{"title":"资金改革时代的全科医生","authors":"Aajuli Shukla","doi":"10.5694/mja2.52669","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>How we fund our health system to achieve the most effective, efficient and equitable outcomes is high on the political agenda. Australia has just experienced a federal election dubbed “the health election” for one of the largest funding boosts to Medicare promised by both major parties.<span><sup>1</sup></span> This issue of the <i>MJA</i> is dedicated to general practice — the bedrock of the health system that has arguably been in crisis for several years.</p><p>A centrepiece of Labor's campaign on health was a pledge to build more bulk-billing urgent care centres around the country. These centres aim to bridge the gap for urgent illnesses when patients cannot see their general practitioner and reduce pressure on emergency departments (EDs).<span><sup>2</sup></span></p><p>In this issue of the <i>MJA</i>, Savira and colleagues<span><sup>3</sup></span> conducted a scoping review to examine the effectiveness of urgent care centres. They examined studies conducted in clinics in the UK, Europe and the United States and found that the results with respect to reduction in ED visits were mixed. While some studies reported that the introduction of these clinics was associated with a reduction in ED visits, others often showed no changes or an increase in presentation to ED minor injury units. Importantly, most studies examined showed a reduction in hospital admission rates in places where urgent care clinics had been set up. Although most patients in consumer surveys examined were happy with the service, continuity of care was a concern expressed by both patients and practitioners. Even though the review was limited by the high heterogeneity of methodologies examined, it provides a warning about relying on a model without adequate governance and formal assessment of cost effectiveness. Indeed, a recent interim report by the Department of Health and Aged Care found that although the cost of seeing a doctor in an urgent care clinic is lower than in an emergency department, this cost is at least five times that of seeing a general practitioner for a standard consult.<span><sup>4</sup></span></p><p>Continuity of care has been an ongoing issue in primary health care for several years. Unlike the UK and New Zealand, where patients are often enrolled into their local primary care clinics for care, in Australia most people can visit any general practitioner anywhere for care, which often leads to a significant amount of fragmentation of care and over ordering of investigations.<span><sup>5</sup></span> The MyMedicare initiative that has been recently rolled out in Australia attempts to correct this.</p><p>Bates and colleagues<span><sup>6</sup></span> in their scoping review for this issue examined enrolment models in other countries to elucidate their impacts on continuity of care. They found little evidence that enrolment improved continuity of care; however, study populations had high levels of pre-existing patient engagement with a usual general practitioner The review provided evidence that enrolment can be used to support other primary care reforms such as preventive care and management of chronic conditions, and demonstrated how other reforms, such as incentives or increased access to services, can affect uptake of enrolment.</p><p>For MyMedicare to work, practices and patients need to see value in enrolment. This value proposition will be hard to make without more targeted research evaluating, and then demonstrating, the benefits of enrolment, not just for individuals who have a usual general practitioner, but for those who do not. Although the review noted that the MyMedicare scheme currently has limited incentives for patients, there have been proposals to tie in funding for chronic care plans and allied health visits to a patient's nominated general practitioner and practice on MyMedicare.<span><sup>7</sup></span> This will likely pressure general clinics to enrol patients specifically to their clinics.</p><p>The overarching problem most general practitioners have with investment in primary care is that often the governments do not seem to want to consult with them with regards to their experiences and opinions on how unprecedented levels of Medicare funding might best suit their patients. Most clinics currently run on the slimmest of margins and the bulk-billing incentive still does not meet the gap that mixed billing currently provides most clinics.<span><sup>8</sup></span> Without effective primary care most Australians will be left without adequate health care. A substantial proportion of research needs to be carried out on effective models of care focusing on general practitioners with general practitioners as a core part of the research and assessment team.</p>","PeriodicalId":18214,"journal":{"name":"Medical Journal of Australia","volume":"222 9","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.5694/mja2.52669","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"General practice in the era of funding reform\",\"authors\":\"Aajuli Shukla\",\"doi\":\"10.5694/mja2.52669\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>How we fund our health system to achieve the most effective, efficient and equitable outcomes is high on the political agenda. Australia has just experienced a federal election dubbed “the health election” for one of the largest funding boosts to Medicare promised by both major parties.<span><sup>1</sup></span> This issue of the <i>MJA</i> is dedicated to general practice — the bedrock of the health system that has arguably been in crisis for several years.