perfectly legal to write them up after the consult has finished & the patient has left the room. What isn't legal is to bill for the time spent doing stuff without a patient in the room.
Separate to that, there are substantially higher paying medicare billing codes for a first time patient to a GP
There is no item number for a new patient with GPs. There are for other specialists, but there is not one for a GP. Most GP consults are attendance items, which are time based only. Unless procedures are done or other specific counselling is done, eg for smoking cessation, or for pregnancy-related items, GPs cannot bill multiple item codes for new patients.
GPs cannot bill multiple item codes for new patients
They absolutely can. It's perfectly straight forward for a GP to assign multiple billing codes if the attendance is clinically relevant or you meet the item description of all items.
@infinite: There are requirements for a pre-existing relationship for many things for a GP to bill. Certain procedural items, like ECG or spirometry could be billed in an initial consult, but most other things can't, or shouldn't be billed in an initial consult.
Otherwise, it's just the typical time-based billing, which is usually longer than standard for a new patient.
You'd be amazed by the technology.
100% agreed, I've always seen them do whatever admin tasks in front of me. writing referrals/scripts/sick leave/diagnosis notes, etc.
I've always seen them do whatever admin tasks in front of me. writing referrals/scripts/sick leave/diagnosis notes, etc.
Yep, all within the same 5 minutes I'm in the room…
Next patient is in within a minute, so no way they are spending '5-10 minutes on the backend' 🤣🤣🤣
Even when I'm there for result of a test, the doctor has to ask why I'm there.
Then he pulls up my record (it's incredibly fast @smalltime0), and says "oh yeah the result is back" then reads it then says "you're all good" and opens the door for me.Yes, I acknowledge that maybe one day it might be a different response - and he'll have to earn his money.
Had a phone appointment at 11.30. Calls me at 1. Happens every single time. These GPs are terrible with time management
They allocate maybe like 10mins each to maximise their income that's why… They just greedy think $ first before patients
You become a doctor then. See firstly if your smart enough and then if you can hack it
"Don't criticise someone unless you can personally do their job" is such a dumb internet argument.
That's because every clinic offers online bookings, and everyone is taking 20 minute slots. Half of them are old timers and frequent flyers who are just there for a chat, or go through a laundry list of problems and their million medications.
More like 5 minute slots..
Exactly, they book a 15min appointment and then rattle off 5 problems that takes 40min.
These GPs need better social skills not more money.
Mine has no problems getting rid of me in 5 minutes. I can be asking a question as we walk to the door.
Happen to one of the GP here. I switch GP and this other GP is very close to appointment time. I prefer if I have 11.30 am appointment, I get called out 11.30 or 11.35 not 12.15.
Bogans (like JV) will disagree with you but they also forget it takes 7+ yrs dedicated study at the highest level to become a GP and GPs deserve to be paid well as a result. Well written post.
Bogans (like JV)
My bogan next door neighbours read your post and are totally pissed off with you comparing them to JV.
also forget it takes 7+ yrs dedicated study
a PhD can take more and they are still paid less that GPs, so your statement is irrelevant…
so your statement is irrelevant
Oh… the irony, coming from you
It's true though.
so your statement is irrelevant
What has Dan Andrews got to do with this?
Ignorant take.
Do you think new medicines, medical diagnostics and medical devices are all invented by medical doctors? Like you think your local GP ducks down to the lab between consultations to conduct a 10 year study on immune checkpoint inhibitors, or develop a vaccine, or design a new spatial transcriptomics machine? Who do you think does these things?
Of course there are some researchers who are medical doctors, but many of them also have a PhD, or they are more involved in the translational end of the process (clinical trials etc).
To the person who said PhDs don't earn as much - that is true for an average person, but if you invent something valuable you can rake it in. I know someone who recently licensed an invention where their personal cut was >$10M. That person's annual salary is over $350k too.
Your really out of your ballpark on this one. You have taken your usual ignorant stupid comments to a whole new level
The PhD statement isn't exactly right.
You can get PhD in just 7 years (3 years Bachelor + 1 year Honour's + 3 years PhD).
During PhD, most people also usually get paid in the form of scholarship / stipend.
The basic one is extremely low though at ~ $30K/year (but tax free), and there are other top-up scholarships available.I don't think it is a fair comparison to a medical degree / GP specialisation.
