10 November 2017                
 
Dr Ayman Shenouda

 
PC Report: We can do better in health
 
The recently tabled Productivity Commission Report ‘Shifting the Dial: 5 year productivity review’ takes a broad policy lens on only on a few key areas which it states are likely to impact overall economic performance over the medium term. Health, of course, made it into this five-year review of the nation’s productivity alongside education and cities.
 
Overall the report turns to technology as an enabler for change and in parts more government control. The report suggests some major policy shifts to achieve a number of efficiency measures. Applying automation to healthcare as a cost reduction strategy specifically to achieve a smaller pharmacy workforce is one such shift. There are some familiar ideas floated throughout with many not pursued in the past for good reason. There is a lack of emphasis on the role of general practice in the health discussion which in turn weakens the piece.
 
A quick snapshot
 
While there are a number of recommendations for health against Healthier Australians many seem short on detail (and evidence). The sharpest shifts are pointed at education system reform, while health seems a little less disruptive. This is, of course, other than the recommendation for pharmacies to be turned into automatic dispensing outlets! In terms of the rest, well tackling those low-value healthcare procedures is really already in train and an important efficiency measure. Creating scorecards for the performance of providers to enable patients to compare outcomes is another idea which has merit but there are many higher priorities to pursue first.
 
There’s certainly a push to utilise more both the PHNs and LHNs to help overcome the federal and state funding standoff and related care gaps.  This is both positive and problematic in terms of enabling integration. On one hand it will force more joining up through a funding means but on the other it will be reliant on forging strong relationships with general practice. The latter is not made a priority in this paper and instead implies more control (of general practice).
 
The paper states the need for a new funding pool for the PHNs and LHNs towards population health activities including some commissioning of GP services.There is certainly a need to create better structures and incentives to realign toward prevent and chronic disease management and localised solutions makes the most sense. However, the commissioning approach to procuring medical and  health care services is still a work in progress in my view and much much more effort is required to engage general practice. That is the only way to establish trust and work through to those new ways of working in partnership with general practice.
 
Health scorecard
 
The positives …
 
The overall positives of our healthcare system in terms of outcomes are at least acknowledged. We’re living longer, with less disability. Against OECD countries we have high overall health outcomes with the greatest life expectancy at birth. The third greatest life expectancy at birth in fact at 82.8 years (2015). On prevention and injury, we’re seeing a reduction in smoking rates and few deaths on our roads. And perhaps most importantly for a report focussed on fiscal pressures we’re spending less on health when compared to the other OECD countries.
 
And the negatives …
 
But holding us back, according to the report, noting this is from a perspective of lost productivity, are the 27.5% of adults who are obese and the 11 years spent in ill health which is the highest in the OECD. The last being despite having the third-highest life expectancy in the developed world.
 
It doesn’t hold back …
 
There are some scathing comments around some of the broader perceived negatives driving costs up. The comment in setting up the need to defund low-value healthcare procedures is both harsh and without (strong) cited evidence:
 
“Unjustified clinical variations, including the use of practices and medicines contraindicated by evidence, remain excessive, an indicator of inadequate diffusion of best practice, insufficient accountability by practitioners, and a permissive funding system that pays for low-value services.”
 
The example used here is knee arthroscopy which again is something we all knew about. The new Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care Standards developed to discourage the use of arthroscopy for patients with knee osteoarthritis is mentioned, yet criticised as it is an advisory and able to be ignored. The report cites some other examples to illustrate their concerns around quality: 75% of bronchitis treated with antibiotics, against best practice; and 27,500 hysterectomies without a diagnosis of cancer.  
 
Finding efficiencies
 
In finding efficiencies in health the report states:
 
“Doing better with our health resources can act as a safety valve for mounting fiscal pressures.”  
 
This, of course, is quite obvious and not without (current) policy focus as finding healthcare efficiencies have really dominated the policy debate for nearly a decade. The report states that ‘some suggest that approximately 10 to 15 percent of health spending is used inefficiency due to poor quality care’. That last statement is (again) not referenced but let’s assume ‘some’ have stated it. We all know that the system is far from perfect but there are also many parts worth protecting including the gains realised in primary care. In this report, the efficiency measures are embedded in the detail, not necessarily making it to the recommendations and worth noting.
 
Observations on the detail
 
The report states that the patient experience of care receives little focus as a goal of the system. It accurately picks up some failures in terms of enabling choice – palliative care being one. But, it is in primary care where patient centred care remains core and where stronger gains have been realised. Particularly in terms of patient empowerment and ensuring prevention is prioritised and this is not really highlighted here. I really don’t think the review has reached out much at all to general practice, otherwise we would see this reflected more in the solutions.
 
I think the piece gets to the real issue where it states the current system encourages activity, not outcomes. It includes one of the strongest statements in this report:
 
“Australia’s messy suite of payments are largely accomplices of illness rather than wellness, only countered by the ingenuity and ethical beliefs of providers to swim against the current.”
 
From a primary care perspective, I agree that those limited MBS payments oriented towards preventative health and chronic disease are too narrow and inflexible limiting both outcomes and reach. But when considering other payment options, it worth remembering that general practice is a private business model and needs to remain as such. Whether that be maintaining fee-for-service combined with risk-adjusted capitation payments but particularly for pay-for-performance initiatives – ensuring continued practice viability must factor strongly. For this to work, pay-for-performance should only be used to drive quality improvement in certain priority areas – similarly to how the PIP currently operates - and be part of a mix of payment arrangements, not the sole driver.
 
