Rising fees for GP visits?
Dateline: May 2023, and Brooke Van Velden and David Seymour made a
meal out of a photo opportunity. The ACT leaders stood in front of a
medical centre in St. Heliers and solemnly pledged that if elected,
they would boost the “capitation” funds that support GP practices, by
as much as 13% overall. “It’s about respect and dignity,” the pair
chirped, and about putting those virtues back at the centre of primary
care.

Right. But flash forward to July 2024, and that promise has
evaporated. The coalition government is (a) offering only a 4%
increase in capitation funds for GP practices while otherwise (b)
giving GPs the green light to raise (by nearly 8%!) the fees that
patients have to pay to visit their GP. Incredible. The government is
proposing to subsidise GP practices by less than the inflation rate
for the past year, and at less than one third of the rate that ACT
campaigned on, and it is planning to do so by ensuring that sick
people have to pay substantially more to visit the doctor. So much for
those crocodile tears about the cost of living crisis.

To restate the obvious: many New Zealanders are finding the current
fee for GP consultations unaffordable, and are ending up in hospital
emergency departments after their conditions reach crisis point.
People are also having to cut back on the medication for themselves
and their children, as they struggle to pay the recently re-instituted
$5 per item prescription charge per item, down at the pharmacy. Unless
the government radically changes tack, we could all soon be looking
down the barrel of a $60 fee to visit the doctor.

Imposing a stiff user pays regime on the health needs of low income
people is not only morally wrong, but false economics to boot. As the
Stuff article points out:

The average cost of an ED visit that doesn’t lead to admittance was
$595 in 2019, for example, when it costs the Government $76.95 if a
patient spends 20 to 40 minutes with a GP…while overworked GPs
sometimes over-refer to the secondary sector because they haven’t got
the time to deal with something themselves.

Predictably, the coalition government is saying that it now can’t
afford to do better by GPs and their patients. Just as predictably, it
is blaming the Labour government for this sudden need for austerity.
Somehow though, the same politicians can afford to revive a $3 billion
tax break for landlords. Meaning: it is never a necessity, but always
a conscious choice as to where the harms caused by austerity measures
are allowed to fall.

The Sapere Report
On the campaign trail last year, the centre-right parties pledged to
resolve the GP funding crisis along the lines recommended by the
Sapere Report of 2022. Among other things, the Sapere report noted
that general practice in New Zealand was operating at an annual loss
of some $137 million nationally, overall. Plainly, a lot of catch up
funding is required to save our system of primary health care from
collapse:

For very high need practices, increasing the goal level of servicing
to the higher levels we have modelled, sees an increase in capitation
revenue of between 34% to 231%, For most practices….the median
modelled increase is between 10% and 20% of current capitation
revenue.

So… not a 4% increase. An increase of between 34% and 231% is required
in high need areas, and 10-20% in the median GP practice :

Overall, funding for general practice care is problematic for a number
of reasons, but the core issue is that funding does not align with
patient need. This means that services that have a higher than average proportion of people with high health need are not funded adequately
to deliver care to their patients. This is a serious deficiency in a
core part of New Zealand’s health system.

So we have a serious deficiency in GP funding, but an unserious
response from Dr. Shane Reti. This excellent Stuff article provides
chapter and verse of a national picture of overloaded GP practices–
with postal code variations in GPs fees, GP -to-patient ratios that
are embarrassingly worse in New Zealand than in Australia and Canada,
amid an unsurprisingly sharp reduction in the ratio of doctors
choosing to go into GP work at all.

As Stuff also notes, the data in these tables is from 2018. So, if
anything, the current situation is considerably worse. The average
charge per GP visits by region for instance, looks out of date. In
metropolitan areas, $50 fees or less per visit are (anecdotally) the
exception, and not the norm.

Finally, the comments made about the government’s capitation offer in
this article in NZ Doctor make for sobering reading:

Hauora Taiwhenua Rural Health Network chief executive Grant Davidson
describes the “underwhelming” offer as a “cost-shifting exercise to
the general public who are already in a cost-of-living crisis”.General
Practice Owners Association deputy chair Stephanie Taylor agrees,
saying the “Government basically [is] going to shift the cost of
providing that GP care onto the patients, which none of us supports.”

