News

I have been asked several times by journalists, from the time of the very first health-related policy announcement of the campaign, whose “side” the AMA is likely to land on. Even if we were in the business of picking sides, it would be far too early to say. We will provide a summary of our views on the various domains of health policy covered by both major parties closer to the election, which will be based entirely on the merits of the policies themselves. Whilst we have a reasonably comprehensive list of general and specific asks, the overarching question is which major party – or both, or neither – has the ambition and vision to fix the health system as it currently is, falling far short of community need, and to build even more capacity for the anticipated future need. Fundamentally this means infrastructure upgrades and expansion, and training more doctors within WA.

Whilst we know there will be more announcements before 8 March, it is reasonable to ask: what have the major parties offered up so far that answers this call?

On the Labor side, we have seen some reasonable policy announcements that could make some difference. Outpatient waiting list reduction through the provision of better access to hospital specialists by general practitioners has been shown to work in the immunology field thanks to pioneering work by AMA (WA) member Dr Dominic Mallon at Fiona Stanley Hospital, and will be rolled out across a range of specialties and across jurisdictions under Labor’s policy. More funding for the WA Virtual ED program, to which several of our members have contributed over the years, will give the program a chance at having a real impact on system-wide efficiency of the public hospitals. The enablement of more aged care beds, which will help take pressure off the public hospitals, is welcome. We will also welcome the opportunity to learn more and contribute to the implementation of Labor’s community-based integrated health hubs that seek to keep older patients well in the community. In doing so, we will want to see the role of general practice respected and preserved, ensuring that care is not fragmented. Refurbishment and expansion of the Royal Perth Hospital emergency department is no doubt required, but why was it an election announcement? Should the maintenance of our public hospitals not be the routine work of government? Then again, this argument could be applied to many election announcements. Finally, many GPs and patients welcomed the Labor announcement that GPs will be given a greater role in the diagnosis and management of attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder.

The Liberals, on the other hand, have so far shown a little more ambition: a complete rebuild of RPH is on their agenda. We can hope that this is under active back-room consideration by the Labor Government and the Department of Health, but we haven’t heard them commit to it, and it is needed. Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital is ageing, too – so it makes sense to deal definitively with RPH soon, rather than waiting for two tertiary hospitals to simultaneously require major capital works. The Liberals have also committed to a plan for tri-location of tertiary obstetric, paediatric and adult services by building the New Women and Babies Hospital at the Queen Elizabeth II site in Nedlands. We are yet to hear how Labor will mitigate the well-publicised risks associated with separating these services. The Liberal party also announced that it would support early GP review of hospital patients after discharge, to coordinate ongoing care in the community and prevent readmission. This has been well-proven elsewhere, and AMA (WA) has been calling for it. Further help for the public hospitals would come in the form of new transitional care places, aiming to facilitate discharges and free up hospital beds. Another Liberal policy that we support with the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of General Practitioners is practice payments to support the salaries of doctors in training choosing to train in general practice, in order to address the pay disparity between the public hospitals and general practice for DITs.

Overall, there is a lot more we’d like to see from both major parties. Let’s see what else comes in the next couple of weeks.