News
Concern after panel declares PIP and WIP ‘not actually essential’
That is according to the latest consultation from a panel tasked with assessing the future of GP incentives, and it is ringing alarm bells for the RACGP.
Around 270 people attended the Department of Health and Aged Care’s Review of General Practice Incentives Consultation webinar.
The RACGP has raised significant concerns about the future of general practice incentives, after an expert panel tasked with assessing their efficacy said the PIP and WIP are ‘not actually essential for the survival of private practices’.
More than 270 people attended a Review of General Practice Incentives Consultation webinar on Thursday, hosted by the Department of Health and Aged Care, after its latest review recommended the current incentives undergo a major overhaul.
The review’s assessment includes the Practice Incentives Program (PIP) and Workforce Incentives Program (WIP) as part of its plans to redesign the current incentive programs by 2032.
The RACGP has raised fresh concerns after the panel appeared to be heading in a direction opposite to what the college, and many of its members, called for in relation to the PIP and WIP.
In response, RACGP President Dr Nicole Higgins told newsGP what general practice needs is an increase of funding money into the specialty, especially as demand for services is predicted to skyrocket.
She said the flagged changes to the PIP and WIP will most impact Australia’s rural workforce, and have the potential to push GPs out of the regions.
‘I urge GPs to remember that this panel is only able to make recommendations, and the Federal Government must review these before they are officially accepted or rejected, so we still have time to act,’ Dr Higgins said.
‘We know that enhancing general practice with greater financial incentives and reducing their complexity is essential for their success and for improving our patient outcomes, and the practice incentive programs are critical to the viability of practices and continuous patient care.
‘We need general practice incentives to be better targeted to high quality general practice, and if we do that, patient outcomes will improve.’
The panel’s latest comments come after its initial report recommended eligibility for accreditation expand to include non-traditional general practice models.
On Thursday, it said these changes ‘would not happen overnight’, flagging an eight-year timeframe.
‘It’s not as if all practices are going to be expected to actually fulfill all these criteria overnight in order to get any payments,’ it said.
‘We’re very, very aware of the fact that these kinds of things need to be introduced gradually, they need to be supported, and we’ve had lots of discussions about what the support would actually look like.’
That plan comes as the panel’s key recommendation, revealed earlier this month, is to replace existing PIP and WIP payments ‘while ensuring viability of general practices to meet patient needs’.
The panel also said changes to accreditation could be on the way to consider multidisciplinary care teams, leading to further scope of practice concerns from the RACGP.
It said GPs can be able to coordinate multidisciplinary care teams through increasing the scope of practice for other healthcare professionals, such as allowing patients to receive repeat scripts without seeing a GP.
‘We probably want members of those multidisciplinary teams to actually have training in general practice so they can work in general practice,’ the panel said.
‘We’ve actually considered the training of nurses and nurse practitioners in general practice itself, and potentially maybe even pharmacists and other people who could actually benefit general practice.’
The RACGP has previously raised concerns about controversial scope of practice changes, such as pharmacy prescribing, citing the increase risk to patient safety and care fragmentation.
Panel member, practice manager and Inala Primary Care Chief Executive Officer, Tracey Johnson, added that changes must reflect the ‘new style of practice that we’re imagining’.
‘Decades ago, a general practice used to be a place that GPs worked. It will continue to be a place that GPs can and do work, but there are also other people who are now part of the team,’ she said.
‘If we have direct bundled payments to practices that are not comfortably fitting into a doctor only kind of circumstance, we need to change the accreditation framework and make payments available to a broader group of practices who are still providing cradle to grave care.’
However, that ‘new style’ comes following little input from peak bodies, including the RACGP, with Dr Higgins saying previously that this failure to co-design was ‘nothing but disrespectful’.
The RACGP supports multidisciplinary care teams within general practice, saying they can benefit patients, but Dr Higgins said the role GPs play in primary healthcare must not be diminished.
‘GPs cannot stand by and watch our health system be reduced, we need to stand up and ensure we don’t trade off quality and safety for convenience,’ she said.
‘We cannot have a healthcare system that is reduced to tasks and activities, one that is fractured and broken and where our patients are not getting the high-quality care they need and deserve.’
Ms Johnson also provided assurances around persistent capitation concerns, saying ‘the new money that we’re proposing to have invested in primary care does not equate to capitation’.
‘This report, in no way, shape or form, says that all of a sudden, the way you will get your payment is by a payment outcomes model,’ Ms Johnson said.
‘There will be more data sharing, because that’s how you get needs-based funding, but in terms of a capitation model, that was never part of our plan or is not part of our recommendations.’
The panel was then questioned about whether it has considered the effect of payroll tax and take-home pay for practitioners.
‘You don’t start designing a healthcare system based on a taxation system because both the needs of patients become more present and ever dangerous to us in primary care,’ Ms Johnson said.
‘Simply because payments go to the practice does not mean that, in turn, the practice could not have a way of directing elements of those payments to practitioners.’
However, questions remain about just now this will be regulated in the future.
Dr Jason Agostino, a GP and senior medical advisor at the National Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation, confirmed there is a separate process underway for the Indigenous Incentives Payment.
‘The Indigenous Health Incentive for the purpose of this review is considered out of scope,’ he said.
‘We’ve already started a reform process around that where it’s moving away from sign-on payments to be more focused on outcome payments.’
Feedback from the consultation process will be collated for the Expert Advisory Panel’s consideration as it finalises its report.
The RACGP will publish further submissions into the consultation shortly and has already provided input to the National Rural Generalist Pathway’s Strategic Council.
Log in below to join the conversation.
general practice incentives PIP scope of practice Strengthening Medicare WIP
newsGP weekly poll
Do you support patients registered with MyMedicare having access to MBS rebates if they have not met the 12-month relationship rule?