June 2004

GPDV Board Summary
Monday 21 June 2004

1. Meeting Minister Pike
The board received Nola's report on the 2 June meeting with the Minister Pike. Issues discussed at the meeting were:

  • GPs in EDs: the minister was aware of the issues in WA and did not want a repeat in Victoria.
  • GPR: the Minister does not want the GPR undermined. GPDV will continue to run the GPR until the board are satisfied that the SSD can provide the same functions, with the same data security, as the GPR.
  • Clinicians Health Channel: the Minister's adviser Caitilin Markby is following-up on GPs' access to Clinicians Health Channel.
  • 6 Monthly meetings with Minister: The board noted that it is important for GPDV to meet with the Minister 6 monthly and not just as part of the GP Victorian Alliance Group. There are a number of groups in attendance at the GP Victorian Alliance and we do not wish to have our only contact with the Minister at this forum. As the SBO we need to speak to the Minister not only in a lobbying role, but building relationships with the department and to have meetings focusing on the work of divisions with DHS, and not just the big picture of general practice.

2. National SBO/ADGP meeting
The board received Nola's and Bill's report on the 3-4 June SBO/ADGP meeting, which included a brief session with Richard Eccles, Assistant Secretary, Primary Care, Quality and Prevention and David Learmonth, First Assistant Secretary, Primary Care Division.

Among the main topics discussed were:

  • The government response to the Divisions' Review. There was discussion with David Learmonth on funding for high performing divisions and it was pointed out that it has been tried before and did not work, tending to be destructive.
  • There was a discussion on lessons from the New Zealand on which David Learmonth commented that their health system may have improved, but it has only been brought up to the Australian standard.
  • The GP vacancy database for OTD recruitment.
  • The paper on the structure of the Divisions' Network.
  • The lack of an overall strategy for Workforce within which the current fragmented initiatives might fit.
  • The issues arising from the GP Panels for Aged Care Homes.
  • The failure of the BMAG to bring about a change in the management style of DoHA - its main original aim - although it has achieved some significant improvements to the contracts. There was strong support from the SBOs to continue this working group.
  • IMIT funding was raised with David Learmonth with comments from the SBOs that it is impossible to discuss IMIT when there is no funding. David's response was that DoHA has already spent a lot of money on IMIT, although he didn't give us sources from his figures.
  • The meeting also discussed the review of RWAs and that relationship with SBOs; this will go ahead in Sept - Oct 2004.

The next SBO/ADGP meeting is on 22 September before the ADGP forum in Adelaide.

3. Structure of the Divisions Network
The board reviewed Bill’s update on the GPDV consultation paper from the Divisions Network Structure Review Group offering three possible structures for the Divisions Network and asking divisions and SBOs to complete a model-rating assessment exercise for the comparison of the three structures offered in the paper.
GPDV sent the GPDV response to Victorian divisions following the teleconferences for Victorian urban and rural divisions at which the division Chairs strongly endorsed the 'federated' structure as recommended by GPDV in its response. The teleconferences agreed that a united Victorian view would help ADGP and the Divisions Network to support the most effective structure. The board noted that the structure is important, but the key is getting the relationships right between divisions, SBOs and ADGP. Victorian SBO functions well and it may be that those that are not functioning well, other models appear attractive to improve the relationship with their SBOs. Some proposed models would improve the functioning of the Divisions Network - such as the branch office model. Chris Pearce pointed out that if Victorian Divisions prefer a model that is not included in the options before the working group, GPDV must promote it so that it can be discussed at the AGM of ADGP, for which the Logan Division motion is still on the table.

The Working Group will collate the replies and will issue a further paper on 1 July.