</p><p>A centrepiece of Labor's campaign on health was a pledge to build more bulk-billing urgent care centres around the country. These centres aim to bridge the gap for urgent illnesses when patients cannot see their general practitioner and reduce pressure on emergency departments (EDs).<span><sup>2</sup></span></p><p>In this issue of the <i>MJA</i>, Savira and colleagues<span><sup>3</sup></span> conducted a scoping review to examine the effectiveness of urgent care centres. They examined studies conducted in clinics in the UK, Europe and the United States and found that the results with respect to reduction in ED visits were mixed. While some studies reported that the introduction of these clinics was associated with a reduction in ED visits, others often showed no changes or an increase in presentation to ED minor injury units. Importantly, most studies examined showed a reduction in hospital admission rates in places where urgent care clinics had been set up. Although most patients in consumer surveys examined were happy with the service, continuity of care was a concern expressed by both patients and practitioners. Even though the review was limited by the high heterogeneity of methodologies examined, it provides a warning about relying on a model without adequate governance and formal assessment of cost effectiveness. Indeed, a recent interim report by the Department of Health and Aged Care found that although the cost of seeing a doctor in an urgent care clinic is lower than in an emergency department, this cost is at least five times that of seeing a general practitioner for a standard consult.<span><sup>4</sup></span></p><p>Continuity of care has been an ongoing issue in primary health care for several years. Unlike the UK and New Zealand, where patients are often enrolled into their local primary care clinics for care, in Australia most people can visit any general practitioner anywhere for care, which often leads to a significant amount of fragmentation of care and over ordering of investigations.<span><sup>5</sup></span> The MyMedicare initiative that has been recently rolled out in Australia attempts to correct this.</p><p>Bates and colleagues<span><sup>6</sup></span> in their scoping review for this issue examined enrolment models in other countries to elucidate their impacts on continuity of care. They found little evidence that enrolment improved continuity of care; however, study populations had high levels of pre-existing patient engagement with a usual general practitioner The review provided evidence that enrolment can be used to support other primary care reforms such as preventive care and management of chronic conditions, and demonstrated how other reforms, such as incentives or increased access to services, can affect uptake of enrolment.</p><p>For MyMedicare to work, practices and patients need to see value in enrolment. This value proposition will be hard to make without more targeted research evaluating, and then demonstrating, the benefits of enrolment, not just for individuals who have a usual general practitioner, but for those who do not. Although the review noted that the MyMedicare scheme currently has limited incentives for patients, there have been proposals to tie in funding for chronic care plans and allied health visits to a patient's nominated general practitioner and practice on MyMedicare.<span><sup>7</sup></span> This will likely pressure general clinics to enrol patients specifically to their clinics.</p><p>The overarching problem most general practitioners have with investment in primary care is that often the governments do not seem to want to consult with them with regards to their experiences and opinions on how unprecedented levels of Medicare funding might best suit their patients. Most clinics currently run on the slimmest of margins and the bulk-billing incentive still does not meet the gap that mixed billing currently provides most clinics.<span><sup>8</sup></span> Without effective primary care most Australians will be left without adequate health care. A substantial proportion of research needs to be carried out on effective models of care focusing on general practitioners with general practitioners as a core part of the research and assessment team.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":18214,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Medical Journal of Australia\",\"volume\":\"222 9\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":6.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.5694/mja2.52669\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Medical Journal of Australia\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.5694/mja2.52669\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical Journal of Australia","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.5694/mja2.52669","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
我们如何为我们的卫生系统提供资金,以实现最有效、最高效和最公平的结果,是政治议程上的重要事项。澳大利亚刚刚举行了一场被称为“健康选举”的联邦选举,这是两党承诺的对医疗保险的最大资金增加之一这一期的MJA致力于全科实践——可以说几年来一直处于危机中的卫生系统的基石。工党健康运动的核心是承诺在全国范围内建立更多的批量计费紧急护理中心。这些中心的目的是在病人无法看全科医生的情况下,弥合紧急疾病的差距,并减轻急诊科(EDs)的压力。在本期MJA中,Savira及其同事进行了一项范围审查,以检查紧急护理中心的有效性。他们检查了在英国、欧洲和美国的诊所进行的研究,发现关于减少急诊科就诊的结果好坏参半。虽然一些研究报告说,这些诊所的引入与急诊科就诊的减少有关,但其他研究往往显示,到急诊科轻伤病房就诊的情况没有变化或增加。重要的是,大多数研究表明,在设立了紧急护理诊所的地方,住院率有所下降。尽管在消费者调查中,大多数患者对服务感到满意,但患者和从业人员都表达了对护理连续性的担忧。尽管审查由于所检查的方法的高度异质性而受到限制,但它对依赖没有适当治理和对成本效益进行正式评估的模型提出了警告。事实上,英国卫生和老年护理部(Department of Health and Aged Care)最近的一份中期报告发现,尽管在紧急护理诊所看病的费用低于急诊室,但这种费用至少是在普通医生那里进行标准会诊的5倍。4 .多年来,护理的连续性一直是初级卫生保健的一个持续问题。与英国和新西兰不同,在英国和新西兰,患者通常在当地的初级保健诊所接受治疗,而在澳大利亚,大多数人可以在任何地方访问任何全科医生进行治疗,这往往导致大量的护理碎片化和过度订购调查最近在澳大利亚推出的“我的医疗保险”计划试图纠正这一点。贝茨和他的同事在对这一问题的范围审查中考察了其他国家的登记模式,以阐明它们对护理连续性的影响。他们发现,几乎没有证据表明,登记可以提高护理的连续性;然而,研究人群中既往患者与普通全科医生的接触程度很高。综述提供的证据表明,登记可用于支持其他初级保健改革,如预防保健和慢性病管理,并展示了其他改革,如激励措施或增加获得服务的机会,如何影响登记的吸收。要使“我的医疗保险”发挥作用,实践和患者需要看到参与的价值。如果没有更有针对性的研究来评估和证明注册的好处,这一价值主张将很难实现,不仅对那些有普通全科医生的个人,而且对那些没有全科医生的人。尽管审查指出,“我的医疗保险”计划目前对患者的激励有限,但有人建议将慢性病护理计划的资金和患者指定的全科医生的联合健康访问与“我的医疗保险”联系起来这可能会给普通诊所带来压力,迫使他们专门为自己的诊所招收患者。大多数全科医生在初级保健投资方面面临的首要问题是,政府似乎往往不愿就他们的经验和意见征求他们的意见,即前所未有的医疗保险资金水平如何最适合他们的病人。大多数诊所目前的利润微薄,而批量计费激励仍然不能满足混合计费目前为大多数诊所提供的差距如果没有有效的初级保健,大多数澳大利亚人将得不到充分的保健。需要对以全科医生为重点的有效护理模式进行相当大比例的研究,全科医生是研究和评估团队的核心部分。