The focus on enabling stronger integration is of course key and the stumbling blocks preventing more of it is put down to system deficiencies in the structure of our healthcare system –  funding governance, linkages, and attitudes. More linking between PHNs and LHNs – fusing those government layers - at the regional level will achieve more integration. It’s about partnerships or more specifically, cultivating relationships between hospitals and GPs that will create these formal linkages to bring about stronger prevention, early intervention, and chronic disease management.
 
The word partnership is key here and for this to work we would need to see a genuine partnership with general practice, not seek to control it (as the earlier commentary suggests in imposing new funding models). This emphasis really highlights the greenness of this policy piece as it is general practice where the opportunities lie, yet so many opportunities have not been pursued here.
 
Reassuringly, this report also states that the solution is not to destroy the current system which it states would result in a policy adventure with many risks and uncertain outcomes. Instead, we should focus on those parts of the system already making that required shift towards a more integrated patient-centered system. Some might still say that this report takes us on a journey of (policy) misadventure. This might be true (in parts) but there are some areas worth testing.
 
Here's a short synopsis on the key recommendations
 
Key recommendations
 
There are six key recommendations arranged against five identified problem areas – integrated care, patient-centered care, funding for health, quality of health and using information effectively. The recommendations:
 
2.1 Implement nimble funding arrangements at the regional level
2.2 Eliminate low-value health interventions
2.3 Make the patient the centre of care
2.4 Use information better
2.5 Embrace technology to change the pharmacy model
2.6 Amend alcohol taxation arrangements
 
I’ve hand-picked a few areas here.
 
Recommendation 2.1
 
The first recommendation (2.1), to implement nimble funding arrangements at the regional level, calls on all governments to allocation (modest) funding pools to PHNs and LHNs for improving population health, managing chronic conditions and reducing hospitalisation (at the regional level). This recommendation would provide a flexible fund to PHNs and LHNs to work through more localised solutions. It is the type of flexible funding solution we’ve called for in primary care for years but the enclosed word ‘modest’ is interesting.
 
This initiative builds on the PHN/LHN partnership discussion throughout the chapter and would help address some of the key barriers to integration. But, in my view, this would also require significant, not modest, funding levels to make a real difference and address current gaps impeding integration.
 
There are some real opportunities to pursue through general practice in order to address some of the clear service gaps or policy failures identified. Palliative care in the home being one of them. Building capacity of general practice in population health to invest in those preventive measures is another. The PHNs were sees an opportunity to enable more GP-led care particularly in preventive care and integration with the LHNs were already part of their remit. Therefore, this specific initiative is almost wholly reliant on general practice and it is disappointing not to see that emphasis made.  
 
Recommendation 2.2
 
Eliminating low-value health interventions (2.2) states that progress to limit low or no-value services has been slow. There remain too many unjustified medical procedures (some we covered off earlier). The report also highlights that Australian procedure rates are markedly higher than other comparable OECD countries. There is also some discussion around patient expectations contributing and more broadly health literacy and the need for improvements there. Broader solutions include the faster development of clinical standards and ‘do not do lists’ by the ACSQHC. The report states that Medical Colleges should also disseminate best practice (which already occurs in general practice). De-funding (interventions) mechanisms as well as removing the tax rebate for private health insurance ancillaries is also discussed.
 
Recommendation 2.3
 
A key recommendation (2.3) to make the patient the centre of care is of course welcome. It is already a core value in general practice and expansion is really key to fixing our healthcare system. Empowerment measures including improving patient literacy and embedding patient-centered care in training all very important and picked up in this report.
 
The report highlights that ‘the OECD has characterised Australia as relatively poor in its capacity to collect and link health data’. As part of the solution, the PC suggests a new role for the ACSQHC in placing the patient front and centre. This would involve developing well-defined measures of patient experience of care. It would capture outcomes from a patient perspective to help build a picture of how the system is working at the grassroots level. I agree patient-reported outcomes measures or PROMs is important but this should only be used as a balance measure. Outcomes measures (high-level clinical), as well as process measures (evidence-based best practice in driving improvements), must continue to be prioritised if we have any chance of realising our health gains or goals over time.
 
Recommendation 2.4 (and 2.5)
 
Recommendation 2.4 picks up on this broader theme around data capture and related shifts in the previous recommendation. It calls for the establishment of the Office of the National Data Custodian. This change would help to ‘remove the current messy, partial and duplicated presentation of information and data, and provide easy access to health care data for providers, researchers, and consumers’. Much of the remaining parts to this recommendation sets up the requirement for a new model of pharmacy. The next recommendation (2.5) of course deals with the shift to pharmacy automation and The Pharmacy Guild of Australia’s response to it is worth reading.
 
 
Recommendation 2.6
 
The final recommendation (2.6) has a focus on public health initiatives and recommends moves towards an alcohol tax system. Interestingly, it falls short on measures to curb sugar intake despite the strong obesity emphasis throughout. Market control through voluntary reductions in sugar content (by major manufacturers of SSBs) is instead floated. This perhaps was one of the key areas worth exploring in enabling a more productive workforce and alleviating those 11 years spent in ill health. The report falls short here. I would welcome an expanded discussion including a stronger focus on physical activity as a key prevention measure.
 