Likewise, General Practice NZ chair and specialist GP Bryan Betty says
the expectation that patient fee increases will compensate for the
“absolutely inadequate” funding will mean patients “bear the brunt
again.”

For many households, the fee rises being proposed would wipe out any
financial gains from National’s tax cuts:

For many, Nelson specialist GP Graham Loveridge says that any tax
benefit under Budget 2024 could be “neutralised” by potentially higher
GP fees and prescription charges.

Footnote: At this point, the 4% offer could be a government feint to
see how much of the running costs of medical centres will continue to
be borne by GPs, how much will be reluctantly passed on in charges to
patients, and how much political backlash there will be (if any) to
what the government is proposing.

That would be typical. This government seem to have no interest in
finding out the net social cost of its policies. Its approach to
public policy appears to be solely transactional, based on the
win/loss calculations of the impacts on its own political fortunes.

(For the source of the above, related links, and other comments, go to http://werewolf.co.nz/2024/07/gordon-campbell-on-the-trump-shooting-and-a-potential-hike-in-fees-for-visiting-the-doctor/
)

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Fri, 19 Jul 2024 16:31:19 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:

Rising fees for GP visits?
Dateline: May 2023, and Brooke Van Velden and David Seymour made a
meal out of a photo opportunity. The ACT leaders stood in front of a
medical centre in St. Heliers and solemnly pledged that if elected,
they would boost the “capitation” funds that support GP practices, by
as much as 13% overall. “It’s about respect and dignity,” the pair
chirped, and about putting those virtues back at the centre of primary
care.

Right.

Rich, your cite to the ACT manifesto published before the 2023
election is missing. That takes the credibility out of your post.

But flash forward to July 2024, and that promise has
evaporated. The coalition government is (a) offering only a 4%
increase in capitation funds for GP practices while otherwise (b)
giving GPs the green light to raise (by nearly 8%!) the fees that
patients have to pay to visit their GP. Incredible. The government is >proposing to subsidise GP practices by less than the inflation rate
for the past year, and at less than one third of the rate that ACT
campaigned on, and it is planning to do so by ensuring that sick
people have to pay substantially more to visit the doctor. So much for
those crocodile tears about the cost of living crisis.

Quite right Rich - except your cite of the National-ACT coalition
agreement is missing. If you can fins a reference in the ACT
manifesto that is also in their coalition agreement you might retain
some credibility.

To restate the obvious: many New Zealanders are finding the current
fee for GP consultations unaffordable, and are ending up in hospital >emergency departments after their conditions reach crisis point.
People are also having to cut back on the medication for themselves
and their children, as they struggle to pay the recently re-instituted
$5 per item prescription charge per item, down at the pharmacy. Unless
the government radically changes tack, we could all soon be looking
down the barrel of a $60 fee to visit the doctor.

Your assertion here is just as credible as the previous ones Rich. Yes
many of us are doing it tough but your political rhetoric is not
credible.

Imposing a stiff user pays regime on the health needs of low income
people is not only morally wrong, but false economics to boot.

Those of us on the Community Services card where I live will face an
increase of GPO consultation fees from $19.50 (GST-inclusive).

As the
Stuff article points out:

What Stuff article was that?

The average cost of an ED visit that doesn’t lead to admittance was
$595 in 2019, for example, when it costs the Government $76.95 if a
patient spends 20 to 40 minutes with a GP…while overworked GPs
sometimes over-refer to the secondary sector because they haven’t got
the time to deal with something themselves.

Labour was elected with an absolute majority in 2020. What did Labour
do about this 2020-2023?

Predictably, the coalition government is saying that it now can’t
afford to do better by GPs and their patients. Just as predictably, it
is blaming the Labour government for this sudden need for austerity.
Somehow though, the same politicians can afford to revive a $3 billion
tax break for landlords. Meaning: it is never a necessity, but always
a conscious choice as to where the harms caused by austerity measures
are allowed to fall.

So you seek to equate the victimisation of landlords with an uncited
assertion.

The Sapere Report
On the campaign trail last year, the centre-right parties pledged to
resolve the GP funding crisis along the lines recommended by the
Sapere Report of 2022. Among other things, the Sapere report noted
that general practice in New Zealand was operating at an annual loss
of some $137 million nationally, overall. Plainly, a lot of catch up
funding is required to save our system of primary health care from
collapse:

So you admit that the Labour governments of 2017-2023 did nothing, and
the new Government is to blame for all of this?

