:)
I was thinking from the point of view that it's the sort of thing that gets the
press in a bad way. Announcement made of a big convenience for patients, and
doctors appearing to be blocking it while holding out their hands. I'm also
wondering about GPs as a group not being taken as seriously as they should if
the admin burden of a voluntary system is overstated (or made out to be
overstated) by peak bodies.
There is an element of deja vu with this. It's happened before with Internet based claiming. We had all sorts of reactions like "pay us to use it". At the start all of the practices I spoke to were going to boycot the idea. Now almost all of them have it. They use the bits they like and are useful to them and ignore the rest.
At the beginning of HIC online, I went to meetings where HIC reps were saying that it
wasn't going to be compulsory, but the convenience to patients was going to be
advertised. Seemed a bit like "take it or leave it, but explain to the patient why
they still have to front up to Medicare". I don't know how or why, but the planned
media campaign at the start of HIC online never happened (a good thing IMO).
If it weren't for the prospect of "look at how nice we are" advertising leading up to an election around instant money back from your GP visit, then...... this system could also be no big deal. Useful to some for some functions at no cost to the practice.
I'm also all for saving on public expenditure. If it is a uniform compulsory
system, then part of the saving should be shared by those facilitating that
saving. That's assuming that there are efficiencies to be made, and the entire
existing workload isn't just shifted from Medicare to GP surgeries.
>From my point of view, maybe they should make it compulsory and more efficient
(card swipe into billing software so it is quick with no extra keying), save maybe
200 million a year and pass a percentage onto the surgeries in some way as
facilitating the saving.
I do see a problem with introducing an optional system that is attractive to
some (it's not all bad) but then advertise it to the entire population. I might
be worried about nothing, but I'll have to wait for the advertising to come out.
I'm nervous of the advertising, because it was rasied at a meeting in Sydney before the original HIC online. There were GPs and division reps there along with health dept people. One division rep suggested that GPs were going to completely boycot the idea. I can't remember his name of if he was from the dept of health, but the immediate response was "That's your choice, but it is going to be advertised to the public extensively later in the year". That was how the advertising campaign was introduced to the room. It sounded very retaliatory.
To me it will be pretty underhanded to introduce a partly attractive, optional
system only to push it to the public as some sort of revolutionary thing to ask
your GP about. I would love for the likes of the AMA to get a chance to look at
the advertising and provide constructive feedback before it gets dumped out
there.
I'm not suggesting that GPs should facilitate big public saving with no quid
pro quo. How much of the public saving should go to the GPs? I'd argue that it
depends on the impost on the GPs and whether or not it's compulsory.
Optional and useful to some..... I don't see a need for compensation. Take or
leave the system on it's attractiveness to you. (The govt could then just drive
take up by improving the systems usefulness and efficiency.
Compulsory..... compensation in line with the admin burden. If the admin burden
is the same as it is for Medicare offices and other processing, dump it.
Optional with limited attractions but publicly marketed in a way that leaves your patients annoyed with your practice if you don't have it (again we'll have to wait and see what the advertising is like) is in my opinion where the real concern is. They backed away from advertising HIC online to the public 4+ years ago. I think it's just going to happen this time.
They should either let the system stand on it's merits without bragging to the
public about it if it is to be optional. Otherwise make it compulsory,
advertise the convenience benefit to the public and pay the surgieries an
amount that is realistic for the imposed admin burden. (Good for patients, good
for surgeries and good for the public purse if there is any increased
efficiency at all)
Thoughts?
----- Original Message -----
From: "James" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "General Practice Computing Group Talk" <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, 27 July 2007 01:32:14 PM (GMT+1000) Australia/Sydney
Subject: RE: Eftpos claiming .... was [GPCG_TALK] this result was obvious to us
Hmm How flame retardant is the suit?
Medicare sacks or plans to sack 200 staff so we can do the work for them which
none of us would need to do if they allowed gap billing. They will save 200-400
million per year, give 50 million to the banks and guess what they then shaft
the doctors and staff in medical centres and pay nothing to us. Sound fair??