 
For more information: Inquiry Report No. 84. Shifting the Dial: 5-year Productivity Review 3 August 2017
​

 
 
30 October 2017                    
 
Dr Ayman Shenouda
 
Investing in health
 
A greater investment in health requires a strong focus on patient-centred care prioritising both prevention and primary care. In progressing these shifts we’re currently locked within the constraints of our reactive healthcare system. Despite significant levels of funding, we’re just feeding a sick system here. This is less about payment reform or performance-based models but more one of prioritising and getting that focus right.
 
In making that shift towards a healthier population and sustainable healthcare system it comes down to priorities, not just savings. Removing waste including through the removal of obsolete, redundant or unsafe treatments from the MBS item numbers is important. But so is ensuring we transition from our episodic, acute care or reactive model towards a more proactive one.
 
Preventive care solutions
 
To shift health outcomes then we need to address those causal factors. It’s not just medical care alone that influences health with social factors known powerful determinants of health.[1] Those causal factors affecting health status must be also be tackled. Socioeconomic factors – income, wealth and education – all impact.
 
Those “upstream” factors which include social disadvantage, risk exposure and social inequities that play a fundamental causal role in poor health outcomes and must be addressed.[2] These are issues which play out over long periods and much longer than electoral cycles. But stopping the onset of illness is the only way to contain our rising disease burden.[3]  Therefore, it is those emerging preventive care solutions, which fall as either proactive or predictive care, where we now need to focus.[4]  
 
A prescription for health
 
This prescription for health is very different to the one we currently have and involves a Proactive, Preventive Approach with Increased Engagement. The shift is something we’ve been trying to do in primary care for some time but barriers from without our framework are limiting a full transition.
 
The policy response involves a mix of proactive and predictive care solutions.
 
For proactive care solutions, this involves improving treatment outcomes through stratifying at-risk individuals based on known algorithms ensuring preventive action is taken well before the onset of symptoms. [5] We know that certain behavioural risk factors - tobacco use, alcohol consumption, physical inactivity and unhealthy eating - are most amenable to change. We can do more to modify these behaviours as part of proactive care through stratifying individuals based on key risk factors for chronic disease.[6]
 
While predictive care is about leveraging emerging technologies and using big data to not only stratify risk but predict risk and intervene even further upstream.[7] More predictive care, through improved analytics, genetic risk testing and technological developments build an even clearer picture. These early insights will help us anticipate issues pinpointing those behaviours to avoid and actions to take much earlier than before and before risk factors arise. [8]
 
Risk and protective factors
 
In transforming our health system, it is a focus on those risk and protective factors over time that really holds the answers. The Life Course Health Development (LCHD) framework offers a new approach to health measurement, health system design, and long-term investment in health development.[9] It takes into account those risk and protective factors and early-life experiences in determining long-term health and disease outcomes. [10]
 
More understanding of how these health trajectories develop over a lifetime helps us influence change for optimal health development through more effective preventive strategies and interventions. [11]

1. First, we need to focus more on risk but from a broader lens taking in those determinants of health and wellbeing This requires a focus on those adverse early social exposures which can lead to large disparities in health across time.[12] These are the conditions in which people are born, grow, live, work and age and very much determine an individual’s chances of maintaining good health. It is where we are positioned on the social gradient that really is our single strongest predictor of health and wellbeing.[13] These early poverty or social indicators that can manifest later on is an area we need to look more at. These experiences can become programmed into biological systems that can result in chronic illness in mid-life and beyond.[14]

       2. Then an equal focus on protective factors –These are those protective or health-promoting factors               which are of course broader than health but have a positive influence on our lives and are health                   affirming. From the best start through breastfeeding, positive educational influences or being more             physically active throughout through to access to quality healthcare and strong social capital are                   just some examples.

        3. Finally, increased engagement in striving for our own good health –Population health                                    management really offers the collaborative approach required to empower patients and patient                  centred care. Informed and involved patients who are active participants in setting their own goals              for wellness are central.[15]  Those social factors and the government’s part in that to ensure we all              have the best start and life possible is really key.
 
Strategies for intervention
 
It is these focus areas which hold promising strategies for intervention. Still, we see very few health dollars being prioritised for prevention. To fully support a stronger focus on prevention we need to pursue new data on risk and protective factors, investigating how and when they develop across the life course.[16] Through these key learnings, new proactive and predictive care solutions will need to be developed and prioritised in our healthcare system. This is not a new concept; many general practices already do this – identify and stratify patients according to risk –  but it our current payment system really restricts us here in limiting to diagnoses. It is really just the difference between disease focus care and actually enabling more patient centred care. More incentives around prevention and in reducing risk are required to make this work particularly in general practice for an optimal business model.
 
More broadly, this requires a whole of government shift, not just from within the health budget but towards a Health in All Policies (HiAP) approach. This will help redress inequities and give everyone a fair chance for health. The policy remit extends well beyond health and also beyond any discussions occurring right now around fee-for-service and performance-based models. If the government is really serious about shifting health outcomes then we need to think less about a system which drives episodic care and more about those broader factors that influence health outcomes.
 

