The primary care includes more than GP. The new review shows how the patient can take a better approach.

There are Australians today It is more likely More than the previous generation who lived with complex and chronic diseases such as diabetes, heart disease and depression.

This means that health care is likely to be required by a variety of providers, such as nurses, onset specialists, psychologists and physical therapists and GPS. This is called “field treatment”. It works best when all these skills are provided in the adjusted way.

However, the role of health care and funding have been frozen in law and policy for decades. All changes are gradual and separated. It mainly included adding more items to the Medicare schedule, and each expert practices separately.

The result is more inequality of approach. because Less than half Some of the Allied health fees are charged in large quantities, most patients pay almost $ 70 for each counseling and sometimes pay much more. People who can’t afford the cost of their own and can’t find bulk billing practitioners.

The government has commissioned an independent review to evaluate the barriers to team -based treatment and to assess how to reach the maximum potential or “practical range”.

The final report released yesterday sets a new path for the primary medical personnel. This allows all Australians to be treated throughout the field.

Maximize the potential of medical workers

This review included a wide range of counseling, including two things. Publishes. This report itself integrates the feedback of counseling that reflects the dissipation of opinions, including skeptical opinions.

Reflecting the title of the report The potential of health manpowerThe main emphasis is to change the rules and regulations imposed by the state and federal government. This Stymie Health Professionals limits the ability to use all technologies and knowledge to manage the treatment of the patient.

In recent decades The education of health experts has improved. Therefore, experts can do more than before. However, since the rules and regulations have not developed, it is suppressed so that experts can use such skills and knowledge.

This review argues that this contributes to those who worsen the lack of workforce by leaving career dissatisfaction and various health care.

This review suggests a new way of documenting and explaining what a job can do by calling national technology, ability framework and matrix.

As with many other recommendations, the review points to how it applies to other policies and frameworks to help the internationally performed location and implementation.

With the disappointment of most combined health careers, this review is not recommended to pay more Medicare to practice independently.

Rather, this review recommends payment for general practices to expand teams in various fields. This will see experts working together rather than competition or isolation.

This review is also recommended to change the rules on the recommendation of health professionals. Qualified health experts can directly refer to non -GP medical professionals in similar areas. This means that if your psychologist needs, you can recommend you directly to the psychiatrist.

This will weaken the role of GP as a “gatekeeper” and potentially weaken the overall treatment provided by GPS. However, if you remove the intermediate step from the patient’s point of view, the cost of the copayment will be reduced.

An important recommendation is that health systems must be developed and rules and regulations must be evolved. Therefore, the continuous review approach through an independent mechanism complements the recommendations for the current change. This provides evidence -based advice and recommendations for the following:

• Important human resources innovation
• Role of emerging health care
• A manpower model that includes significant changes in scope.

When can we see the change?

This review presents a loose timeline of implementation described in short, medium and organs. And it gives the appropriate institutions and the government a responsibility for each element of the recommendation.

Almost all recommendations will not apply to this fiscal year because they need legislative changes and many people need an agreement between the Federation and the Lord.

Review is recommended to implement changes in a systematic, evidence -based and safe way. The implementation will begin with the most suitable practices, such as rural and secluded Australia, and the most suitable practices for changes such as Aboriginal Community Health Organization or Victoria Community Health Center.

~ Inside Release The Minister of Health, Mark Butler, said he called the “Landmark” report. He pointed out the necessity of further counseling, but nevertheless he had a supportive atmosphere.

Can this review cause real health reform?

Overall, the review is a chart of tight, inappropriate rules and regulations that are roamed by health professionals and restricts patient treatment today. It also offers practical steps to achieve your goals.

The disadvantage of the report is to focus on the harmony of the state and territorial approach. This will, for example, will replace the current approach to which states and territory decide which specialists can administer and which pharmacists can distribute without a prescription of a medical professional.

One of the benefits of the Union is the potential of national and territorial innovation and border learning. Harmony will limit the experiment and can lead to more identity in the past health manpower policy.