Sussan Ley (Farrer, Liberal Party, Minister for Sport) Share this | Hansard source

I am pleased to speak in support of the budget in general and on the health portfolio in particular today to emphasise our very real commitment to sustainable health spending that continues to increase, that continues to take the path of sensible measured reform. We are not standing still, we are not avoiding the tough decisions but, most importantly, we are doing two things: we are putting patients at the centre of health care and we are making sure that every single health dollar is as efficient as it possibly can be. If you look at the twin priorities of any federal health minister anywhere in the world, those two should be absolutely front and centre.

The reform that we commenced prior to the election, that were enhanced by genuine commitments during the election is continuing. It is continuing in two key areas. Firstly, the review of the Medicare benefits schedule is ongoing, done by clinicians with, again, the practice of medicine at the centre. The numbers of clinical committees and the work that is being led by Professor Bruce Robinson has not happened at any stage within the Australian health system. In fact it has been 30 years since the MBS was reviewed. If you talk to anyone who uses the MBS—doctors, general practitioners, specialists—they say they want it to reflect contemporary clinical practice. And sometimes the things that they do in their operating theatres or consulting rooms every day are not even in there and they have to manage workarounds instead. Or they see things in there that are quite laughably out of date. So this is important work, it is bipartisan work and it is necessary work.

Secondly, the other key plank of our reform is our Health Care Homes model, which is a new way of remunerating general practice if you look at it from the provider aspect. But importantly it is a new way of treating patients with chronic and complex conditions if you look at it from the patient's point of view. So if you are in the top 25 per cent of patients in Australia with chronic or complex conditions, we have for you a reform that enrols you into a health care home. The trials of Health Care Homes are starting now and the lead up to this work has been about 12 months because we wanted to get it right. As with our other reform measures, codesign is vital. Doctors, nurses, consumers and allied health professionals were part of the design of Health Care Homes. We are now in 10 primary health networks across Australia, rolling out the trials in 200 practices with about 65,000 patients.

The modern GP might be a younger person compared to the older style general practitioner who opens their doors at nine o'clock and closes their doors at five o'clock. I am constantly being approached by younger doctors who say, 'I would like to trial some innovative methods of practice. I would like to be in touch with some of my newly diagnosed patients at the end of the day. I would like to bring technology to bear in a much more exciting way to look after their needs. I would like to visit the aged-care home and spent half a day there doing some different things—for example, training the nurses. I'd like to have the pharmacist more involved in my general practice. Where I live is a low socioeconomic area; I would like to try having a pharmacist here every day, helping people manage their medicines.' All of these things are perfectly possible within the Health Care Homes model. But instead what we have now is a very regimented, transaction based Medicare system. At no stage are we judging the outcomes in the way that we should. The Health Care Homes model is going to do exactly that.

I have touched on two key reforms but, as I said, they were enhanced by genuine commitment in the budget—$20 million for a Zero Childhood Cancer initiative and $7 million for clinical trials. I have just come from a rare cancers event in Parliament House. It is very clear to me that access early on to medicines that would not normally be listed on the PBS is vital. Our commitment to medicines when compared with the opposition is incredibly different. We have listed three times as many medicines at $4.5 billion compared to Labor, who listed $1 billion worth of medicines and, at some points in their stewardship of the health portfolio, actually refused to list medicines at all because their budget could not pay for it.

See this speech in context