10 years ago 50% of medical graduates became GPs, now it's 10%. Most of the reasons for the drop comes down the money. You make way more doing another speciality which takes similar levels of training and associated cost. If they lowered the income even further no one would be GPs or at least no one that had another choice. You would end of with no GPs or bad ones and people would just go to emergency which would end up costing the government 10x more than seeing a GP and who funds this? You the tax payer.
10 years ago 50% of medical graduates became GPs, now it's 10%
Supply & Demand
Just like Video store assistants….
@jv: It isn't supply and demand, there's huge demand but no supply. It's going to be a massive problem in 10 years with the only solution to make GP training more attractive (which comes down to increasing pay). This report shows that in 2023 Australia will be short almost one in three GPs. https://www.cornerstonehealth.com.au/latest-news/general-pra…
Yes, but it isn't supply and demand like a video store assistant
It will be when AI replaces all the GPs in a few years…
@FreddyMerc: it actually is supply and demand, only with GP's the supply is artificially restricted due to the limited uni intake. Hardly suprisingly that if you restrict supply then the majority will gravitate towards what pays the most. The answer is not massively increasing the pay, it is to increase the supply.
I think it takes 6-7 years to graduate from medicine then another few more years to specialise as a GP, from what my friend, who is a GP, tells me. Being a GP is a speciality.
it roughly 10-15 years all up before you actually are a gp.
5-7 years for uni, depending on where you go & which pathway you take
2 years in-hopsital training
2-3 years GP specialty training
‘Study at the highest level’
Not disputing the fact that it’s hard, but I know med students who’d cry if they had to attempt actuarial maths and a lot of other specialist fields.
My doctor still bulk billed me when she knew I was broke ass. I'm grateful because they can't do it for everyone I'm sure, she is an employee, or a contractor it seems, for a private clinic. But, well it's too long to explain. Ultimately the state health system should do more and be more accountable for what they do. Broke ass people shouldn't have to rely on private clinics for competent healthcare.
Snore.
Rather than creating a new account and lecturing us on why breaking Medicare is ok, why not do something to fundamentally change the system to a proper Universal Healthcare system.
But no. Doctors dont actually want to move to Scandinavian type models where private practice is all but abolished, you're all page a wage to service x patients and outcomes directly impact payments.
I didn't create a new account to lecture about anything. I saw the post on Reddit and thought to share because I find it interesting.
Why are you so full of yourself?
Why are you so full of yourself?
Maybe get someone to read your post back to you….
And what about your posts, bud?
The Scandinavian system is not free or universal. They pay among the highest rates of income tax in the world for that system, but using almost any part of that system still costs a fee and anything not straight out private medical coverage is of a very low quality of care, which is why almost 10% of Swedes have full private health care insurance. Even worse, the system is under constant strain and taxes for it are increasing, due to an absolute flood of illegal immigrants taking advantage of it, who ironically, are pretty much the only people not being charged a cent for it.
If you need to get taken to a public hospital for example, you pay an ambulance fee, an access fee to get admitted to the hospital and then a fee for any materials or dressing used to treat you. You'll get charged a fee per day you were in the hospital, a fee per doctor that treats you and that's just SOME of what you'll get charged. Most of those fees start at 300 Kr (About $45 AU), it'll be about 10x that fee just for the ambulance.
Sweden's co-payment system leaves citizens paying on average 4% more out-of-pocket than what even Americans pay.
https://www.who.int/data/gho/data/indicators/indicator-details/GHO/out-of-pocket-expenditure-as-percentage-of-current-health-expenditure-(che)-(-)
Not a doctor, but have mates who are. All are doing very well (all own at leastttttttttt (emphasis on the least) 2 investment properties, and renew their luxury cars every 3-5 years), yet all say they have to charge patients a gap. I am going to stretch my judgment here and say that there are zero GPs in the major cities (with 5 years experience and working 35hours per week) earning less than $150K per year. Do raise your hands if you fall into this category.
My brothers practice I own a stake in always have two or three registrar's on the books (Rookie doctors starting to practice for the first number of years out).
In the last 10 years we've never paid any of the full timers less than $165K in a financial year. Unlike a regular GP, registrars aren't contractors, they are employees. So we have to bear the costs of workers comp insurance, annual leave, payroll tax, personal leave, etc….. like any other employee. General rule of thumb is that the registrars earn a minimum guaranteed pay of $150K a year (going up on a scale depending on which term of being a registrar they are in), but once they hit a certain number of annual consults, their pay starts increasing as we move them over to a pseudo-regular payment structure where they share 45% percentage of billings or receipts + 11.5% Super. That percentage increases every year they are with the practice until it hit's the cap of 75% (they'll have moved well past the registrar status and be a normal GP by that stage). Principals in the business have a different payment structure obviously.
