Stirling Griff (SA, Nick Xenophon Team) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to Senator Nash, representing the Minister for Health and Ageing. Between 2004 and 2015, government invested around $60 million in the Australian Primary Care Collaborative's program. This program developed quality indicators for many national health priorities, including diabetes and cardiovascular disease. These indicators are now available in many practice software systems including MedicalDirector. My question is: why has the government failed to include indicators from the APCC in the primary health network performance framework given the need for nationally consistent qualitative measurement?

Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party, Deputy Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Griff for his question and for some notice of it. He would be aware that it was this government that established the 31 PHNs in 2015. This was to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of medical services for patients, particularly those at risk of poor health outcomes. It was also done to improve coordination of care to ensure patients received the right care in the right place at the right time. PHNs work directly with general practitioners, other primary health care providers, secondary care providers and hospitals to facilitate improved outcomes.

The government has agreed to six key priorities for targeted work by PHNs. These are mental health, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health, population health, health workforce, eHealth and aged care. I am advised that the Australian Primary Care Collaborative's program is used voluntarily by individual practices. The collaborative's program developed a number of quality indicators which have been adapted into continuous improvement programs for general practice, which continue to be run by the PHNs in most regions. The concept of a continuous improvement system developed out of the collaborative's is currently being adapted in discussions with general practice.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Griff, a supplementary question.

Stirling Griff (SA, Nick Xenophon Team) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Considering, as mentioned, the government has already spent $60 million developing these indicators, will the government commit to using them in the rollout of the Health Care Homes program; if not, why not?

Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party, Deputy Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am advised that the department is currently developing the Health Care Homes evaluation plan. That plan will outline the broad categories of measures to be collected, of which relevant clinical indicators will only be a part. The choice of indicators will be informed by an evidence based assessment of the likely impacts of the model and an analysis of systematic reviews of similar models. Consideration will be given to existing indicators in the selection of indicators for the broad categories of measures. The evaluation of health care homes will examine the effect of the model on quality of care, patient and provider experience, practice behaviour, service usage and cost impacts. It will explore how the model works in various situations and settings and a look at what works best for different patients and practice types and in different communities with varying demographics. The evaluation will also consider the implementation process.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A final supplementary question, Senator Griff.

Stirling Griff (SA, Nick Xenophon Team) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Given the value in health care is best judged when combining an assessment of outcomes with cost, what other measures is the government proposing to use to assess the effectiveness of primary health care?

Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party, Deputy Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In the 2016-17 budget the government agreed to simplify the Practice Incentives Program and introduce a new quality improvement incentive. It is proposed that participation in this incentive will involve the sharing of practice data with a third party, such as PHNs, based on a small number of key indicators which will be negotiated and agreed with the sector. The work undertaken under the Primary Care Collaborative's program is likely to inform the development of these key indicators. Over time it is expected that the quality of data against these indicators will improve and thereby improve health outcomes for patients.