Images

SETTING THE FACTS STRAIGHT | LEADING CARDIOLOGIST DR DAVID O’DONNELL

Posted on | by Team

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]A disturbing and incorrect supposition has developed that doctors are not choosing the appropriate device for their patients and that patients outcomes are affected because of this.

Some important points need to be clarified:

1. Private patients in a Private hospital in Australia have world’s best procedural outcomes. Recent data from the GenesisCare network (Australia’s largest private cardiology group) has shown 30 day device complication rates that are up to 7 times lower than in the US or Europe and significantly better than the published complication rates in Australian public hospitals;

2. Private patients in a Private hospital in Australia have access to the best possible cardiac devices. The prosthesis list contains all of the currently available cardiac devices and the implanting cardiologist is free to choose any of these devices;

3. The implanting cardiologist in a Private hospital is responsible for the choice of device. I have not had any discussion with management about which device I implant and certainly no pressure by management to implant a specific device. This is not the case in many public hospitals where a tender process is typically conducted and a limited choice of devices is available;

4. The choice of cardiac device for a particular patient is complex and the implanting cardiologist considers many factors. The basic function of the device as a pacemaker, a defibrillator or a Cardiac resynchronization device is the fundamental decision. Beyond this, the extra features of the device are important – MRI conditional, Wireless, Remote Monitoring capable, multipolar leads, published reliability of the device and leads. Implantation and follow up of cardiac devices can be technically demanding and familiarity with implant tools and availability of technical support are important factors. Patient preference may also contribute to the decision;

5. It is not only ethically wrong but also against the recognized codes of conduct for an implanting cardiologist to choose a device based on pressure by hospital management or financial incentives. Each year as part of our registration, all doctors sign the Medical Board Code of Conduct, which states that good medical practice involves:

“Not asking for or accepting any inducement, gift or hospitality of more than trivial value, from companies that sell or market drugs or appliances or provide services that may affect, or be seen to affect, the way you prescribe for, treat or refer patients.”

A similar code of conduct from the MTAA prohibits device companies from offering incentives to implanting cardiologists.

6. It is my understanding that the price paid by a Health Fund for a cardiac device is set from Canberra via the prosthesis list. In this case, the commercial relationships between device companies and private hospitals would have no direct impact on device costs.

7. There is an underlying suggestion that doctors are upselling or inappropriately implanting cardiac devices. This is factually incorrect and distorts the most pressing issue related to cardiac devices. Most patients in Australia who are eligible for life saving cardiac devices do not receive these devices. Our implant rate is 40% of the US implant rate per million population and below many European countries. Whilst our overall implant rate is remarkably low, the situation is even worse for women, migrants, indigenous patients and patients of lower socioeconomic status who are consistently under implanted. From a medical viewpoint, the discussion on implantation of cardiac devices should focus on ensuring education and referral so that appropriate patients can access cardiac devices that have definitively been shown to prolong life.

A private patient in a private hospital in Australia receives the best possible cardiac device and has world best outcomes. The implanting cardiologist chooses the specific cardiac device and ethically and legally, this decision must be made in the best interests of our patient. Currently, the most pressing issue in Australia is the inappropriate lack of referral for implantation of life saving devices in eligible patients.[/vc_column_text][vc_zigzag][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column width=”1/4″][vc_single_image image=”2165″ img_size=”full”][/vc_column][vc_column width=”3/4″][vc_column_text]

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Dr David O’Donnell is a founding partner and the Chairman of Heart Care Victoria. David graduated from the University of Melbourne in 1993 and trained as a Cardiologist in Melbourne before undertaking a fellowship at Freeman Hospital, Newcastle Upon Tyne, England. He returned to Melbourne in 2002 working at Austin Health as an Interventional Electrophysiologist, becoming Director of Electrophysiology in 2012.

David’s hospital career has focused on the newer techniques for ablation of atrial fibrillation and ventricular tachycardia. In recent years his clinical and research emphasis has been in the device management of heart failure, pioneering a number of novel techniques for cardiac resynchronization. As a previous high performance athlete he has maintained a close involvement with elite athletes with heart conditions and has affiliations with a number of sporting clubs and organizations.

David has a passion for education and frequently lectures, educates and performs surgery around the world.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]

UNDERSTANDING THE DIFFERENCES – PUBLIC & PRIVATE MARKETS

Posted on | by Team

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]Australia’s healthcare system is one of the world’s best, providing a range of services from population health and prevention, through to general practice and community health; emergency health services and hospital care; and rehabilitation and palliative care.