A full time GP who has finished their usual 3 year registrar period and is in their first year of being a full GP will be clearing $250K after costs (because they'll be a contractor at that stage, no longer an employee) with ease.
Depending on the structure of the practice and their business they are with, GP's at that point will often either:
1) Take an absence for a couple of years to go cruise around the country or the US/EU as a general practitioner doing 15 hours a week work to support a constant "touring holiday" lifestyle with their partner.
Or
2) They'll double-down on their patient numbers and consulting hours to effectively give up a big chunk of their salary to pay down their University HELP debt and start buying their way into the practice.
Or
3) They'll drop their consulting hours to 2 or 3 days a week and go back for more study & train to become a specialist, then transition over to that specialty and possibly stay with the business as a specialist a bit down the line.
Hypothetically, if a full-time GP (post 3-year registrar period) earns $250k but does so by relying on government fees + patients out of pocket payment then if the same GP decided to solely bulk-bill, will they earn x% less? say $150k? Would this be a reasonable assumption or is it a way too simplistic point of view?
A doctor in that scenario could earn as little as $150K in theory doing nothing but bulk-billing, but to do so they'd have to be intentionally going out of their way to take on very low patient numbers over their average 37.5 hours a week, involving patients with medical issues of a specific type that attract consults that pay the bare minimum. Then on top of that, they'd have to be pretty irresponsible with professional costs to erode away at that income over the financial year. Maybe……… yeah maybe it's possible? I don't really know for sure though, because I've never come across anyone that would deliberately do that to themselves instead of just working reduced hours and doing something else they personally enjoyed with that time instead.
The thing I've not seen mentioned in here by anyone so far, is that GP's simply just by the nature of their work accrue a lot of additional fees and payments from third parties on top of their base income source. This is because insurance companies, legal firms, government agencies and pharma companies pay them administrative and professional fees to complete very basic and simple types of paperwork & medical reports that take very minimal amounts of time to produce (thanks in large part to advancements in medical practice software). For example, It's not uncommon for GP's to be getting paid $100 to $150 a pop to produce and then e-mail a medical summary to WorkCover or an Insurer - the process of opening a patient file, generating a medical summary and having the system e-mail that to an existing third party, then close the patient file is 30 seconds or less in total. It's completely automated. They'll earn that fee on top of the bulk billed amount for the consult. GP's will see multiple requests of that nature a day if they are a regular full time GP at any practice. Sometimes as many as 5-10 of them in a day. They'll run the consult longer as well to make sure the report is taken care of while they are with the patient if possible - so they'll be bulk-billing for a higher amount just to do a type of work that generates additional income. This is despite the fact that GP's don't charge other GP practices for that same document, nor will they charge a patient.
I hope that makes sense. TL/DR, it's literally difficult for them not to earn big money compared to your average worker.
" General rule of thumb is that the registrars earn a minimum guaranteed pay of $150K a year" ummm no… Registrars earn a minimum of $84,888 now, it was $79,000 last year. https://gpra.org.au/ntcer/base-rates-pay/
Your giving an industry guideline for that minimum salary, which almost everyone pays significantly more, as demand is super high for GP's and GP Registrars - which leads to their actual pay being significantly higher. Registrars are not McDonalds or public servant workers who operate on award wages because they do nothing of importance or responsibility. They are highly skilled professionals that companies actively compete to recruit. You also failed miserably taking my comment out of context, because I specifically stated I was talking about our own GP practice in reference to Registrar remuneration and then also how Registrars have an alternating income structure throughout a financial year. The link you posted to only gives what to expect as a base minimum, it does not break down how the pay structure actually works (which I did detail as well above in terms of % of billings).
@infinite: Just talking about my personal experience working for 4 practices in the greater Sydney region. Never been offered more than the base NTCER rate or 45 - 50% of billings. My close GP reg friends also get similar working rates and contracts. It might be that there's more of us in Sydney than Adelaide. It's not a great sample size but it's my reality.
Forget major cities, regional centres often pay more to attract people. I recently saw an ad for a GP in a rural community (not remote) offering >$350k + benefits including housing.
