The Budget has received mixed reactions from the Health and NGO sectors.

The president of the Australian Medical Association, Dr Rosanna Capolingua, said the AMA was pleased to see the Budget had been reasonably protected from serious cuts.

She said, “Our major concern is always to see that patient care is not undermined and that quality health care is at the forefront of any budget measures.”

“Many of the health commitments reflect what the AMA has been calling for. For example, Indigenous health, public hospital support, fighting cancer initiatives and other preventative measures.”

On the other hand, Oxfam Director of Public Policy, James Ensor, said the international aid component of the budget over the next four years lacked the boldness needed to seriously address poverty and inequality in our region.

He said, “Importantly, tonight’s budget goes marginally beyond Prime Minister Rudd’s pre-election promises to increase the aid budget to $3.5 billion in 2008-09 by actually increasing it to $3.7 billion.”

“However, this is not the bold and visionary budget that will elevate Australia to the forefront of rich country efforts to make poverty history, with many other rich countries committed to spending .7 per cent of their GNI by 2015.

Earlier this week, the PM announced the establishment of the National Health and Hospitals Reform Commission. The Commission is the vehicle through which the Government will allegedly ‘end the blame the game’, deliver better health outcomes and provide sustainable improvements in the performance of the health system. The Commission has been tasked with focusing on health financing, maximising a productive relationship between public and private sectors, and improving rural health.

There has been early criticism of the makeup of the Commission and the appointment of a Chief Medical Officer from a private health fund as Chair. This critique stems from some disappointment that the Committee will not have a broader reaching agenda to dismantle the health system and re-design it. There is a desire by some of Labor’s health constituencies to re-examine the role of the private health sector, and scrap the private health insurance rebate.

However, the goals of the Government are more modest and therefore more achievable. They are keen to remove duplication, improve Commonwealth-State co-operation and better utilise the private system for public benefit. The Committee does include a broad range of members with experience across the health system at both State and Commonwealth levels and both administration and service delivery focus.

An interim report for reform is due by the end of 2008, with a final plan due to Government by mid-2009. Below is an overview of the Commission members.

- Dr Christine Bennett (Chief Medical Officer of MBF) as the Chair. Dr Bennett is CEO of Research Australia and has more than 20 years experience in the health care industry as a specialist clinician, strategist and planner and chief executive in both the public and private sectors. Formerly a paediatrician, Dr Bennett has held senior positions in the NSW Department of Health in services planning and policy and was Chief Executive Officer of Westmead Hospital and Community Health Services, Australia’s largest teaching hospital campus.

- Rob Knowles, former Victorian Liberal Health Minister (currently FSANZ Chairman);

- Geoff Gallop, former Premier of Western Australia;

- Mukesh Haikerwal, Melbourne GP and immediate past-President of the AMA;

- Stephen Duckett, health economist and former Secretary of the Commonwealth Department of Health (currently Chair of the Board of Directors of Bayside Health, Chair of the Board of Directors of the Brotherhood of St Laurence and Convenor of the Council of Deans of Health Sciences);

- Ron Penny, Emeritus Professor of Medicine, University of NSW (also Senior Clinical Advisor, NSW Health, Chairman of the Justice Health Board, Chairman of the NSW Blood Products Advisory Committee and Chairman of the NSW SARS Task Force. He serves as Co-Chair of the NSW State Government’s Chronic and Complex Care Implementation Group and is a member of the NSW Expert Advisory Group on Drugs, the Ministerial Advisory Council on Medical and Health Research and NSW General Practice Council. Also worth noting that between November 2001 and March 2002 he undertook, in association with KPMG, a review of the New South Wales Red Cross Blood Service);

- Sabina Knight, Senior Lecturer, Centre for Remote Health and remote area nurse (also has significant experience in indigenous health policy);

- Sharon Willcox, Director of consulting firm Health Policy Solutions (has had 20 years experience in health public policy in the Victorian, New South Wales and Commonwealth health departments);

- Justin Beilby, Executive Dean of the University of Adelaide’s Medical School (former Chair of the National Evaluation Committee of the National Prescribing Service); and

- Mary Ann O’Loughlin, Director, The Allen Consulting Group (former social policy adviser to Paul Keating).

Portfolio and specialisation insights: Health

– by Guest Contributor, Craig Simonetto.

Craig has just joined P&P and has significant experience in health policy and issues having worked for Ministers in the Health and Ageing portfolio and in senior positions within Medicare Australia.

The incoming Health Minister, Nicola Roxon, was quoted in the weekend papers responding to AMA demands in her portfolio by saying doctors are "incredibly important to the system...but I am not the minister for doctors".

Roxon's bold, first-off response to the doctors' union suggests she has studied the careers of some of her more prominent predecessors. Both Neil Blewett and Michael Wooldridge said the same during their time in the portfolio.

And while Roxon has escaped much public attention to date, she has a very ambitious agenda over the coming three years. Labor's policies involve significant new levels of bureaucracy (witness the new National Health and Hospitals Reform Commission) and a priority on public initiatives (including new hospital funding agreements with the States and re-establishing the Commonwealth dental program).

Roxon, as a first time Minister, will need a significant amount of determination to push Labor's health policy, first through the Senate, then past interest groups such as the AMA. Her background as an industrial lawyer, and the new Government's retention of Jane Halton as Departmental Secretary, will help in ensuring that resolve.

