New AIHW data on preventable hospitalisations has revealed further gaps in funding and access for rural and remote patients.
The latest release from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) has shown alarming evidence of people in rural communities being hospitalised at higher rates for preventable illnesses compared to their metro peers.
The data, which was updated last month, backed evidence from the National Rural Health Alliance that found inequity between rural areas and cities.
“When you live hundreds of kilometres from the nearest GP or primary care facility, you often have few options,” said NRHA Chief Executive Susi Tegen.
“These figures show how distance, combined with workforce shortages and limited flexibility of services, leads to unnecessary hospitalisations.
“It’s a clear signal that the health system is failing to meet the needs of rural Australians.
“The re-elected Federal government now has the opportunity to step up and implement the reforms and recommendations provided by the sector.”
These figures were also reflected by the NRHA’s evidence base for additional investment in rural health in Australia.
Related
Residents from remote and very remote communities were hospitalised for potentially avoidable conditions at nearly twice the rate of those in major cities.
According to AIHW data, this inequity has been consistent over recent years, typically ranging from 2.0 to 2.2 times higher than city rates.
This issue has been touted by the NRHA as a result of poor levels of primary access care that inadvertently direct patients to access emergency departments instead.
Accessibility is a repeat offender in both reports, with many of rural generalism’s issues regarding access stemming from a lack of funding and sustainable workforce.
“We know that there’s a $6.55 billion underspend in rural Australia, and that means, if you live outside of a city, you’re receiving about $850 less health care funding than people in the city,” Ms Tegen told The Medical Republic.
“That, to me, in a Western country, is an inequity, and it shouldn’t be occurring because we’re a Western country.”
Funding issues for rural health were a major point of concern both in the post and pre-election, with rural and regional health consistently suffering.
“We shouldn’t have expectations that rural communities volunteer to try to solve the problems themselves, or that communities deal without or that they actually have to go to another area, hundreds of kilometres away and try to solve their problem,” Ms Tegen told TMR.
“We have a social and economic contract to support those communities that are willing to come up with solutions, that are willing to deliver care in local regions, and we need to support them.
“They’re not receiving the same infrastructure funding, and so we really need the support for those communities to be able to deliver place-based solutions that are different from a model that works in the city.”