It's always a bit of a laugh when doctors demonstrate their complete ignorance of the real world by making empty pronouncements about how they're making so little money that they're thinking of leaving the profession to take up fruit picking… or something.
I mean, even if they weren't making stupid money, as if they're ever going to give up the warm fuzzy feeling they get every time they pull their novated lease vehicle into the dedicated parking space right at the front entrance of the practice with "Doctors Only" painted in big bold letters while smirking at all the old and sick people struggling 200 metres up the long ramp from the main carpark.
while smirking at all the old and sick people struggling
Do you legitimately think doctors do this?
Self evidentially they do.
I mean, most doctors are no doubt largely oblivious to their own privilege and blithely accept the entitlement as nothing more than their due, for the most part. You know full well, however, that if management tries to change some trivial status entitlement they'll be dealing with the usual mini-revolt, threatened resignations and the like.
Seriously, compare and contrast with shopping centres which seem quite capable of marking the closest parking spots to the entrances with seniors and parents with prams signs. I challenge you to name one similar example around a medical facility. Retail workers just don't have the same social status or political influence.
Do doctors sit in their vehicles letting out Bond-villain style laughs? Obviously not, but that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about doctors complaining about struggling to break even on $150k+ a year, a wage that is more than 50% higher than the median salary of an Australia postgraduate-degree qualified worker.
So, do doctors smirk at other people struggling? Absolutely. They do it every single time they shed crocodile tears about how underpaid and underappreciated they are. Seriously, cry me a river.
RUOK?
I wouldn't care what they charged if they at least pretended to try to give a shit.
Totally agree.
My GP charges a gap through a busy clinic, she’s offered not to too. She takes her time with me and I’m happy to pay the $20 gap.
My other GP still bulk bills without a gap, it’s he’s own clinic.
They are both fantastic and are worth that $20 gap and probably only one other I’ve ever seen is. I don’t want to pay the gap and my reason doesn’t matter… if I can help it I’d go see my “other” GP.
Perhaps a NIDA Acting Essentials unit should be part of their degree program or continuing education
GPs pay is affected by costs and the responsibility of their work. They literally have people's lives in their hands. As a GP, if you miss some symptoms because you're tired or thoughtless, someone's life is severely impacted.
Indemnity insurance which is compulsory costs thousands. Eg obstetricians and neurosurgeons can pay more than $60,000 a year. Anaesthetists' insurance premiums are around $27,000. GPs are in the thousands. There there's the cost of ongoing professional development which is also compulsory.
What tradie has to do ongoing professional development to keep their license?
Having said all that, there are a lot of poor GPs around. If you find a bad one, tell them politely what the problem is and find another one who's better for you.
There there's the cost of ongoing professional development which is also compulsory.
You mean like this?
https://cruiseseminars.com.au/
Looks like their target market is primarily medical -
https://cruiseseminars.com.au/resources.htmlnope, that's targeted at hospital employed doctors with fat CME allowances of circa 30k per year that you can spend on education costs. something GPs in private practice does not see a cent of
I'm an accountant, and our indemnity insurance was $15.5k last year; no one's life is in our hands, CPD here too, so all regulated businesses have costs to bear.
I begrudge no one a living, especially those whose role requires significant investment, the theme that seems to be coming through the comments are that people feel there isn't value for money in the service provides by a GP.
Trying to find a good one who doesn't rush you through is very difficult. I would be surprised if there are many in a position to afford it would grumble at a gap fee when service is provided. My most recent experience was a 2 minute phone call I was charged $65 for out of pocket, and it was a prescription refill. I'd lose clients if I charged like that
"Eg obstetricians and neurosurgeons can pay more than $60,000 a year. Anaesthetists' insurance premiums are around $27,000. GPs are in the thousands."
I'm all for raising the bulk billing for GPs, but you named 3 specialties that are paid far better because they don't directly charge patients and hence don't use the system.you named 3 specialties that are paid far better because they don't directly charge patients and hence don't use the system
This entire post is about inflated numbers to prove a point. Let’s keep the spirit of it shall we.
Anaesthetists' insurance premiums are around $27,000
A low paid public hospital Anaesthetist also earns $440K a year as a starting rate. That insurance coverage also extends out to covering them for any additional private commercial business related activity too and that's a standard cost of around $20K for any regular business to get a similar amount of coverage - they don't don't hold anyone's life in their hands.
There there's the cost of ongoing professional development which is also compulsory.