For very high need practices, increasing the goal level of servicing
to the higher levels we have modelled, sees an increase in capitation
revenue of between 34% to 231%, For most practices….the median
modelled increase is between 10% and 20% of current capitation
revenue.

So… not a 4% increase. An increase of between 34% and 231% is required
in high need areas, and 10-20% in the median GP practice :

Cite please. I don't doubt the trend but knowing your propensity for relentless anti-National/ACT rhetoric I do doubt the accuracy.

Overall, funding for general practice care is problematic for a number
of reasons, but the core issue is that funding does not align with
patient need. This means that services that have a higher than average >proportion of people with high health need are not funded adequately
to deliver care to their patients. This is a serious deficiency in a
core part of New Zealand’s health system.

So we have a serious deficiency in GP funding, but an unserious
response from Dr. Shane Reti. This excellent Stuff article provides
chapter and verse of a national picture of overloaded GP practices–
with postal code variations in GPs fees, GP -to-patient ratios that
are embarrassingly worse in New Zealand than in Australia and Canada,
amid an unsurprisingly sharp reduction in the ratio of doctors
choosing to go into GP work at all.

As Stuff also notes,

What Stuff article?

the data in these tables is from 2018. So, if
anything, the current situation is considerably worse. The average
charge per GP visits by region for instance, looks out of date. In >metropolitan areas, $50 fees or less per visit are (anecdotally) the >exception, and not the norm.

Finally, the comments made about the government’s capitation offer in
this article in NZ Doctor make for sobering reading:

Hauora Taiwhenua Rural Health Network chief executive Grant Davidson >describes the “underwhelming” offer as a “cost-shifting exercise to
the general public who are already in a cost-of-living crisis”.General >Practice Owners Association deputy chair Stephanie Taylor agrees,
saying the “Government basically [is] going to shift the cost of
providing that GP care onto the patients, which none of us supports.”

Likewise, General Practice NZ chair and specialist GP Bryan Betty says
the expectation that patient fee increases will compensate for the >“absolutely inadequate” funding will mean patients “bear the brunt
again.”

For many households, the fee rises being proposed would wipe out any >financial gains from National’s tax cuts:

For many, Nelson specialist GP Graham Loveridge says that any tax
benefit under Budget 2024 could be “neutralised” by potentially higher
GP fees and prescription charges.

Footnote: At this point, the 4% offer could be a government feint to
see how much of the running costs of medical centres will continue to
be borne by GPs, how much will be reluctantly passed on in charges to >patients, and how much political backlash there will be (if any) to
what the government is proposing.

That would be typical. This government seem to have no interest in
finding out the net social cost of its policies. Its approach to
public policy appears to be solely transactional, based on the
win/loss calculations of the impacts on its own political fortunes.

(For the source of the above, related links, and other comments, go to >http://werewolf.co.nz/2024/07/gordon-campbell-on-the-trump-shooting-and-a-potential-hike-in-fees-for-visiting-the-doctor/
)

So your post is a regurgitation of part of this article - where your
point is not the lead. Why not use the 3 links in that article
directly in your post instead of relying on the article, part of which
is off-topic to your post?

You can and should do better than this.


--
Crash McBash

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Fri, 19 Jul 2024 21:44:21 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:

On Fri, 19 Jul 2024 16:31:19 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:

Rising fees for GP visits?
Dateline: May 2023, and Brooke Van Velden and David Seymour made a
meal out of a photo opportunity. The ACT leaders stood in front of a >>medical centre in St. Heliers and solemnly pledged that if elected,
they would boost the “capitation” funds that support GP practices, by
as much as 13% overall. “It’s about respect and dignity,” the pair
chirped, and about putting those virtues back at the centre of primary >>care.

Right.

Rich, your cite to the ACT manifesto published before the 2023
election is missing. That takes the credibility out of your post.

I did not write the quoted material, as you acknowledge later. Do you
deny the campaign event?

But flash forward to July 2024, and that promise has
evaporated. The coalition government is (a) offering only a 4%
increase in capitation funds for GP practices while otherwise (b)
giving GPs the green light to raise (by nearly 8%!) the fees that
patients have to pay to visit their GP. Incredible. The government is >>proposing to subsidise GP practices by less than the inflation rate
for the past year, and at less than one third of the rate that ACT >>campaigned on, and it is planning to do so by ensuring that sick
people have to pay substantially more to visit the doctor. So much for >>those crocodile tears about the cost of living crisis.

