In a recent podcast appearance, the only doctor currently elected to senate said she felt GP opposition to urgent care clinics was not ‘legitimate’, alluding to ‘vested interests’.
Infectious diseases physician-come-Senator Dr Michelle Ananda-Rajah has pushed back on criticism of Medicare urgent care clinics, telling the immediate past AMA president that she doesn’t “buy” the argument that UCCs cost more than general practice.
Dr Ananda-Rajah, a Labor senator and the only medical doctor serving in the upper house, appeared on an episode of Avant Mutual’s Health Directions podcast earlier this week.
Avant chief medical officer and former AMA president Professor Steve Robson hosted the episode. When the topic of urgent care clinics came up, he put it to Dr Ananda-Rajah that it cost the taxpayer more to fund urgent care clinic presentations than it did to fund general practice consultations.
“What’s your response to that?” Professor Robson asked.
“You know, I don’t buy that, Steve,” the senator replied.
“I don’t buy that argument because the fact is that people are voting with their feet, right? We’ve opened 137 of these Medicare urgent care clinics around the country and we’ve seen three million plus people attend these clinics, including children.”
The reality, she said, was that Australians “love this model of care”.
Professor Robson clarified that his question was not whether UCCs were popular, but how Dr Ananda-Rajah would respond to the fact that UCCs cost more per visit compared to a GP.
“The data is actually showing, though, that they’re taking pressure off hospital emergency departments … this was borne out in a recent [senate] estimates that we had,” the senator said.
“I’m sure it’ll be again litigated in the next estimates that’s coming up in a few weeks’ time.
“The fact that Australians really appreciate this model, to me, means that it’s a goer, it’s here to stay. I’m very pleased about it.
“I don’t believe that GPs saying ‘this is an expensive model and we can do it just as well’ is going to cut it.”
Professor Robson asked whether she meant that she did not believe GPs.
“I don’t believe the criticism is legitimate because I’ve seen three million plus people attend – the numbers speak for themselves,” she said.
“… You and I both know that as clinicians, there are a lot of vested interests, right? A lot of vested interests.”
Related
The Medical Republic put it to Dr Ananda-Rajah that, on the face of it, her comments would suggest that GP opposition to urgent care stems from a financial interest in continuing to deliver primary care.
“Australians have responded enthusiastically to Urgent Care Clinics. This model of care frees up GPs to deal with the growing burden of chronic disease management,” the senator told TMR.
“If there are pockets of opposition then they may represent vested interests, but I remain sceptical, as I have not heard any criticism while remaining closely connected with the medical profession.”
Urgent care clinics were discussed at the June Senate Estimates hearing; opposition health spokesperson Senator Anne Ruston asked specifically for evidence on whether urgent care centres in the ACT were taking pressure off the emergency department.
That question was taken on notice.
The response from the Department of Health, Disability and Ageing was that the Medicare UCC Program “is being independently evaluated based on nine Measures of Success”.
“These measures have been agreed by the Commonwealth and state and territory governments. One measure is specific to reductions in presentations to hospital emergency departments (ED) at partner hospitals,” the tabled response read.
“The final evaluation report is due late 2026. The Second Interim Evaluation Report indicates that the availability of Medicare UCCs has reduced urgent-care-equivalent ED presentations by around 10 per cent.”