What makes Australia’s health system different compared to other countries, is its voluntary private healthcare system which helps complement and supplement the country’s public system.

This means Australians have the option of being covered by the public Medicare system (which provides access to free treatment and accommodation in a public hospital), or they can choose to be covered by a combination of Medicare and private health insurance.

Australians with private health insurance are eligible to receive funding to cover some of the costs of their care in a private hospital. They are also able to use a public hospital, although they may be charged for it.

The complexity of Australia’s healthcare system has played a considerable role in influencing the cost of medtech devices between the public and private healthcare systems. These complexities include:

  • The purchasing arrangements and level of segmentation of the market;
  • The level of technical manufacturer support required; and
  • The level of regulatory hurdles and market delays.

Unlike in the public system, choice of surgeon and choice of medical device is a fundamental benefits of private health insurance cover and we need to work towards ensuring that value remains a cornerstone of our private healthcare system.

The fragmentation of the private healthcare system however, means achieving the same level of efficiencies of the public system challenging.

Take for example the approximately 630 private hospitals that purchase resources such as medtech devices on an as-needed basis, compared to the public sector (i.e. hospitals administered by the state and territory governments) which utilise their public tendering process to drive down prices and choice of devices available in their 695 public hospitals.

As a result, public hospitals can meet the delivery requirements of certain services through their funding arrangements. Whereas private hospitals, due to the lack of infrastructure required to deliver the same services, must rely on the device supplier to cover the costs, causing differences in prices between the public and private sector.

These factors mean comparing prices across public and private hospitals or across international jurisdictions can be problematic or in some cases not appropriate.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]

AUSSIE INNOVATORS TO DRIVE BETTER HEALTH OUTCOMES

Posted on | by Team

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]The four committees, made up of renowned Australians with extensive experience from sectors such as research, technology, innovation and healthcare, will support the Australian Advisory Board on Technology and Health Competitiveness.

In March 2018, we announced the establishment of the industry led Advisory Board that is partnering with the United States Council on Competitiveness (USCC).

Both groups are focusing on collaboration and promotion of Australian technology, innovation and healthcare to boost business opportunities and create better outcomes for patients.

The Advisory Board is co-chaired by Mr Charles Kiefel OAM, Distinguished Fellow of the Global Federation of Competiveness Councils, Dr Larry Marshall, CEO of CSIRO, and Dr Jane Wilson, Director of Sonic Healthcare Ltd.

The Advisory Board is establishing an Australia-US Chief Technology Officer Dialogue.

The Dialogue will connect Australian and US Technology leaders to discuss common challenges, opportunities, and promote business and research collaboration in areas including healthcare, advanced computing, finance and entrepreneurship.

The four committees will help shape the agenda and discussion of the Advisory Board with members contributing their time and expertise on a pro bono or honorary basis.

These efforts will create more opportunities for Australian firms and innovators to learn from leading innovators in the United States.[/vc_column_text][vc_separator][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]

STRATEGIC COMMITTEES TO SUPPORT THE AUSTRALIAN ADVISORY BOARD ON TECHNOLOGY AND HEALTH COMPETITIVENESS.

Autonomy

  • Professor Russell Boyce (Chair for Space Engineering at UNSW Canberra)
  • Mr Ric Gros (METS Ignited, growth centre)
  • Dr Nick Barnes (3D vision, Data61)

Healthcare

  • Ms Sue MacLeman (Managing Director MTP Connect (MedTech and Pharma Growth Centre)
  • Dr Rachel Swift (Principal Boston Consulting Group)
  • Professor Karen Reynolds (Dean of Research, College of Science and Engineering, Flinders University and member of the Australian Medical Research Advisory Board)
  • Mr Lucas Litewka (Director, USC Clinical Trials Centre)

Advanced computing

  • Mr James Johnson (CEO, Geoscience Australia)
  • Professor Andrew Dzurak (Director of the NSW node of the Australian National Fabrication Facility (ANFF) UNSW)

Financial systems, access to capital, and entrepreneurship

  • Mr Sam Sicilia (Chief Investment Officer, HostPLUS)
  • Dr Manny Pohl (Bond University)

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]

DOES AUSTRALIA’S PRIVATE HEALTH SYSTEM NEED EMERGENCY TREATMENT?

Posted on | by Team

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]The Government has introduced a range of measures to increase affordability including the $1.1bn cuts to medical devices, providing discounts to under 30-year old’s and forthcoming classification of policies into gold, silver, bronze and basic.