Quite right Rich - except your cite of the National-ACT coalition
agreement is missing. If you can fins a reference in the ACT
manifesto that is also in their coalition agreement you might retain
some credibility.

So are you saying that the coalition agreement does not allow a
promise made in the campaign for respect and dignity to be honoured?

To restate the obvious: many New Zealanders are finding the current
fee for GP consultations unaffordable, and are ending up in hospital >>emergency departments after their conditions reach crisis point.
People are also having to cut back on the medication for themselves
and their children, as they struggle to pay the recently re-instituted
$5 per item prescription charge per item, down at the pharmacy. Unless
the government radically changes tack, we could all soon be looking
down the barrel of a $60 fee to visit the doctor.

Your assertion here is just as credible as the previous ones Rich. Yes
many of us are doing it tough but your political rhetoric is not
credible.

Do you deny the facts stated? Yes the prescription charge was
re-introduced by the current government, with the effect on those
least able to pay well known.

Imposing a stiff user pays regime on the health needs of low income
people is not only morally wrong, but false economics to boot.

Those of us on the Community Services card where I live will face an
increase of GPO consultation fees from $19.50 (GST-inclusive).

As the
Stuff article points out:

What Stuff article was that?

The average cost of an ED visit that doesn’t lead to admittance was
$595 in 2019, for example, when it costs the Government $76.95 if a
patient spends 20 to 40 minutes with a GP…while overworked GPs
sometimes over-refer to the secondary sector because they haven’t got
the time to deal with something themselves.

Labour was elected with an absolute majority in 2020. What did Labour
do about this 2020-2023?

Predictably, the coalition government is saying that it now can’t
afford to do better by GPs and their patients. Just as predictably, it
is blaming the Labour government for this sudden need for austerity. >>Somehow though, the same politicians can afford to revive a $3 billion
tax break for landlords. Meaning: it is never a necessity, but always
a conscious choice as to where the harms caused by austerity measures
are allowed to fall.

So you seek to equate the victimisation of landlords with an uncited >assertion.

The Sapere Report
On the campaign trail last year, the centre-right parties pledged to >>resolve the GP funding crisis along the lines recommended by the
Sapere Report of 2022. Among other things, the Sapere report noted
that general practice in New Zealand was operating at an annual loss
of some $137 million nationally, overall. Plainly, a lot of catch up >>funding is required to save our system of primary health care from >>collapse:

So you admit that the Labour governments of 2017-2023 did nothing, and
the new Government is to blame for all of this?

For very high need practices, increasing the goal level of servicing
to the higher levels we have modelled, sees an increase in capitation >>revenue of between 34% to 231%, For most practices….the median
modelled increase is between 10% and 20% of current capitation
revenue.

So… not a 4% increase. An increase of between 34% and 231% is required
in high need areas, and 10-20% in the median GP practice :

Cite please. I don't doubt the trend but knowing your propensity for >relentless anti-National/ACT rhetoric I do doubt the accuracy.

Overall, funding for general practice care is problematic for a number
of reasons, but the core issue is that funding does not align with
patient need. This means that services that have a higher than average >>proportion of people with high health need are not funded adequately
to deliver care to their patients. This is a serious deficiency in a
core part of New Zealand’s health system.

So we have a serious deficiency in GP funding, but an unserious
response from Dr. Shane Reti. This excellent Stuff article provides
chapter and verse of a national picture of overloaded GP practices–
with postal code variations in GPs fees, GP -to-patient ratios that
are embarrassingly worse in New Zealand than in Australia and Canada,
amid an unsurprisingly sharp reduction in the ratio of doctors
choosing to go into GP work at all.

As Stuff also notes,

What Stuff article?

Did you not read the whole post?

the data in these tables is from 2018. So, if
anything, the current situation is considerably worse. The average
charge per GP visits by region for instance, looks out of date. In >>metropolitan areas, $50 fees or less per visit are (anecdotally) the >>exception, and not the norm.