The 50 hours of CPD you need each year for professional development as a GP can be done entirely for free via online webinars. Providers like HealthEd offer them on a weekly basis and there's an easy 10+ hours in total across the EA, RP and MO needed in each of those weekly webinars on offer.
GPs pay is affected by costs and the responsibility of their work. They literally have people's lives in their hands.
Lots of people have other peoples lives in their hands, and their own careers on a daily basis and don't get paid NEARLY as much as GP's, let's be real.
"if a GP bulk bills and gets the $41.20, around 40% of it automatically goes to the clinic"
True, false, exaggerated?
True. Costs of receptionists (most seem to have 2) and a level 4 (I think that's the level required) practice nurse already adds a bit to hourly costs. Consumables (ppe, needles, etc) and biological waste disposable costs, rent, insurance, cost of continued education (50 hours a year). Generally the overheads of anyone who owns a practice in health/allied health.
my parents told me that their GP would often tell them she gets in trouble with the practice owner because she spends too much time getting to know the health of her patients….hmmmmmm
Vote with your feet and don't go to GPs
That reddit post is pretty badly done, it sounds like someone who has never worked in a doctors office just figuring it out on the back of a napkin. Superannuation is 11%, for starters, and most of the calculations don't work properly as you don't take the total and work backwards. Plus the comparison to tradies is daft, how many tradies can sit in a chair and have the work brought to them? If I could could take on a 5-10 minute job and earn $19 I'd spend all day doing that.
And if those rates are right and they're actually charging $100 and doing 4 consults an hour over 6 hours of work a day they're bringing in almost $1,200 a day, over $300k a year. They seems out of whack with reality. Likely all the numbers are far more complicated than what is being presented here (particularly the annual leave and insurance bit, that one really doesn't work).
The lack of increases in the rate has just been stupid though, we're not getting young doctors in as GPs because it's not seen as a way to make money, there's barely a practice left that bulk bills and it's putting more pressure on emergency rooms instead that cost us far more per visit. Instead of the few dollars copay idea the liberals had years ago it's now just blown out massively. But we used any spare money we had to pump into aged care (which has grown in cost way beyond inflation).
Average face-to-face consults an hour for regular GP's on a common day for the practice I own a stake in is 5. That number is a bit skewed though and actually higher than that in reality, because many GP's will section off the final two hours of their working day for nothing but telehealth calls or an off-site / nursing home visit (because they can leave the office at 3pm and do the calls at home, or hit up a nursing home that's on the way home from the practice).
we're not getting young doctors in as GPs because it's not seen as a way to make money
It's actually because in most states, Universities have an ideological problem with GP practices. They are seen as "private enterprise" by Uni academics and as a result, there is literally no requirement or encouragement to ever spend a single day in a GP practice to get their qualifications. Med students will literally spend 1000 hours working in a hospital under supervision, sometimes assisting in work considered some of the most high risk procedures medically possible & never spend a day in a GP practice at all. It's literally not even a requirement to spend a single day in a GP practice to become a practicing doctor. It's not an issue of GP work being unrewarding (it's highly lucrative, especially being a partner or part owner), it's that the medical training pathway is intentionally designed to exclude GP work from it, so as a result, it's not even considered as an option by a large number of med students. Which is crazy, because a large chunk of highly successful specialists use being a part time GP as a base to gradually work their way into huge money specialist careers (GP's are the primary source for specialists being referred patients).
If only GPs were effective.
A lot of people must be happy with them, or they've got a really effective PR machine. But I'm certainly not. I've worked my way through all the GPs at the two convenient local practices and am yet to find one who can get it right.
Its not surprising given their servicing model. Imagine if your plumber said it doesn't matter what your problem is, you get 10 minutes of my time, and what I can do in that time, and if its more complicated to diagnose than can be done in that time, or to fix, you'll have to make another appointment, and I'll be back in 3 weeks.
My local hospital has got it consistently right because they take whatever amount of time it requires to get it right. My experience with my local GPs is of failure to diagnose correctly, or failure to diagnose at all, then failure to recognise when treatments or medications aren't effective or are causing problems themselves. I go to the GP I go to not because I have any faith in anything she says, but because all the others are worse.
Agree with you i found it very hard to find a good GP they are out there though. Over the years i have been misdiagnosed several times nearly lost my liver at one stage the hospital sorted it out luckily.
When you find a good GP you stick with them problem is they are the ones that you have to book weeks ahead.