It is interesting to contrast and compare Labor's two major policy launches over the last week. Both handled very differently with very different but equally desirable results.

Labor's launch of its National Health and Hospitals Reform Plan was a textbook example of garnering third party support. It became very obvious that Nicola Roxon, Shadow Health Minister, had well briefed health stakeholders to secure their support for the new policy when within a few hours there were welcoming media releases from the Nurses Federation, Catholic Health Australia, the AMA, the Australian General Practice Network, Medicines Australia and the Queensland, NSW, WA and Tasmanian State Governments. The positive chorus from many of the people Australians trust with their health care gives the Labor policy credibility with the media who will analyse it and the electorate who will vote on it.

Contrast this with the release of Labor's final IR policy. Not even a key Labor stakeholder and contributor like the CFMEU knew what to expect. There were no welcoming press releases from unions or business. At first glance it may seem that in trying to please everyone the Rudd/Gillard dream team have pleased no one. But, upon closer inspection this is exactly how Labor's strategists wanted it. Criticism from both sides makes the policy appear balanced to the average punter.

The CEO of a major international financial institution with a strong retail / consumer focus caught up recently with a colleague and said something very interesting that I thought was worthy of sharing.

This business leader was talking about what is keeping CEO's in the United States awake at night and made the comment that the "shift the responsibility paradigm" was a huge concern for them.

Most of us have been brought up on the basis of "buyer beware" but recently self-responsibility is being replaced by corporate responsibility. For instance, 5 years ago if you got fat for eating too many hamburgers it was your own fault. Now it is McDonald's fault. If you got into debt and couldn't pay a loan back it was your own fault.

Nowdays it is the fault of the lender for lending you too much. CEO's are concerned about to what extent, and how they go about explaining the risks of their products and services to consumers in order to avoid future challenges.

This blame everyone but yourself view is alive and strong and the Nanny State mentaility is certainly evident in Australia as well.

Whilst the Federal Election battle continues, the Australian public is in the midst of another battle - the worst flu outbreak in a decade. With 20 percent of the Australian public estimated to have contracted the illness so far this year, it's hard to discern where the rational health warnings end and where the fear mongering begins.

The key dilemma with this situation is that if there is truly an epidemic, it's vital the health community and governments act quickly to restrict the spread of disease. However, it's also important to stem potential nationwide panic. Either way, there is potential for this issue to turn into a full-blown crisis. So how do we find the balance?

Several state government's throughout Australia have already issued health warnings about a potential flu epidemic, with the Queensland Government encouraging people to wear masks in public to avoid infection. Whilst these warnings may be seen as necessary, the affect this could have on the wider community, particularly the health system and business, also needs to be taken into account.

The financial impact of the flu on the Australian economy is usually in excess of $2 billion each year. Given this year's epidemic, this number will most definitely rise. Hospitals are already overwhelmed with the sick and this could increase with people overreacting and visiting emergency wards with no more than a cold. There is also a risk to business in regards to lost productivity, lost turnover and foregone wages.

Sadly there have been several fatalities this year and it's hard to determine the best method to deal with this situation. This is an issue that needs be treated with sensitivity, whilst avoiding an 'epidemic' of public terror.

The Google blog post below is interesting as it blurs the boundaries between advertising, editorial and PR all in one neat package, which Google suggest they can deliver for clients.

An interesting offering from Google and in a world where it rules, companies need to take note of web 2.0 and use tools to influence it as best they can. Although we here at P&P have strong ideas about how to engage people online and being open and honest.

Does negative press make you Sicko?
6/29/2007 09:47:00 AM
Posted by Lauren Turner, Account Planner, Health

Lights, camera, action: the healthcare industry is back in the spotlight. (Not that it ever left the stage.) Next week, Michael Moore’s documentary film, Sicko, will start playing in movie theaters across America.

The New York Times calls Sicko a “cinematic indictment of the American health care system.” The film is generating significant buzz and is sure to spur a lively conversation about health coverage, care, and quality in America. While legislators, litigators, and patient groups are growing excited, others among us are growing anxious. And why wouldn’t they? Moore attacks health insurers, health providers, and pharmaceutical companies by connecting them to isolated and emotional stories of the system at its worst. Moore’s film portrays the industry as money and marketing driven, and fails to show healthcare’s interest in patient well-being and care.

Sound familiar? Of course. The healthcare industry is no stranger to negative press. A drug may be a blockbuster one day and tolled as a public health concern the next. News reporters may focus on Pharma’s annual sales and its executives’ salaries while failing to share R&D costs. Or, as is often common, the media may use an isolated, heartbreaking, or sensationalist story to paint a picture of healthcare as a whole. With all the coverage, it’s a shame no one focuses on the industry’s numerous prescription programs, charity services, and philanthropy efforts.

Many of our clients face these issues; companies come to us hoping we can help them better manage their reputations through “Get the Facts” or issue management campaigns. Your brand or corporate site may already have these informational assets, but can users easily find them?

We can place text ads, video ads, and rich media ads in paid search results or in relevant websites within our ever-expanding content network. Whatever the problem, Google can act as a platform for educating the public and promoting your message. We help you connect your company’s assets while helping users find the information they seek.

If you’re interested in learning more about issue management campaigns or about how we can help your company better connect its assets online, email us. We’d love to hear from you! Setting up these campaigns is easy and we’re happy to share best practices.

As for Sicko, all I can say is -- go easy on that buttered popcorn.