Finally, the comments made about the government’s capitation offer in
this article in NZ Doctor make for sobering reading:

Hauora Taiwhenua Rural Health Network chief executive Grant Davidson >>describes the “underwhelming” offer as a “cost-shifting exercise to
the general public who are already in a cost-of-living crisis”.General >>Practice Owners Association deputy chair Stephanie Taylor agrees,
saying the “Government basically [is] going to shift the cost of
providing that GP care onto the patients, which none of us supports.”

Likewise, General Practice NZ chair and specialist GP Bryan Betty says
the expectation that patient fee increases will compensate for the >>“absolutely inadequate” funding will mean patients “bear the brunt
again.”

For many households, the fee rises being proposed would wipe out any >>financial gains from National’s tax cuts:

For many, Nelson specialist GP Graham Loveridge says that any tax
benefit under Budget 2024 could be “neutralised” by potentially higher
GP fees and prescription charges.

Footnote: At this point, the 4% offer could be a government feint to
see how much of the running costs of medical centres will continue to
be borne by GPs, how much will be reluctantly passed on in charges to >>patients, and how much political backlash there will be (if any) to
what the government is proposing.

That would be typical. This government seem to have no interest in
finding out the net social cost of its policies. Its approach to
public policy appears to be solely transactional, based on the
win/loss calculations of the impacts on its own political fortunes.

(For the source of the above, related links, and other comments, go to >>http://werewolf.co.nz/2024/07/gordon-campbell-on-the-trump-shooting-and-a-potential-hike-in-fees-for-visiting-the-doctor/
)

So your post is a regurgitation of part of this article - where your
point is not the lead. Why not use the 3 links in that article
directly in your post instead of relying on the article, part of which
is off-topic to your post?

You can and should do better than this.

I am sorry that you cannot understand the content and veracity of the
article.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sat, 20 Jul 2024 15:39:51 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:

On Sat, 20 Jul 2024 10:39:38 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:

On Fri, 19 Jul 2024 21:44:21 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>wrote:

On Fri, 19 Jul 2024 16:31:19 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>wrote:

Rising fees for GP visits?
Dateline: May 2023, and Brooke Van Velden and David Seymour made a
meal out of a photo opportunity. The ACT leaders stood in front of a >>>>medical centre in St. Heliers and solemnly pledged that if elected, >>>>they would boost the “capitation” funds that support GP practices, by >>>>as much as 13% overall. “It’s about respect and dignity,” the pair >>>>chirped, and about putting those virtues back at the centre of primary >>>>care.

Right.

Rich, your cite to the ACT manifesto published before the 2023
election is missing. That takes the credibility out of your post.

I did not write the quoted material, as you acknowledge later. Do you
deny the campaign event?

But flash forward to July 2024, and that promise has
evaporated. The coalition government is (a) offering only a 4%
increase in capitation funds for GP practices while otherwise (b) >>>>giving GPs the green light to raise (by nearly 8%!) the fees that >>>>patients have to pay to visit their GP. Incredible. The government is >>>>proposing to subsidise GP practices by less than the inflation rate
for the past year, and at less than one third of the rate that ACT >>>>campaigned on, and it is planning to do so by ensuring that sick
people have to pay substantially more to visit the doctor. So much for >>>>those crocodile tears about the cost of living crisis.

Quite right Rich - except your cite of the National-ACT coalition >>>agreement is missing. If you can fins a reference in the ACT
manifesto that is also in their coalition agreement you might retain
some credibility.

So are you saying that the coalition agreement does not allow a
promise made in the campaign for respect and dignity to be honoured?

To restate the obvious: many New Zealanders are finding the current
fee for GP consultations unaffordable, and are ending up in hospital >>>>emergency departments after their conditions reach crisis point.
People are also having to cut back on the medication for themselves
and their children, as they struggle to pay the recently re-instituted >>>>$5 per item prescription charge per item, down at the pharmacy. Unless >>>>the government radically changes tack, we could all soon be looking >>>>down the barrel of a $60 fee to visit the doctor.

Your assertion here is just as credible as the previous ones Rich. Yes >>>many of us are doing it tough but your political rhetoric is not >>>credible.

Do you deny the facts stated? Yes the prescription charge was
re-introduced by the current government, with the effect on those
least able to pay well known.

Imposing a stiff user pays regime on the health needs of low income >>>>people is not only morally wrong, but false economics to boot.

Those of us on the Community Services card where I live will face an >>>increase of GPO consultation fees from $19.50 (GST-inclusive).