[1] Braveman P, Gottlieb L. The Social Determinants of Health: It’s Time to Consider the Causes of the Causes. Public Health Reports. 2014;129(Suppl 2):19-31. Available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3863696/
[2] Bharmal N, Pitkin Derose K, Felician M, and Weden, M. Working Paper: Understanding the Upstream Social Determinants of Health. RAND Health. Prepared for the RAND Social Determinants of Health Interest Group. WR-1096-RCMay 2015. Available at: https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/working_papers/WR1000/WR1096/RAND_WR1096.pdf
[3] MacIntosh E, Rajakulendran N, Khayat Z, Wise A. Transforming health: Shifting from reactive to proactive and predictive care. MaRS. 29 Mar 16. Part of the Transforming Health Market Insights Series. Available at: https://www.marsdd.com/news-and-insights/transforming-health-shifting-from-reactive-to-proactive-and-predictive-care/
[4] Ibid. https://www.marsdd.com/news-and-insights/transforming-health-shifting-from-reactive-to-proactive-and-predictive-care/
[5] Ibid. https://www.marsdd.com/news-and-insights/transforming-health-shifting-from-reactive-to-proactive-and-predictive-care/
[6] Ibid. https://www.marsdd.com/news-and-insights/transforming-health-shifting-from-reactive-to-proactive-and-predictive-care/
[7] Ibid. https://www.marsdd.com/news-and-insights/transforming-health-shifting-from-reactive-to-proactive-and-predictive-care/
[8] Ibid. https://www.marsdd.com/news-and-insights/transforming-health-shifting-from-reactive-to-proactive-and-predictive-care/
[9] Halfon N, Hochstein M. Life Course Health Development: An Integrated Framework for Developing Health, Policy, and Research. The MilbankQuarterly.2002;80(3):433-479. doi:10.1111/1468-0009.00019. Available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2690118/
[10] Ibid. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2690118/
[11] Ibid. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2690118/
[12] Halfon N, Larson K, Russ S. Theories And Consequences. Why Social Determinants? Healthcare Quarterly, 14(Sp) October 2010: 8-20.doi:10.12927/hcq.2010.21979. Available at: http://www.longwoods.com/content/21979
[13] Tasmanian Government. Determinants of Health. Department of Health and Human Services. Available at: http://www.dhhs.tas.gov.au/wihpw/principles/determinants_of_health
[14] Op. cit. Halfon et al. Available at: . http://www.longwoods.com/content/21979
[15] Ernst & Young. Population Health Management. EY Health Industry Post. News and analysis of current issues affecting health care providersandpayers.2014.Availableat: http://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/Health_Industry_Post_population_health_management/$FILE/Health_Industry_post.pdf
[16] Public Health Agency of Canada. Strategic Plan 2016-19. Improving Health Outcomes. A Paradigm Shift. Publication date: December 2015. Cat.: HP35-39/2015E-PDF ISBN: 978-0-660-03990-9 Pub.: 150173. Available at: http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/cd-mc/assets/pdf/ccdp-strategic-plan-2016-2019-plan-strategique-cpmc-eng.pdf
 

 
21 October 2017                   
 
Dr Ayman Shenouda



Health Education Accreditation
 
No case for change
 
Australia enjoys an enviable reputation as a provider of high-quality medical education and training. We have built a strong reputation for excellence and quality through a system of Australian Medical Council (AMC) led accreditation standards. A system that upholds patient safety and quality of care through high-level and targeted policy whereby accreditation indicators can be applied consistently has been key to our success. Yet the recent consultation with the release of a discussion paper as part of a Government-commissioned review into the accreditation systems suggests we have a system in need of strong repair.
 
The key shift proposed in the draft report involves the formation of more centralised control through a new Health Education Accreditation Board with an equally strong remit.
 
These would include:

• Approval of accreditation standards developed by Accreditation Committees [such as the Australian Medical Council] in accordance with the Accreditation Board policies and guidelines.
• Determination of accreditation policies, guidelines and reporting requirements.
• Development and review of policies and guidelines on the criteria and processes for assessment of international practitioners, offshore programs of study and competent authorities.
• Assignment of Accreditation Committees.

Source: Accreditation Systems Review: Draft Report  
 
The need to pursue such significant change at this time has confused many from within the sector. The specialist medical colleges through the Council of Presidents of Medical Colleges (CPMC) released a response early in the consultation. The Australian Doctors Federation (ADF) and Australian Medical Association (AMA) followed with strong resistance to such significant change to a system which is working well. All seem to agree that the key shift proposed in this paper would see the AMC’s role weakened leading to a dilution of standards and patient care. It would most certainly see unnecessary controls imposed on the specialist medical colleges.
 
Alignment or more bureaucracy
 
Major reviews usually share some common factors and this one is certainly not unique. These include the need for strengthened systems to improve outcomes and in driving efficiencies. It is a need for streamlining and alignment that make their way into most of these discussions. This in turn almost always means more government control.
 
The Accreditation Systems Review report states a need for alignment but then offers additional layers of bureaucracy to achieve it. It recommends increased government control over health professional education and training through the removal of the independence of the regulator.[1] There is also a proposal to give the health ombudsman jurisdiction over specialist colleges particularly in relation to decisions around International Medical Graduates (IMGs).
 