Agreed. Anything more complicated than a fever or cold, you're better off doing self research and forums. Then go to gp and get a specialist referral
Meaningless. This is someone who started with an agenda and is just working backwards to justify it and making up numbers as they go.
The Numbers behind Why GP's Can Not Continue to Bulk Bill
It is not a number, it is a word:
* * * G R E E D * * *
Now if only a tiny portion of the hundreds of billions being spent on nuclear subs to prop up the US military industrial complex were diverted to healthcare, we could all still have free universal healthcare.
We could only wish, if only both Labor and the LNP works as hard for us Australians as they do for the military industrial complex.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-04-27/retired-senior-americ…
It's not free if our taxpayer funds are being used to prop up the system.
Also, our government currently spends 10% plus of our entire national GDP on primary healthcare each year. The submarine spending you linked too is a tiny drop of water in the pond, in comparison.
There's also the issue that if we didn't spend money on having an effective defense force, we'd just be overrun by illegal immigrants like other countries, which in and of itself crushes primary healthcare systems and makes it multitudes more expensive for taxpayers to maintain and difficult for taxpayers to use. You do not under any circumstances want to end up like France, Sweden or southern US border states. Their healthcare systems are a complete disaster now as a result of that.
Perhaps requiring every doctor to have a 6 year degree isn't reasonable if we want cheaply available basic health care. I don't know what they learn at university over 6 years but if they are anything like me, by the time they've finished they will have forgotten 80% of what they've learnt.
If it was possible to be seen by a nurse in the same capacity as you can be seen by a doctor, I think at least half of the population would go there instead. They'd need to limit the types of medication that can be prescribed and there would be a chance that you would just be forwarded to a doctor but I think a lot of us would prefer a "budget" option as a first point of call beyond just a pharmacist.
Most places are now 7 years for medicine, and they learn a lot of content.
Dont think the average doctor forgets 80% of their content, so they most definantely aren't like youNice burn but you're missing the point. I'm just saying that we lack reasonable options when we have an average, run-of-the-mill problem. We have some of the best healthcare outcomes but we also have some of the worst access to healthcare and some of the longest waits. Enabling nurses to provide basic advice would take a huge load off of doctors and reduce competition for their time so they can do the work that others can't.
I don't disagree, would for sure help but my main concern would be over the skills and training for those involved and the continual need for oversight.
GP is a specialty in itself, and there is a big reason why medical grads have to go through intern, residency, and then get onto the GP training program.
Even if nurses are involved in the triaging process, they would still need some oversight from a experienced colleague (GP).Practically, what kind of advice / issues would you think a nurse would look after?
Nurses can't even remotely provide the same level of diagnosis or care that a GP can, that's why it's not an option. That comparison is a bit like saying why can't an accountant act as a lawyer. Both are highly trained, but what they are trained in is almost two different fields of work.
The real problem is that Universities have an ideological problem with GP practices. They are seen as "private enterprise" by Uni academics and as a result, there is literally no requirement or encouragement to ever spend a single day in a GP practice to get their qualifications. Med students will literally spend 1000 hours working in a hospital under supervision, sometimes assisting in work considered some of the most high risk procedures medically possible & never spend a day in a GP practice at all. It's literally not even a requirement to spend a single day in a GP practice to become a practicing doctor.
It's not an issue of GP work being unrewarding (it's highly lucrative, especially being a partner or part owner), it's that the medical training pathway is intentionally designed to exclude GP work from it, so as a result, it's not even considered as an option by a large number of med students. Which is crazy, because a large chunk of highly successful specialists use being a part time GP as a base to gradually work their way into huge money specialist careers (GP's are the primary source for specialists being referred patients).
The way forward for the government in my opinion would be to utilise existing government assets and infrastructure to set up and run GP hotline centers in each state, where GP's can do phone or video calls all day long for existing, repeat or simple patient needs (script repeats, sick certificates, pathology/scan results or follow-up's from a recent hospital visit). It would free up 25% of GP appointments across the country and also serve as an entry point for registrar GP's in training, as well as an exit point for retiring GP's looking to reduce their physical work loads who could be utilised to provide supervision and basic coaching for the registrars in training.
Healthdirect. You speak to a nurse and they go through your symptoms and provide advice on follow up.
1800 022 222
I've called them before even when it's just a cold they just tell you to see a doctor. There's not much you can do over a phone call.
There's plenty that charge a fee to turn up and quote. That's why I always have to check first