One of the many ironies about Kevin Rudd’s health reform agenda was that he took a controlling, centralised approach to instituting what was billed as developing “local control” for health services.
There is a widespread view around the traps that the health reform agenda began to head off the rails when Rudd, his staffers and Department took over the process.
Much of the useful work that had already been done, including by the National Health and Hospitals Reform Commission, was sidelined and one key concern about our health system – the lack of equity as highlighted in a recent Croakey series – seemed to have disappeared from the table.
A more equitable and efficient health system relies on a far greater focus and investment in primary health care and public health. But the PM’s political priorities were focused firmly on hospitals.
The latest report card of Australia’s health, released yesterday by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, shows that a continuing focus on hospitals as the supremos of the health sector will result in a system that cannot be sustained in to the future.
The report (ages 484 and 485) says in 2007-08 there were 2 million attendances at public hospital emergency departments that could have potentially been avoided through the provision of appropriate non hospital services in the community. From 2002-03 to 2007-08, for every 1,000 people, there were 33.6 admissions to hospitals that could have been potentially prevented through the provision of appropriate non-hospital health services.
What will the change of leadership mean for health reform?
While we wait for the answers to this question, many will be thinking back to Gillard’s time as opposition spokeswoman on health and ageing, when Abbott was health minister. She was an effective match for him then, in both policy and political terms.
Don’t mistake me; I am not arguing that the business of health, or health reform, should be left entirely to health ministers. We hear, ad nauseam, that the greatest gains in health require efforts not only across jurisdictions, but also across governments. Many of the solutions for improving the community’s mental health may not lie within the domain of the health minister, for example.
The question is not whether the new PM should be closely involved in health reform; it’s how she does it that matters.
PostScript (12.45pm): Having just watched the new PM’s first press conference, two comments of particular relevance for health. Her commitment to every child having quality access to education, and to stressing the importance of quality government services for the less well off.
Update (5.45pm): I missed the first part of the departing PM’s speech, so missed his comments about health. This report is from the 6Minutes newsletter, which says Kevin Rudd cited his government’s health reforms and investments in cancer services as among his proudest achievements. He said he was “really proud” of the deep health reforms he had initiated, and the National Health and Hospital Networks in particular. He was especially proud of the government’s new investments in cancer services, and also singled out the creation of a new National Transplant Donation Authority as one of his major achievements, citing his own aortic valve transplant as making this of personal as well as political significance to him.
I think you’re right Melissa to suggest that changes will probably be to the manner of implementation rather than to the substance of the reforms. Implementation matters though, and there could be many pittfalls and scandals during the next term of government as the reforms filter through. I’ve been continually surprised in my discussions with people working within the health system about how few of them have thought through what the reforms will mean at a practical level. There may well be a backlash of sorts as they realise how significant and far-reaching the changes will be.
I imagine our new Prime Minister will regard the health reforms as a risk to be managed rather than as something to be substantially changed. More exciting is her strong personal commitment to giving every child a good start in life, which will hopefully lead to an increased focus on investment in the early years across government.
Julia Gillard’s stance on mental health will be the same as her predecessors. Mental health will still be treated with a kneejerk response rather than taking measures to address the cause.
In today’s society anxiety is a killer. It is represented in many mental illnesses, yet it treated with contempt by those who have the ability to do something about it. Political parties take the simplistic, political opportunity to equate anxiety with the position of *not having a job*. Today we saw Kevin Rudd pay compliments to his staffers for working extremely long hours and we saw Ms Gillard talking about the importance of education for getting a job. Predictably, neither of them mentioned anything about the very real truth about anxiety in the classroom and the workplace. Their emphasis is on production efficiencies, which, in a significant way, translates to mental illness. In effect, for them, it is *too hard* to do anything worthwhile other than throw money at what is an accelerating problem.
Please support people with epilepsy.
Whoops, I should have also mentioned her comments on climate change as pertinent to health.