As the
Stuff article points out:

What Stuff article was that?

The average cost of an ED visit that doesn’t lead to admittance was >>>>$595 in 2019, for example, when it costs the Government $76.95 if a >>>>patient spends 20 to 40 minutes with a GP…while overworked GPs >>>>sometimes over-refer to the secondary sector because they haven’t got >>>>the time to deal with something themselves.

Labour was elected with an absolute majority in 2020. What did Labour
do about this 2020-2023?

Predictably, the coalition government is saying that it now can’t >>>>afford to do better by GPs and their patients. Just as predictably, it >>>>is blaming the Labour government for this sudden need for austerity. >>>>Somehow though, the same politicians can afford to revive a $3 billion >>>>tax break for landlords. Meaning: it is never a necessity, but always
a conscious choice as to where the harms caused by austerity measures >>>>are allowed to fall.

So you seek to equate the victimisation of landlords with an uncited >>>assertion.

The Sapere Report
On the campaign trail last year, the centre-right parties pledged to >>>>resolve the GP funding crisis along the lines recommended by the
Sapere Report of 2022. Among other things, the Sapere report noted
that general practice in New Zealand was operating at an annual loss
of some $137 million nationally, overall. Plainly, a lot of catch up >>>>funding is required to save our system of primary health care from >>>>collapse:

So you admit that the Labour governments of 2017-2023 did nothing, and >>>the new Government is to blame for all of this?

For very high need practices, increasing the goal level of servicing
to the higher levels we have modelled, sees an increase in capitation >>>>revenue of between 34% to 231%, For most practices….the median
modelled increase is between 10% and 20% of current capitation
revenue.

So… not a 4% increase. An increase of between 34% and 231% is required >>>>in high need areas, and 10-20% in the median GP practice :

Cite please. I don't doubt the trend but knowing your propensity for >>>relentless anti-National/ACT rhetoric I do doubt the accuracy.

Overall, funding for general practice care is problematic for a number >>>>of reasons, but the core issue is that funding does not align with >>>>patient need. This means that services that have a higher than average >>>>proportion of people with high health need are not funded adequately
to deliver care to their patients. This is a serious deficiency in a >>>>core part of New Zealand’s health system.

So we have a serious deficiency in GP funding, but an unserious >>>>response from Dr. Shane Reti. This excellent Stuff article provides >>>>chapter and verse of a national picture of overloaded GP practices– >>>>with postal code variations in GPs fees, GP -to-patient ratios that
are embarrassingly worse in New Zealand than in Australia and Canada, >>>>amid an unsurprisingly sharp reduction in the ratio of doctors
choosing to go into GP work at all.

As Stuff also notes,

What Stuff article?

Did you not read the whole post?

the data in these tables is from 2018. So, if
anything, the current situation is considerably worse. The average >>>>charge per GP visits by region for instance, looks out of date. In >>>>metropolitan areas, $50 fees or less per visit are (anecdotally) the >>>>exception, and not the norm.

Finally, the comments made about the government’s capitation offer in >>>>this article in NZ Doctor make for sobering reading:

Hauora Taiwhenua Rural Health Network chief executive Grant Davidson >>>>describes the “underwhelming” offer as a “cost-shifting exercise to
the general public who are already in a cost-of-living crisis”.General >>>>Practice Owners Association deputy chair Stephanie Taylor agrees, >>>>saying the “Government basically [is] going to shift the cost of >>>>providing that GP care onto the patients, which none of us supports.”

Likewise, General Practice NZ chair and specialist GP Bryan Betty says >>>>the expectation that patient fee increases will compensate for the >>>>“absolutely inadequate” funding will mean patients “bear the brunt >>>>again.”

For many households, the fee rises being proposed would wipe out any >>>>financial gains from National’s tax cuts:

For many, Nelson specialist GP Graham Loveridge says that any tax >>>>benefit under Budget 2024 could be “neutralised” by potentially higher >>>>GP fees and prescription charges.

Footnote: At this point, the 4% offer could be a government feint to >>>>see how much of the running costs of medical centres will continue to >>>>be borne by GPs, how much will be reluctantly passed on in charges to >>>>patients, and how much political backlash there will be (if any) to >>>>what the government is proposing.