Meanwhile Labor has promised a wide-ranging Productivity Commission review, the first in 20 years, during which it committed to capping annual premium increases to 2% for two years.

Australia has a fantastic health care system that delivers great patient outcomes for the money we spend. Health expenditure should not be a cost but an investment in our community by maintaining a healthy population.

The reality is, surgical volume growth is slowing, a sign that private health insurance (PHI) customers are either electing to delay procedures or go onto the public waiting list. And why might they be doing this? Cost.

Last week the ACCC released its annual report into the private health insurance industry, which called for the industry to make its products more consumer friendly by providing reliable and transparent information about product features and changes to private health insurance policies.

Dissatisfaction with PHI has reached that point that complaints to the Private Health Insurance Ombudsman (PHIO) have increased by 30%, continuing a trend of increasing complaints, which have risen for the fourth consecutive year.

The evidence of increasing profits and retained capital reserves by private health insurers would indicate scope for them to do more on their end.

The Medical Technology Association of Australia’s (MTAA) CEO, Ian Burgess, has pointed to the Prostheses List Agreement, co-signed with the Government, which has resulted in $1.1 billion in cuts, over four years, to assist with the affordability of private health insurance.

“More and more Australians are turning away from Private Health Insurance (PHI) because it is increasingly costly while covering less and less due to exclusions” Mr Burgess said.

“Just last week PHI was claiming a 2% cap on premium increases would lead to eight insurers operating at a loss in the first year and put three on the brink of insolvency in the second.  This is an industry that receives $6 billion in taxpayer subsidies every year.

“The public would be right to seriously question the fundamentals of the PHI industry, if it can’t deal with a 2% cap,” he said.

The increase in out-of-pocket costs is seeing patients not opting for elective surgery in private hospitals and instead going on our public waiting list.

According to a Credit Suisse analyst “utilisation in the short term as long as affordability pressures continue to shift patients into the public system and the government displays low appetite to produce meaningful reforms to reverse this trend.”

Australia’s largest private hospital provider Ramsay Health Care, revealed this problem recently.

“We are facing more challenging conditions in Australia with lower growth in procedural work and inpatient admissions, which has adversely impacted casemix in our Australian hospitals,” Ramsay’s managing director, Craig McNally, said.

“Given the current climate around private health insurance and affordability, we expect this trend will continue into 2019.”

The problem is exacerbated for the private hospitals who over recent years have aggressively increased the number of beds and brownfield sites, leaving them with a quagmire of less patients and more beds.

The Weekend Australian revealed that internal government documents had warned the Health Minister reforms were needed to prevent a decade-long decline in the sector.

The Office of Best Practice Regulation wrote that “Without a discussion of how consumers might take advantage of reforms to change their level of private health insurance, or how the take-up by younger people might be affected, it is difficult to see how the reform option as a package is intended to result in a net benefit for consumers, private health insurers and the community.”

Many across the healthcare sector have raised concerns that nothing in the next 12 months will see PHI increase its value proposition to consumers and ever increasing profits will only fuel the rage.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]

MEDTECH INDUSTRY RESPONDS TO VOLUME DISCOUNT DEBATE

Posted on | by Team

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]The segment focused on medical technology companies providing volume discounts to private hospitals when they choose to use the devices they make, such as pacemakers, for their patients. The 7.30 Report alleged, as a result of the volume discounts, that private hospitals were receiving between 5-50% off the value of the medical devices as either a repayment or in-kind.

To support the allegations, 7.30 Report spoke with a legal expert who said he believed the rebates provided to hospitals were, in his opinion, equivalent to “kickbacks”, and accused medtech innovators of being anti-competitive.

However, PulseLine understands the practice of rebates was considered by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) in 2003, with the regulator being of the opinion that the conduct would not raise concerns under competition law.

The Medical Technology Association of Australia’s (MTAA) members abide by a Code of Practice which states that it “…ensures companies in the medtech industry conduct their arrangements with healthcare professionals in a transparent manner so decision-making on selection and use of products by doctors, or hospital purchasing departments, is based solely on the quality and suitability of the product, not on inducements (perceived or otherwise) paid to the doctor or any other decision-maker.”

While MTAA Code of Practice isn’t legislated, it has been used by the industry as a best practice guide for all medical technology companies to follow and has issued fines for breaches of the Code.

MTAA’s CEO, Ian Burgess, was interviewed by 7.30 Report, and said the industry opposed any action to constrain surgeon choice, whether it was being done by a private hospital or private health insurer.