Making a case for change
 
These key shifts are being floated as policy solutions ‘to ensure that the educational programs provide a sustainable registered health profession workforce that is flexible and responsive to the changing health needs of the Australian community’.[2]
 
It is difficult to see how a large bureaucracy will drive system efficiencies and why you would seek more alignment beyond what already exists for medical education through the AMC. Specialty-specific requirements aligned towards patient need are key to determining quality outcomes. This expertise resides from within the specialist colleges and the AMC and will not be found through a bureaucracy-led board without any clinical discipline authority.
 
The draft paper seeks to introduce changes which really just stem out of a Productivity Commission Review undertaken more a decade ago.[3] Given this review is being led by the same independent reviewer that’s not all that surprising. But it’s clear that much has happened since 2005 which gives, even more, reason for those ideas that were rejected once to be rejected now.
 
Reforming governance
 
 The draft report outlines the case for ‘Reforming governance – the overarching model’ presenting 3 options with their option 3 being the preferred model. Interestingly, all the recommendations within the chapter steer us toward this preferred option or model. It also includes a diagram of the model which does very little to clarify the role of the AMC in this new preferred structure.
 
It’s clear the discussion omits the fact that the AMC has led some significant reforms to provide a quality framework which delivers an outcomes-focussed approach to accreditation. This may be unintended but it is most relevant to many parts of the governance discussion.
 
In the last three years, the AMC committed itself to national and international review, to build on its strengths and develop and implement a range of new activities. Revised standards for specialist program accreditation were rolled out after a two-year review and consultation effort. Progressing the evaluation and deployment of a new accreditation management system that sees a more streamlined accreditation processes. [4]  None of these get a mention yet they have been implemented to achieve many of the very aims outlined in this discussion. The fact is that the AMC has already implemented outcomes-based standards and it is working towards a more streamlined system.
 
Delivering a more responsive health workforce
 
Building on the recent AMC-led reforms through encouraging more inter-professional team-based learning is now key. Alignment can certainly be achieved through a stronger multidisciplinary approach and there remain plenty of barriers in the training system limiting us here. The report makes some good points around this issue. Ensuring our health workforce is more responsive to emerging health and social care issues and priorities through encompassing a stronger team-based approach is precisely where we need to focus our efforts now .  
 
Driving key workforce priorities through our accreditation system through some of those key enablers identified throughout the report should be pursued. These include more use of simulation-based education and training in the delivery of programs of study as well as making mandatory the inclusion of inter-professional education in all accreditation standards. This more team-based approach to learning is most important enabling service alignment and it would be good to see it formalised in some way.
 
The other really important area for workforce policy is the requirement that clinical placements occur in a variety of settings, geographical locations and communities, with a focus on emerging workforce priorities and service reforms. This is particularly important to rural and remote communities and together with current workforce planning mechanisms will help ensure we can address unmet need. It will help build a rural GP generalist workforce prioritising essential rural advanced skill areas, procedural and non-procedural, in response to service and skill deficits. If planned appropriately – in prioritising skill need – then these shifts will help to rebalance training it current acute setting focus. This will help to prioritise funding to ensure more community-based exposure strengthening these service solutions over time which will bring about those required service reforms. 
 
Conclusion

After deciding stakeholders needed a little longer to absorb the long draft report, an extension was granted with submissions having just closed (16 October). It will be interesting to see how this discussion evolves before a final report is considered by COAG Health Minister at their next Ministerial Council meeting in November. I think on many aspects this review failed to make the case for major reforms to governance particularly in light of the changes already implemented from a medical training perspective by the AMC. The real opportunity here is to build capacity from within the current structure to align skills to workforce need towards a more integrated national training solution.
 
In prioritising what needs to be done it is important to realise that we have an accreditation system which is working well. There is good reason why the AMC is internationally recognised for its work. We have the highest possible standards of medical education, training and practice already in Australia. The specialist colleges are key to ensuring we keep it that way through the delivery of high-quality specialist training. They also play a vital role in providing national oversight and consistency to medical specialist training. More dialogue was most certainly warranted before presenting such significant shifts. I hope the discussion moving forward brings a more balanced perspective encompassing the many areas of reform already achieved to build on these areas in ensuring a future workforce responsive to need.
 

[1] CPMC. Media Release. Australian Medical Regulation Must Remain Independent. Council of Presidents of Medical Colleges 2017. Available at: https://cpmc.edu.au/media-release/australian-medical-regulation-must-remain-independent/
[2] AHMAC. Australia’s Health Workforce: strengthening the education foundation. Independent Review of Accreditation Systems within the National Registration and Accreditation Scheme for health professions.Draft Report September 2017.  Australian Health Ministers’ Advisory Council 2017. Available at: http://www.coaghealthcouncil.gov.au/Portals/0/Accreditation%20Review%20Draft%20Report.pdf
[3] Productivity Commission 2005, Australia’s Health Workforce, Research Report, Canberra. Available at: http://www.pc.gov.au/inquiries/completed/health-workforce/report/healthworkforce.pdf
[4] AMC. Annual Report 2016. Australian Medical Council Limited. 2016. Available at: http://www.amc.org.au/files/656a1621bae0b8baaabca9e3ada8280a1dcbd38f_original.pdf
​

 
16 October 2017                   
 
Dr Ayman Shenouda
 

What really lies ahead?
 
