An interesting article; Thank you for that.

You may also be interested in the excerpt below, from NEJM, which refers to current pediatric services in the USA.

The link
https://secure.nejm.org/ecom/register/reg_etoc.aspx?promo=ONFENR01
provides a free subscription to the NEJM e-mail table of contents and access to articles six months after publication.

It looks as though children are another significant “user group”. I wonder how our current, fragmented federal approach to health care might be specifically improved to benefit aboriginal children in isolated areas.

~-~

New England Journal of Medicine
Volume 357:1549-1551 October 11, 2007 Number 15

The Quality of Children's Health Care Matters — Time to Pay Attention

James M. Perrin, M.D., and Charles J. Homer, M.D., M.P.H.

“High-quality health care matters for all children — and is critically important for some. In many ways, health care for children serves the same function as health care for adults. For example, the incidence of chronic illness in children is increasing, resulting in a substantial illness burden with a substantial cost.1 How well chronic conditions are managed profoundly influences both short-term and long-term outcomes, not only for common diseases such as asthma but also for rarer conditions such as cancer, cystic fibrosis, and sickle cell disease.2 “

“Many aspects of children's health care have no parallel in adult health services.3 The disproportionate rates of poverty among children and adolescents mean that children's health services must address health needs despite limited resources. Because children are dependent on caregivers and community resources, providers of child health care must enhance the competency of these caregivers and coordinate a broad array of community services. Children's health care settings typically involve developmental surveillance; the identification of sensory, learning, and behavioral disorders; and monitoring for family violence and child abuse. Optimally, such programs provide evidence-informed counseling that promotes positive behaviors related to individual health, family functioning, and psychological and developmental well-being — all of which are beyond traditional health care services — with effects that last for the rest of a child's life.”

"We have free public hospitals,"

This is not correct, our public hosptial system is not free.

Now please correct me if I am wrong, but is not the reason we pay taxes to fund things like hospitals, schools, roads etc.

Introducing a level of co-payment which already exists to some degree is like saying to someone you have already funded the road network through taxation, now you must pay to use it.

Research indicates that introducing a method of co-payment will have a negative effect.

Already in many hospitals around Australia fees have been introduced to park your car in hospital grounds. The big question is where is the money earnt from the car park fees going?

The author is correct when he says we dont have a system - Similarly I make it practice to avoid the words Health and Planning in the same sentence.

One of the problems faced in health delivery is the enormity of the attendant portfolio - Abbott et al display their ignorance of the system when they brazenly blame the states for a deterioration in standards - a hard charge to really prove unlless you ardently believe the shock jocks assesment of the system based on the isolated foetus in toilet type fiasco - "foetesus happen" as they say.

Further ignorance of the system is shown by Brumby in dialogue with Victorian Nurses when he talks of productivity in nursing - that cancerous concept while shedding (appropriately useless nurse admin jobs) has crept down to the bedside - when talking of productivity in health Brumby should look to the public service

As the author points out our standards are high and costs are contained - we could however get more health for our buck - again the author rightly points out most health agencies are over managed - that is not to say they should be the exclusive playground of the clinician - ohh deary me no! but the health public service both state and federal for both their size and capacity to micromanage and waste $ are unparalleld.

I am not convinced Rudds 2 billion would make much differene but the promise of a more coordinated appraoch makes sense - he could find his 2 billion - in part - by getting rid of the 72 Premier advisers Bracks retained - then look to the public service for the balance

“Many aspects of children's health care have no parallel in adult health services" - Sir Vivor

I normally avoid engaging you but will make an exception. Once, when a member of an Apex Club, with past members on the hospital board, the CEO of the local hospital said to me "it is easy to raise money for children, but hard to find charity for the geriatrics, where the need is great".

“High-quality health care matters for all children — and is critically important for some."

The Childrens Hospital in Sydney had a team of specialised and experienced staff. But the politicians, in their backward venal outlook, put the axe through the hospital and handed it over to the profiteers for asset stripping then onto their cronies in real estate for 'developing.' This proceded under the guise of "transferring beds to the west." (Westmead Hospital)" A few years later, then there were vicious cuts to Westmead Childrens. There is a strategy being implemented. A major consideration the politicians are aware of, is that parents will go through enormous hardships for their children when they fall ill. This is fertile ground to develope and stimulate a market - private health care.
Usually the first ward the politicians (Labor and Liberal) attack and demand closed is the Emergency Ward. People can then be referred to a private surgery.

johncee1945 and others,

I think we should stop thinking in terms of parties and focus on failing Ministers. Herein, we ostracise the relevant Minister Coalition or Labor:

Given [Liberal] Tony Abbott's [Heath and the Ageing] attitude to restricting access PET scans, I would black mable him in the Ancient Greek sense, if I were a Manly voter.

Secondarily, the State [Labor]MPs should loose their Health Minister's set, for failing to their Party and failing to deal with Abbott: Wrong head on the block - but tough.

The two party system is too cosy. Let's take out poorly performing Ministers in specific electorates, even against our natural political leanings.

About four hundred years ago, in Commonwealth system, Parliament system was re-constituted to protect the People from the Monarchy. Today, we need protection of the politicians. In this frane, we should leveage what remains of democracy to eleminate poor politicians, rather than voting the party line like mindless sheep.

Heath is a big issue. Why not ostractize Tony Abbott. Surely, there are thousands of people [Labor, Liberal, Green, Democrat], who could be organised to rally against him. They can still vote for their local candidate outside of Manly, as they wish.

The above is not specifically anti-Liberal. In days gone by, I would say the about Labor Minister Dawkins wrecking our Education system.

We have to take out these Ministers and build a People's democracy.