“There should be one, and only one, consideration when deciding on which medical device to use and that is: which is in the best interest of the patient,” Mr Burgess said.

“MTAA rejects the characterisations made on the 7.30 Report of rebates being anti-competitive. The practice of providing rebates are in line with normal commercial arrangements that can apply across a number of markets in our economy”.

Mr Burgess confirmed MTAA does not have access to specific information about how suppliers and hospitals negotiate the supply of devices, and said he did not believe the association should be involved in individual discussions with medtech companies regarding their commercial arrangements.

The 7.30 Report story comes as public scrutiny continues over the rise in private health insurance premiums. In recent years the medtech industry has found itself the target of other special interest groups looking to shift the public’s focus away from their own practices as it relates to health insurance premium rises.

Just last year the medtech industry co-signed an Agreement with the Commonwealth Government that saw medtech innovators agree to cut their own prices by $1.1 billion, over four years, in order to have those cuts passed on as savings to Australians signed up for private health insurance.

PulseLine understands those cuts have already been credited with delivering the lowest premium increases for Australians in 17 years.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]

DA VINCI ROBOTS ENTER HOSPITALS

Posted on | by Team

Distributed by Healthcare Company Device Technologies, the purchase will be a huge win for Victoria’s hospital system, expanding the existing Epworth fleet of three third generation platforms to six fourth generation systems across four hospitals. This will be the second upgrade and expansion of Epworth’s da Vinci Surgery program since 2003, when they purchased the first da Vinci Standard system in Australia.

Robotic technology is becoming an increasingly common site in Epworth hospitals, ranging from surgical da Vinci robots in operating theatres to TUG transport robots reducing manual handling across the hospital.

The da Vinci Surgical systems are sophisticated technology platforms, designed to enhance minimally invasive operations. Their design allows surgeons, through 3D vision and wristed instrumentation with intuitive, sensitive motion controls, to reach difficult areas in the human body and carry out complex procedures through minor incisions.

Since 2003, the technology has grown in its application and is now utilised in Urological Surgery, Cardiothoracic Surgery, General Surgery, Gynaecological Surgery and ENT surgery. It was recently used by Dr Ben Dixon, who performed Australia’s first paediatric robotic surgery on six-year-old Freyja Christiansen earlier this year.

The introduction of six more fourth generation da Vinci systems into the Victorian healthcare system was made possible by donations to the Epworth Medical Foundation.

In addition to increasing access to robotic surgery for patients, they will also turn Victoria into a hub for clinical research and robotic training, which will enable more surgeons to learn how to use these robots and apply their skills beyond the operating theatre.

“We were the first to bring da Vinci to this country, we fell behind a little in recent times and now we want to be back at the forefront in terms of technology, access, research and patient outcomes” Epworth said of the sale announcement.

Both Epworth Group Chief Executive, Dr Lachlan Henderson and Device Technologies General Manager for Robotic Surgery, Heath Priestly, said the landmark purchase was an important step forward for Victorian healthcare.

“Our significant investment in da Vinci Surgical technology is consistent with Epworth’s ongoing commitment to deliver quality innovative healthcare to patients in Victoria,” Dr Henderson said.

“Its 15 years since the first patient was treated for Prostate cancer with a da Vinci system at Epworth Hospital in Richmond. All this time later, and it feels like we are just beginning,” added Mr Priestly.

“These 6 new da Vinci systems, all with 4th generation technology, will open up a world of possibilities for clinicians and their patients.”

PRIVATE HEALTH INSURANCE FRUSTRATIONS CONTINUE

Posted on | by Team

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]The ACCC’s call comes as the regulator released its annual report into the private health insurance industry. The report outlines the need for the industry to makes its products more consumer friendly by providing reliable and transparent information about product features and changes to private health insurance policies.

The report illustrates consumers’ growing frustration with the complexities of private health insurance policies and expected out-of-pocket costs that are leading to the regulator receiving increased complaints about policies, and signs that more consumers are choosing to abandon their hospital policies.

“Consumers rely on private health funds engaging with them honestly, so they can avoid unexpected out-of-pocket costs and make informed decisions about the policies they choose,” ACCC Acting Chair Delia Rickard said.

“However, we’ve found it’s currently very difficult for consumers to properly compare and choose policies for their needs, meaning many are shocked when presented with expensive bills for medical services and products they thought they were covered for.”

The ACCC also found that rising private health insurance premiums remained a significant issue for consumers. The report showed that, in response to higher prices, consumers were shifting to lower-cost policies with greater exclusions or a higher excess, or simply dropping their cover altogether.