While the impending changes from the Redesigning the Practice Incentives Program (PIP) still looms over us, among this deafening silence there’s concern around what lies ahead. It’s not so much the proposed changes to the PIP but more the underlying policy consequences in terms of broader payment reform and control over the profession.
 
The fee-for-service payment system remains the predominant commonwealth funding mechanism that assists patients to access primary care. The system is not well aligned to address chronic disease management and the complex health issues of our aging patient population. There is a need to find an optimal mix in addressing current need and future demand. We need funding mechanisms to tackle both complex chronic conditions and issues around disadvantage.[1] Key is the priority shift toward improved patient outcomes and value, not just volume of service.[2]
 
Key questions remain around what a value based primary health care system will look like. It will no doubt involve extensions of bureaucratic controls used to regulate professional practice with potential impacts on professional autonomy.
 
Health payment reform
 
The Government has not been shy in terms of its core focus on health payment reform in securing broader fiscal sustainability. However, in finding solutions, the policy jam seems well and truly fixed on finding savings from within one sector –  from within primary care – despite it already being largely cost efficient.
 
Aspects of primary care payment reform alongside structural reforms are already being tested. The Health Care Homes’ voluntary trial, the Medicare Benefits Schedule (MBS) Review and to some extent the Primary Health Networks (PHNs) are key examples. These shifts have been occurring for some time and this latest redesign targeting PIP signals some further key changes.
 
The PIP redesign will see, even more, conditions imposed on general practice with an apparent shift toward imposing more funding controls through increased reporting. The policy lens again is on general practice where Medicare spending is value for money. Is this same focus being applied to the broader medical specialties? Driving prices down to regulate perceived skill based premiums might just bring some equity back into the discussion.[3]
 
The QI measure
 
The key aim of the PIP is to support general practice activities in recognition of comprehensive, quality care. It provides a blended payment approach for general practices in addition to fee-for-service income. We know the most significant reform will be from the Quality Improvement (QI) measure which will require practices to collect full datasets alongside individualised targets for improvement.
 
The issue around who sets these targets is still a little unclear – self-selected or enforced. However, if the aim is to capture specifics of a practice’s patient population then I would suggest that the practice takes the lead here, not the bureaucracy. This in some way formalises a broader population health framework approach. This is positive but does a new QI measure involving data capture really provide the best way forward?
 
The rationale is around the use of data to measure and drive improvement. And certainly, no one is arguing that quality data on outcomes has not been lacking. Clearly, it has had its limitations and one would be around funding commitment to evaluation.
 
The long-term aim of the redesign is said to be around assisting practices to participate in quality improvement processes. Payments will be tiered to how this data has been used in terms of improvement measures. Those PIPs likely to be removed may well have already captured this detail. Data collection software storage adds a cost for practices but some already have these management systems in place, although not standardised.
 
There are two key issues here, the first around maintaining data integrity given practices will be required to upload quarterly electronic data to a third-party (probably PHNs) QI provider. The second is broader intent which sees a likely shift towards a pay-for-performance scheme.
 
Maintaining clinical autonomy
 
Data control is, in fact, a real issue here. Maintaining data integrity given practices will be required to upload quarterly electronic data to a third-party QI provider is one clear risk. Although utilising the PHNs as a vehicle for change could be beneficial it will require a partnership approach. They will need to further engage with GPs to establish the required trust and make sure they don’t encroach on clinical autonomy. Broader organisations who already do evaluation well and are trusted by the profession should also be brought in. Overall, GPs must remain free, within the parameters of evidence-based care, to make decisions that affect the clinical care they provide, rather than having these decisions imposed upon them.[4]
 
There seems a move here towards a pay-for-performance scheme which in itself is problematic. Combined with an added data task resulting in more paperwork for GPs these requirements will risk taking our focus from patient care. Most practices have clinical risk management systems in place to analyse weak points and improve patient care. The PIP redesign consultation paper states that there is emerging evidence around a need for regionally-based change management to embed a quality improvement culture in general practice.[5] This implies that GPs are inactive in this area when in fact the profession values and drives many of its own quality improvement measures.
 
There are already measures in place to support practices in undertaking QI activities. The RACGP QI&PD services offer a wealth of quality improvement tools and guides including clinical audit mechanisms. The College has developed a set of 14 clinical indicators to deal exclusively with the safety and quality of clinical care provided by Australian general practices.
 
Important unmeasurable factors
 
It is important to recognise that not everything can be measured. While clinical and organisational measures can be captured, there are other aspects of care important for healthcare quality which prove more problematic. Continuity of care and ease of access to care are unlikely to be captured in a neat format for the PIP QI measure. While attractive to funders pay-for-performance programs may not improve health outcomes or improve system quality. They have the potential to worsen overall care quality as focusing just on measurable outcomes takes us away from holistic general practice.[6]
 
There is a much larger shift which needs to occur here and it won’t be achieved through a pay-for-performance system. In transforming health, we need to shift from reactive to proactive and predictive care.[7] Early identification is the only way we can control rising chronic disease rates but our system relies on patient contact when they present with noticeable symptoms. Often this is just too late. We need a system which can take us across the spectrum of preventive care - from healthy to chronically ill -and priority measures for what falls between - for those at risk - to allow us to intervene early enough.
 