That would be typical. This government seem to have no interest in >>>>finding out the net social cost of its policies. Its approach to
public policy appears to be solely transactional, based on the
win/loss calculations of the impacts on its own political fortunes.

(For the source of the above, related links, and other comments, go to >>>>http://werewolf.co.nz/2024/07/gordon-campbell-on-the-trump-shooting-and-a-potential-hike-in-fees-for-visiting-the-doctor/
)

So your post is a regurgitation of part of this article - where your >>>point is not the lead. Why not use the 3 links in that article
directly in your post instead of relying on the article, part of which
is off-topic to your post?

You can and should do better than this.

I am sorry that you cannot understand the content and veracity of the >>article.

You have not cited a stuff article as claimed - just the werewolf
article about Trump. No mention of campaign promises is evident. you
seem to have cited inaccurately.

I referred to related links - The following articles were links given
in the werewolf article - look for the links in red type:

excellent Stuff article: https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/350159836/primary-care-perilously-close-collapse-gp-advocate-says

I did not specifically mention other links in the article, but these
are worth reading:

https://www.nzdoctor.co.nz/article/print-archive/patients-be-hit-hard-after-too-little-too-late-4-offer
and https://srgexpert.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/A-Future-Capitation-Funding-Approach-July-2022.pdf

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sat, 20 Jul 2024 10:39:38 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:

On Fri, 19 Jul 2024 21:44:21 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:

On Fri, 19 Jul 2024 16:31:19 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>wrote:

Rising fees for GP visits?
Dateline: May 2023, and Brooke Van Velden and David Seymour made a
meal out of a photo opportunity. The ACT leaders stood in front of a >>>medical centre in St. Heliers and solemnly pledged that if elected,
they would boost the “capitation” funds that support GP practices, by
as much as 13% overall. “It’s about respect and dignity,” the pair >>>chirped, and about putting those virtues back at the centre of primary >>>care.

Right.

Rich, your cite to the ACT manifesto published before the 2023
election is missing. That takes the credibility out of your post.

I did not write the quoted material, as you acknowledge later. Do you
deny the campaign event?

But flash forward to July 2024, and that promise has
evaporated. The coalition government is (a) offering only a 4%
increase in capitation funds for GP practices while otherwise (b)
giving GPs the green light to raise (by nearly 8%!) the fees that >>>patients have to pay to visit their GP. Incredible. The government is >>>proposing to subsidise GP practices by less than the inflation rate
for the past year, and at less than one third of the rate that ACT >>>campaigned on, and it is planning to do so by ensuring that sick
people have to pay substantially more to visit the doctor. So much for >>>those crocodile tears about the cost of living crisis.

Quite right Rich - except your cite of the National-ACT coalition
agreement is missing. If you can fins a reference in the ACT
manifesto that is also in their coalition agreement you might retain
some credibility.

So are you saying that the coalition agreement does not allow a
promise made in the campaign for respect and dignity to be honoured?

To restate the obvious: many New Zealanders are finding the current
fee for GP consultations unaffordable, and are ending up in hospital >>>emergency departments after their conditions reach crisis point.
People are also having to cut back on the medication for themselves
and their children, as they struggle to pay the recently re-instituted
$5 per item prescription charge per item, down at the pharmacy. Unless >>>the government radically changes tack, we could all soon be looking
down the barrel of a $60 fee to visit the doctor.

Your assertion here is just as credible as the previous ones Rich. Yes
many of us are doing it tough but your political rhetoric is not
credible.

Do you deny the facts stated? Yes the prescription charge was
re-introduced by the current government, with the effect on those
least able to pay well known.

Imposing a stiff user pays regime on the health needs of low income >>>people is not only morally wrong, but false economics to boot.

Those of us on the Community Services card where I live will face an >>increase of GPO consultation fees from $19.50 (GST-inclusive).

As the
Stuff article points out:

What Stuff article was that?

The average cost of an ED visit that doesn’t lead to admittance was
$595 in 2019, for example, when it costs the Government $76.95 if a >>>patient spends 20 to 40 minutes with a GP…while overworked GPs
sometimes over-refer to the secondary sector because they haven’t got
the time to deal with something themselves.

Labour was elected with an absolute majority in 2020. What did Labour
do about this 2020-2023?