How we fund our health system to achieve the most effective, efficient and equitable outcomes is high on the political agenda. Australia has just experienced a federal election dubbed “the health election” for one of the largest funding boosts to Medicare promised by both major parties.1 This issue of the MJA is dedicated to general practice — the bedrock of the health system that has arguably been in crisis for several years.
A centrepiece of Labor's campaign on health was a pledge to build more bulk-billing urgent care centres around the country. These centres aim to bridge the gap for urgent illnesses when patients cannot see their general practitioner and reduce pressure on emergency departments (EDs).2
In this issue of the MJA, Savira and colleagues3 conducted a scoping review to examine the effectiveness of urgent care centres. They examined studies conducted in clinics in the UK, Europe and the United States and found that the results with respect to reduction in ED visits were mixed. While some studies reported that the introduction of these clinics was associated with a reduction in ED visits, others often showed no changes or an increase in presentation to ED minor injury units. Importantly, most studies examined showed a reduction in hospital admission rates in places where urgent care clinics had been set up. Although most patients in consumer surveys examined were happy with the service, continuity of care was a concern expressed by both patients and practitioners. Even though the review was limited by the high heterogeneity of methodologies examined, it provides a warning about relying on a model without adequate governance and formal assessment of cost effectiveness. Indeed, a recent interim report by the Department of Health and Aged Care found that although the cost of seeing a doctor in an urgent care clinic is lower than in an emergency department, this cost is at least five times that of seeing a general practitioner for a standard consult.4
Continuity of care has been an ongoing issue in primary health care for several years. Unlike the UK and New Zealand, where patients are often enrolled into their local primary care clinics for care, in Australia most people can visit any general practitioner anywhere for care, which often leads to a significant amount of fragmentation of care and over ordering of investigations.5 The MyMedicare initiative that has been recently rolled out in Australia attempts to correct this.
Bates and colleagues6 in their scoping review for this issue examined enrolment models in other countries to elucidate their impacts on continuity of care. They found little evidence that enrolment improved continuity of care; however, study populations had high levels of pre-existing patient engagement with a usual general practitioner The review provided evidence that enrolment can be used to support other primary care reforms such as preventive care and management of chronic conditions, and demonstrated how other reforms, such as incentives or increased access to services, can affect uptake of enrolment.
For MyMedicare to work, practices and patients need to see value in enrolment. This value proposition will be hard to make without more targeted research evaluating, and then demonstrating, the benefits of enrolment, not just for individuals who have a usual general practitioner, but for those who do not. Although the review noted that the MyMedicare scheme currently has limited incentives for patients, there have been proposals to tie in funding for chronic care plans and allied health visits to a patient's nominated general practitioner and practice on MyMedicare.7 This will likely pressure general clinics to enrol patients specifically to their clinics.
The overarching problem most general practitioners have with investment in primary care is that often the governments do not seem to want to consult with them with regards to their experiences and opinions on how unprecedented levels of Medicare funding might best suit their patients. Most clinics currently run on the slimmest of margins and the bulk-billing incentive still does not meet the gap that mixed billing currently provides most clinics.8 Without effective primary care most Australians will be left without adequate health care. A substantial proportion of research needs to be carried out on effective models of care focusing on general practitioners with general practitioners as a core part of the research and assessment team.
期刊介绍:
The Medical Journal of Australia (MJA) stands as Australia's foremost general medical journal, leading the dissemination of high-quality research and commentary to shape health policy and influence medical practices within the country. Under the leadership of Professor Virginia Barbour, the expert editorial team at MJA is dedicated to providing authors with a constructive and collaborative peer-review and publication process. Established in 1914, the MJA has evolved into a modern journal that upholds its founding values, maintaining a commitment to supporting the medical profession by delivering high-quality and pertinent information essential to medical practice.