Conclusion
 
Finding the right mix for payment reform might involve encompassing bundled payments alongside some capitation. The latter being voluntary. The fee-for-service payment system should remain the primary source of funding for general practice services.  While very tempting for Government, stable controllable costs should not dictate here. It is the patient that should remain the focus. More measures addressing out of pocket costs for GP services are needed.
 
The paradigm shift from a reactive sick care system towards a proactive and predictive healthcare model still seems a distant hope. While we’ve started the transition to restrain the demand for acute services through more focus on preventive care, finding that balance of funding for both acute and preventive care is not easy. This shift will bring about payment reform which can drive significant change for a more sustainable health care system and provide for a healthier future.
 
A preventive care PIP could have been brought in as part of this latest redesign as a way to boost funding and encourage new ways of working, yet that opportunity has not been pursued. Regardless, the new proposed PIP QI measure should only be undertaken initially as a trial. This could occur alongside the Healthcare Homes’ voluntary trial. The PIP measure needs to be contained to a sample location to truly test its capacity to deliver what it claims, rather than bring unnecessary disruption to practices through national release.
 
 
[1] AHHA. Bundled payments:  Their role in Australian primary health care. Australian Healthcare & Hospitals Association. 2015. Available at:  https://ahha.asn.au/sites/default/files/docs/policy-issue/bundled_payments_role_in_australian_primary_health_care_0.pdf
[2] PHCAG. Better Outcomes for People with Chronic and Complex Health Conditions through Primary Health Care. Discussion Paper. 2015 Available at: https://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/76B2BDC12AE54540CA257F72001102B9/$File/Primary-Health-Care-Advisory-Group_Final-Report.pdf
[3] Duckett S. Opinion: Why it costs you so much to see a specialist — and what the Government should do about it. Grattan Institute. Published 14 August 2017. The Conversation Available at: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-14/why-it-costs-so-much-to-see-a-specialist-the-conversation/8803864
[4] RACGP. Standards for general practices (4th edition). Criterion 1.4.2 Clinical autonomy for general practitioners.Availableat:https://www.racgp.org.au/your-practice/standards/standards4thedition/practice-services/1-4/clinical-autonomy-for-general-practitioners/
[5] Australian Government Department of Health. Consultation Paper Redesigning the Practice Incentives Program. 2016.
[6] Wright M. Pay-for-performance programs. Do they improve the quality of primary care? AFP 2012;41:989-991. Available at: https://www.racgp.org.au/afp/2012/december/pay-for-performance-programs/
[7] MacIntosh E, Rajakulendran N, Khayat Z, Wise, N. MARS Blog: Transforming health: Shifting from reactive to proactive and predictive care. 2016. Available at: https://www.marsdd.com/news-and-insights/transforming-health-shifting-from-reactive-to-proactive-and-predictive-care/

 
6 October 2017                     
 
Dr Ayman Shenouda

 
A focus on palliative care
 
There was some great discussion generated from my recent blog on frailty and ICU outcomes. The importance of patient empowerment and preference towards care in the community resonated with many. Palliative care is an important extension to that discussion. This is an area, which we know is expanding with demand which is set to rise alongside disease rates and an ageing population. Despite a stronger national focus on palliative care, the patient’s preference for community care is not translating into policy.
 
Palliative care should improve the quality of life of patients with an active, progressive disease that has little or no prospect of a cure.[1] More and more we’re seeing patients’ preference for palliative care in the home. We know that 70 percent of Australians would rather die at home than in hospital.[2] Whatever the choice, the model of care must enable access to all patients facing a life-limiting illness. We know that those who would get the most benefit from palliative care often accessed it too late.[3] There is still so much in this area that we need to fix. I think a good place to start is ensuring our patients’ preferences around dying at home.
 
Access and choice
 
In finding a way through the system to facilitate choice for more community-level care we are still a long way from enabling equitable access. Early access to palliative care services is an internationally recognised policy goal.[4] However, it is clear that our shared policy goal is not being met in Australia when it comes to access and choice.
 
This highlights our first policy failure, which is around equity in access which of course stretches beyond just palliative care and can be persistent throughout life for some most in need.
 
Where you live and your socioeconomic status has some bearing on choice in terms of preference of setting in palliative care. AIHW 2014-15 data released early in the year showed that there is a higher proportion of palliative care-related hospitalisations (22.4%) in the lowest socioeconomic status areas. The rate of palliative care-related public hospitalisations was also highest for those living in these areas (30.9 per 10,000 population). Conversely, the rate of public palliative care-related hospitalisations was lowest for those living in the highest socioeconomic status areas (14.5 per 10,000).[5]
 
Funding and policy context
 
Funding and policy context really matters here. This is because funding models clearly influence service provision and the development of palliative care services. Funding for palliative care involves a mixed system of public, private and charitable players. A mismatch between policy goals and palliative care funding mechanisms can compromise our shared aim in addressing need. [6] 
 
This leads to the next policy failure which is around service planning and problematic due to care being split across levels of government.
 
Service planning relies on quality data and this is a key gap in palliative care. The sole Physician MBS item numbers map only a very small sample of service provision which really limits service planning, particularly in enabling patient choice to die at home.[7]
 
This palliative medicine focus, while important, is limiting. It means that what is actually occurring at the community level in terms of GP-led palliative care is less likely to inform policy decisions. The undefined role of the general practitioner in palliative care across a range of settings is a contributing factor. While we are seeing more and more GPs with special clinical interests in palliative care meeting these needs in primary rather than secondary care, the system just doesn’t see them.
 