The ACCC’s report comes as the federal government focuses in on reforms to the sector in and effort to make private health insurance simpler and more affordable. As part of the reforms announced at the end of last year, the government will require private health insurance providers to categories their policies into a ‘gold/silver/bronze/basic’ arrangement.

The government’s reforms have already seen Australia’s medical technology (medtech) innovators accept a $1.1 billion cut, over four years, to help reduce the cost of private health insurance for consumers.

Medtech sector leaders were in Canberra last week for meetings with government and opposition decision-makers as part of an ongoing effort to ensure every cent of the $1.1 bullion cut is directly passed through to consumers.

The ACCC has said it will continue to closely consider competition and consumers aspects of any government reforms to the sector.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]

IMPACT OF MEDTECH 2018

Posted on | by Team

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]The event, which has almost become an annual fixture for the industry, saw the who’s-who in Australian medtech rubbing shoulders with policy-makers, staffers, senators and members.

The evening was kicked off by MTAA board chairman, Gavin Fox-Smith, who welcomed more than 100 attendees to the private dining room. Throughout the evening Fox-Smith invited a number of patients and surgeons to the stage to share their amazing stories of how medical technology changed, and in some instances, saved their lives.

One of those asked to speak was Dianne Sloan, whose husband, Brian, suffered a devastating ischaemic stroke in April of this year. Brian’s surgeon said the stroke would normally have either killed him or left him in a vegetative state. But thanks to the Trevo thrombectomy performed by the surgeon, Brian was able to make an excellent recovery, leaving hospital shortly after, and returning to a fulfilling life with his wife and grandchildren.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”2077″ img_size=”full”][vc_separator][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column width=”1/2″][vc_single_image image=”2076″ img_size=”full”][/vc_column][vc_column width=”1/2″][vc_single_image image=”2078″ img_size=”full”][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_separator][vc_column_text]Lining the walls of the parliamentary private dining room were the various MTAA member companies’ displays, which showed off the very latest advancements in medical technology. PulseLine spotted Stryker’s Maurice Ben-Mayor giving a hands-on demonstration Stryker’s assisted surgery tool aka ‘Mako’ to Labor’s Shadow Minister Jason Clare.

After a busy Parliamentary sitting day, Shadow Treasurer Chris Bowen dropped by, and was seen chatting with the MTAA’s Ian Burgess and former NSW Deputy Premier John Watkins. Bowen was later joined by Shadow Communications Minister Michelle Rowland, and newly sworn-in Senator and former NSW Premier Kristina Keneally.

A big hit with MPs and Senator’s was Alcon’s Ophthalmology Surgery Virtual Reality Technology. PulseLine snapped photos of the Member for Bennelong John Alexander and Member for Makin Tony Zappia being guided through the experience by Robyn Chu and her team, as the Member for North Sydney Trent Zimmerman watched on.

The event was topped off with addresses from both Minister for Health Greg Hunt, and Shadow Minister for Health Catherine King.

It’s safe to say that this is definitely an event to put in your calendar for next year.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”2083″ img_size=”large”][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_separator][vc_single_image image=”2084″ img_size=”large”][vc_separator][/vc_column][/vc_row]

MEDTECH IN CANBERRA

Posted on | by Team

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]Walking the corridors of power,  medtech leaders, industry innovators  and  patients were among the majority of faces filling Parliament House. Led by the Medical Technology Association of Australia’s (MTAA) CEO, Ian Burgess, the leading voices of medtech had the chance to be heard en masse by some of the nation’s most influential  ministers, shadow ministers and policy-makers.

The pilgrimage was part of the industry’s effort to strengthen ties between medtech and government, as well as to highlight the economic and life-changing benefits medtech delivers to Australians.

On Tuesday, industry leaders met with a number of senators and members, including Senator Kristina Keneally, Senator Amanda Stoker, Shadow Minister Ed Husic MP, and medtech champion John Alexander MP to name a few.

On the agenda were patient implant cards, value-based healthcare, and the Agreement, co-signed by the MTAA and the Federal Government, to help lower Private Health Insurance (PHI) premiums for Australians.[/vc_column_text][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner][vc_single_image image=”2094″ img_size=”full”][vc_separator][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/2″][vc_single_image image=”2095″ img_size=”full”][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/2″][vc_single_image image=”2096″ img_size=”full”][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][vc_separator][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner][vc_single_image image=”2093″ img_size=”full”][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_separator][vc_column_text]Speaking to PulseLine MTAA’s Ian Burgess said the industry was pleased with the positive response from MPs and Senators during the delegation’s one-on-one meetings.