Predictably, the coalition government is saying that it now can’t
afford to do better by GPs and their patients. Just as predictably, it
is blaming the Labour government for this sudden need for austerity. >>>Somehow though, the same politicians can afford to revive a $3 billion >>>tax break for landlords. Meaning: it is never a necessity, but always
a conscious choice as to where the harms caused by austerity measures
are allowed to fall.

So you seek to equate the victimisation of landlords with an uncited >>assertion.

The Sapere Report
On the campaign trail last year, the centre-right parties pledged to >>>resolve the GP funding crisis along the lines recommended by the
Sapere Report of 2022. Among other things, the Sapere report noted
that general practice in New Zealand was operating at an annual loss
of some $137 million nationally, overall. Plainly, a lot of catch up >>>funding is required to save our system of primary health care from >>>collapse:

So you admit that the Labour governments of 2017-2023 did nothing, and
the new Government is to blame for all of this?

For very high need practices, increasing the goal level of servicing
to the higher levels we have modelled, sees an increase in capitation >>>revenue of between 34% to 231%, For most practices….the median
modelled increase is between 10% and 20% of current capitation
revenue.

So… not a 4% increase. An increase of between 34% and 231% is required
in high need areas, and 10-20% in the median GP practice :

Cite please. I don't doubt the trend but knowing your propensity for >>relentless anti-National/ACT rhetoric I do doubt the accuracy.

Overall, funding for general practice care is problematic for a number
of reasons, but the core issue is that funding does not align with >>>patient need. This means that services that have a higher than average >>>proportion of people with high health need are not funded adequately
to deliver care to their patients. This is a serious deficiency in a
core part of New Zealand’s health system.

So we have a serious deficiency in GP funding, but an unserious
response from Dr. Shane Reti. This excellent Stuff article provides >>>chapter and verse of a national picture of overloaded GP practices–
with postal code variations in GPs fees, GP -to-patient ratios that
are embarrassingly worse in New Zealand than in Australia and Canada, >>>amid an unsurprisingly sharp reduction in the ratio of doctors
choosing to go into GP work at all.

As Stuff also notes,

What Stuff article?

Did you not read the whole post?

the data in these tables is from 2018. So, if
anything, the current situation is considerably worse. The average
charge per GP visits by region for instance, looks out of date. In >>>metropolitan areas, $50 fees or less per visit are (anecdotally) the >>>exception, and not the norm.

Finally, the comments made about the government’s capitation offer in >>>this article in NZ Doctor make for sobering reading:

Hauora Taiwhenua Rural Health Network chief executive Grant Davidson >>>describes the “underwhelming” offer as a “cost-shifting exercise to
the general public who are already in a cost-of-living crisis”.General >>>Practice Owners Association deputy chair Stephanie Taylor agrees,
saying the “Government basically [is] going to shift the cost of >>>providing that GP care onto the patients, which none of us supports.”

Likewise, General Practice NZ chair and specialist GP Bryan Betty says >>>the expectation that patient fee increases will compensate for the >>>“absolutely inadequate” funding will mean patients “bear the brunt >>>again.”

For many households, the fee rises being proposed would wipe out any >>>financial gains from National’s tax cuts:

For many, Nelson specialist GP Graham Loveridge says that any tax
benefit under Budget 2024 could be “neutralised” by potentially higher
GP fees and prescription charges.

Footnote: At this point, the 4% offer could be a government feint to
see how much of the running costs of medical centres will continue to
be borne by GPs, how much will be reluctantly passed on in charges to >>>patients, and how much political backlash there will be (if any) to
what the government is proposing.

That would be typical. This government seem to have no interest in >>>finding out the net social cost of its policies. Its approach to
public policy appears to be solely transactional, based on the
win/loss calculations of the impacts on its own political fortunes.

(For the source of the above, related links, and other comments, go to >>>http://werewolf.co.nz/2024/07/gordon-campbell-on-the-trump-shooting-and-a-potential-hike-in-fees-for-visiting-the-doctor/
)

So your post is a regurgitation of part of this article - where your
point is not the lead. Why not use the 3 links in that article
directly in your post instead of relying on the article, part of which
is off-topic to your post?

You can and should do better than this.

I am sorry that you cannot understand the content and veracity of the >article.

You have not cited a stuff article as claimed - just the werewolf
article about Trump. No mention of campaign promises is evident. you
seem to have cited inaccurately.


--
Crash McBash

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)