In the absence of item numbers, how can GP-led palliative care ever be fully measured?  GPs play a critical role here. Chronic disease management and home visit item numbers are not sufficient in terms of planning for future demand or in capturing the complexity and non-clinical time involved in providing this care. The only available BEACH data shows that about 1 in 1,000 GP encounters in 2014-15 were palliative care-related, which equates to around 5 encounters per 1,000 population. This is most certainly an underestimate of the actual numbers given services delivered by GPs cannot be established from Medicare data. 
 
Service integration
 
Another key issue is that palliative care services have many individual providers both public and private. It is clear we need to get better at ensuring a more seamless service transition for the patient and family. Service integration prioritising multidisciplinary care at the local level relies on flexibility to facilitate the integration of funding streams. In rural areas, this can be particularly challenging even when there is a strong commitment by local service providers.
 
Service integration at the primary care level remains a key policy failing and much more effort is required to provide the necessary supports to enable a more integrated system.
 
General practice is the gateway for patients to the broader health system. We need new expanded funding measures specifically designed to enable service integration for palliative care in the community. Efficiencies can be found in community-based care, yet there is a reluctance to put the system supports in place to make it happen.
 
The recent $8.3 million announced in the Federal Budget will help boost the role that the PHNs have in coordinating end-of-life care. It is understood that the funding will support the provision of a facilitator which may help take the pressure off GP practices who are fulfilling much of this role already for their patients.[8] But much more needs to be done in the area of facilitating greater access to GP-led palliative care services. Building local capacity to address increasing and future demand will require a significantly larger investment than we’ve seen to date.
 
Capturing broader perspectives
 
We know that demand for palliative care in Australia will grow. This, in turn, requires an expansion of home and community care in meeting patient preference. An important policy perspective needs to be captured from those receiving care and their caregivers. This will help us work through further how we can improve services to support dying at home.
 
A final additional focus therefore needs to be on the patient and caregiver if we are going to get this policy right.
 
A qualitative study of patient and family caregiver experiences of Hospice at Home care provides insights. It states that we need to focus on additional supports for older people and those living alone, recognised as high risk of being unable to receive this type of support. More targeted supports for older caregivers who are at a higher risk of caregiver burden are also required. The policy goal here has to be around promoting their quality of life with an emphasis on training for the full care team in the ethos of palliative care to ensure holistic care.[9]
 
Where to now?
 
We know that GP-led community palliative care needs to be prioritised in policy. Yet there remains plenty of barriers limiting service expansion to facilitate this care from within the community and across settings.
Ensuring our system is more responsive to patient choice is of course what needs to drive all policy decisions. We know in this case that it is often a preference for care outside of the hospital setting. But when our system automatically preferences to tertiary care, it makes it harder to facilitate that care. This is unless of course you have well established and integrated service links and a significant local community commitment to make it work.
 
There’s a pattern emerging here and it’s about prioritising patient-centred healthcare in primary care. Access enabling choice, service planning and data capture, integration prioritising GP-led care and encompassing the patient and caregiver perspectives would bring us closer to a more responsive palliative care service system.
 
[1] AIHW. Web Report. Palliative care services in Australia. Last updated 24 May 2017. Available at: https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/palliative-care-services/palliative-care-services-in-australia/contents/palliative-care-in-general-practice
[2] Palliative Care Australia. National health statistics highlight inequitable access to palliative care. 24 May 2017. Available at: http://palliativecare.org.au/palliative-matters/national-health-statistics/
[3] Parliament of Victoria. Legislative Council Legal and Social Issues Committee. Inquiry into end of life choices Final Report. June 2016 PP No 174, Session 2014-16 (Document 1 of 2) ISBN 978 1 925458 38 1 (print version) 978 1 925458 39 8 (PDF version). Available at:  https://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/lsic/article/2611
[4] Connor SR and Bermedo MCS. Global atlas of palliative care at the end of life (Worldwide palliative care alliance, World Health Organization), 2014, http://www.who.int/ nmh/Global_Atlas_of_Palliative_Care.pdf
[5] AIHW, op.cit. Profile of palliative care related hospitalisations.
[6] Groeneveld EI, Cassel JB, Bausewein C, et al. Funding models in palliative care: Lessons from international experience. McCaffrey N, Cassel JB, Coast J, eds. Palliative Medicine. 2017;31(4):296-305. doi:10.1177/0269216316689015.
[7] Australian Institute of Health and Welfare 2014. Palliative care services in Australia 2014. Cat. no. HWI 128. Canberra: AIHW.
[8] Palliative Care Australia. Budget offers new support to coordinate end-of-life care. 10 May 2017. Available at: http://palliativecare.org.au/palliative-matters/budget-phns/
[9] Jack B.A., Mitchell T.K., Cope L.C. & O'Brien M.R. (2016) Supporting older people with cancer and life-limiting conditions dying at home: a qualitative study of patient and family caregiver experiences of Hospice at Home care. Journal of Advanced Nursing 72(9), 2162–2172. doi: 10.1111/jan.12983