“These meetings with law-makers were an important opportunity for us to press the need for government regulations to keep pace with technology advancements in order to allow Australians to have access to the latest medical technology at the best value,” Mr Burgess said.

“Unfortunately, the prostheses list  has not kept pace with these advances, meaning major health issues like atrial fibrillation, which affects 460,000 Australians, isn’t able to be treated with the latest catheter ablation technology because the prostheses list does not currently provide for the reimbursement of non-implantable devices.”

PulseLine understand the MTAA’s board, led by Johnson & Johnson’s Gavin Fox-Smith, also met for one-on-one discussions with both Minister for Health, Greg Hunt, and Shadow Treasurer, Chris Bowen.

As the government and opposition both move into the election season, the board was determined to ensure the co-signed Agreement between industry and government is implemented in full, and the $1.1 billion in cuts to the industry are passed on to Australian consumers.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”2097″ img_size=”full”][/vc_column][/vc_row]

Digital Health to Transform Australia’s Health System and Save Lives

Posted on | by Team

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]The report, developed after an expert roundtable initiated by the Consumers Health Forum and The George Institute for Global Health, says “the time is now ripe” to support the expansion of digital health technology in vital areas including chronic care and residential aged care.

The report is based on discussions held by around 40 consumers, clinicians, academics, government and industry supported by the Australian Digital Health Agency.

Roundtable attendees considered four sectors — chronic care, residential aged care, emergency care and end of life care — in terms of what is wanted from digital health, the current state of digital health in that sector and how to meet goals for the future.

The report says major progress is being made with My Health Record, e-prescriptions, patient registries, shared care portals, state-based digital health strategies and linked hospital patient information systems.

“The time is now ripe to leverage this maturing digital health capacity in ways that are meaningful to both consumers and providers. If done well, it has potential to be transformative for Australia’s health system bringing about rapid enhancements in quality, safety, accessibility and efficiency,” the CEO of the Consumers Health Forum, Leanne Wells, said.

“Digital disruption is not coming in health care – it is already here. For too long health has been lagging behind other sectors.

“For Australia to embrace digital health and benefit from its huge potential, we need national leadership. The COAG National Digital Health Strategy provides a foundation but what is needed is stronger, coordinated direction from the federal, state and territory governments.

“It would be good news for consumers to bring health into the 21st century but we need to be mindful that people have differing levels of health literacy and some will need support to embrace a digital health future or we risk inequities of access and knowledge.

“We need to invest in implementation and change management to avoid the risks and pitfalls that can accompany the roll-out of such powerful technology into a complex and sensitive area like health care,” Ms Wells said.

Professor David Peiris, Director of Health Systems Science at The George Institute, said emerging digital health strategies had the potential to transform Australia’s health system for both health care providers and consumers.

“Our report sets out clear recommendations on what is needed to enable people to be much more in control of their own health needs and to make informed choices about the care they choose – from urgent life-saving situations through to respecting their wishes at the end their life.

“We also want to ensure that every health professional in Australia can take full advantage of the digital health eco-system to improve people’s healthcare experience and provide care that can be co-ordinated across the system. Many Australians are tired of having to constantly repeat their story to multiple care providers and it’s vital that we tap into digital technology to ensure we deliver a more person-centred, safer and sustainable healthcare system.

“Australia has made a great start in its uptake of digital health technology and we have identified practical steps in several areas that could be rolled out rapidly. The challenge now is to ensure they are adopted.”

The recommendations identified by the roundtable included:

In chronic care: To trial virtual care teams to support patients with high care needs; and trial a “Patients Like Me” platform to enable patients with chronic and complex care needs to safely connect and share experiences with one another.

In residential aged care: Ensure that residents’ health and social services information is available in a single location, on a platform easily accessible by consumers and providers anywhere, anytime and on any device. Collate and publicise data that allows patients, their carers and future consumers to compare residential care facilities based on health outcomes and patient experiences.

In emergency care: Develop digital health technologies that leverage My Health Record data to be rapidly accessible to paramedics and other emergency providers; develop a text/image message system to support improved communication between emergency care and other medical teams and assist with referrals to other health care providers for post-discharge care.

In end of life care: Develop and promote existing professional and consumer portals that provider information on care options, medical services and pathways for those nearing end of life; and engage in targeted social media campaigns to encourage consumers and medical professionals to normalise conversations about death.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]