The General Practice Owners Association is calling foul at the huge difference between government funding for screen-based telehealth compared to face-to-face visits to community doctors.
“General practice is amazed at the extravagant payments to a few telehealth providers during these cash-strapped times. And we’re stunned that the government won’t fund anywhere near these amounts to support general practices to see the same patients,” says Dr Angus Chambers, Chair of GenPro.
“The scale of per-patient funding indicates clear favouritism for telehealth providers. Questions must be asked about whether telehealth is good use of public money when general practices are funded at lower rates for a superior standard of patient service.
“We’re asking health officials for the reasoning behind the funding difference in favour of screen-based appointments, which tend to be easier and quicker consultations, over a family doctor who examines patients more thoroughly.”
Ironically a telehealth consultation often results in a recommendation to visit a general practitioner for a more thorough examination, Dr Chambers says.
“We’re stunned that telehealth providers will receive:
$65 for seeing after hours a 14-year-old whose caregiver has a community services card, while general practice receives $20.45.
$65 for seeing after hours an adult with a community service card, while general practice will receive $15.33.
$95 for seeing a 13-year-old whose caregiver has a community services card, while general practice receives $20.45.
“While GenPro welcomed the recent increased funding for general practice, it’s important to emphasise that this boost was only for enrolled patients. This new telehealth service is for non-enrolled patients or those seeking care when their regular doctor cannot see them – which is a service many GPs also provide.
“This is an important distinction as the huge advantage for telehealth will significantly undermine the sustainability of general practice.
“Telehealth may be the only choice for remote rural areas where it is extremely hard to access a GP, or for those that are not enrolled in a practice, but it is risky to make it the first option for all.
This Government’s $165 million investment in large corporations and primary health organisations, instead of front-line GP services, comes despite international evidence that telehealth is ineffective at solving problems in the health system.
“Evidence from the UK showed that telehealth did nothing to reduce emergency department attendance rates, time to cancer diagnosis, or to see a specialist. Telehealth might be convenient, but is it best for patients?
“It seems that Health New Zealand believes that it is, as shown by this disproportionate funding,” Dr Chambers says.
GenPro members are owners and providers of general practices and urgent care centres throughout Aotearoa New Zealand. For more information visit www.genpro.org.nz
| Comparison of government funding of patients seeing screen-based telehealth providers versus face-to-face appointment at general practices Below is a comparison of the subsidies for either discipline to see a casual patient (not enrolled with the service provider). Noting that the Telehealth fees are capped.
All amounts include GST |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