Bye the way, I Love the new AMA boss- sound like she will actually do something
for doctors rather than simply rubber stamping everything that comes out of
Canberra.
Regards
Mr James Bishop
Longevity Medical
8 Jackson Court Doncaster East 3109
Ph 03 98482009
Mobile 0413 582615
Fax 03 98407064
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Neil McAliece
Sent: Friday, 27 July 2007 12:40 PM
To: General Practice Computing Group Talk
Subject: Eftpos claiming .... was [GPCG_TALK] this result was obvious to us
Hi Liz/All,
I've been very absent from the list for a while. A filter has been shuffling
messages into a folder I haven't been looking at. Sorry if this has been
covered before.
The way this system was presented to me by Medicare was as a complement to the
existing claiming integration in billing packages or possibly an alternative
for a small practice who didn't run any computerised billing currently.
It's not really a good system for a busy group practice as the only method of
claiming for bulk bill. Some practices might want to use it along side their
current electronic claiming in billing as a patient convenience, only using it
for private bill patient claims. This is likely to be in busy practices in
areas that don't have a Medicare office (or maybe for disabled or elderly
patients to save them the trouble of getting to the Medicare office).
Another issue that goes against it as the only solution at a practice is that
it doesn't do Vet Affairs (though that might have changed? or probably will
change)
One comment in the article wasn't correct. It doesn't need a separate dedicated
eftpos terminal, though you do need to be a member of a participating bank (I'm
not sure how smaller credit unions will go etc). The bank may have to change
your current terminal if it doesn't already have a smart card slot (in
preparation for new medicare cards). There should be no cost passed onto the
practice for replacing, reprogramming or using a terminal.
The eftpos idea may be in part due to previous practice feedback that the
patient claims integrated into billing software was impractical for EFT to the
patient (cheque to patient is fast and easy). Legally the systems weren't
allowed to store account details, so you had to ask the patient for their bsb
and account number and key it in every time. As a result few practices offer it
to patients.
Just for patient claims, while doing all of your bulk bill through your billing
software, it might be an alright solution.
Integration was mentioned in the article. This becomes an issue if staff have
done some bulk bill claims on the terminal and some in their billing software.
Reconciliation in your PC based accounts becomes more tricky and time
consuming. HCN announced that PS3 would be the first program offering
integration. I don't know how it will work, but maybe other vendors will follow.
I guess it would have been nice if a patient ATM card could have been swiped on
a usb reader connected to a billing PC to get around the account keying. That
would have saved re-keying item numbers into a terminal. I don't know if that
is ruled out by law or technical issues (or both).
This is where I pull on my flame retardant suit.....
I'm a bit unsure about practices (or peak bodies) demanding payment for doing the work of Medicare offices. It's entirely optional and the amount of processing time is less than for medicare office staff. Add to that electronic systems are saving most practices time in their bulk bill claims compared to the old paper claims.
Some practices have put it to me that they really want it from a customer
service point of view. These have been practices in towns with multiple
practices, or solos in towns with no Mc office. Some see it as a convenience
that will attract patients to their practice (or stop them from leaving if
other practices offer it and they don't).
Putting on my cynical cap..... What might be a little crappy and sinister about
this, and it may be partly due to an election coming up.....
While the system is optional and useful for some, when it goes live it is going to be
advertised nation wide. "Hey, imagine what it will be like not having to battle your
way to the Medicare office in your lunch break" (not from an ad script, but I
wouldn't be surprised with an election coming up).
So even if you decide not to opt in, it could cost a lot of staff time. Your
staff might be wasting a metric crapload of time explaining to grumpy patients
why they still need to visit a Medicare office.
I'm eagerly waiting to see what the advertising wording will be.
Without carpet bombing advertising (guessing about the carpet bombing, but it
is an election year) I'm reasonably happy with the concept (swiping a card for
bank details into something like Pracsoft would be better). It may evolve and
improve (billing software integration).
With the upcoming advertising, I'm worried that practices who chose not to do
it might be seen as the bad guys by their patients.
Neil
----- Original Message -----
From: "Elizabeth Dodd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "gpcg talk" <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, 27 July 2007 06:25:03 AM (GMT+1000) Australia/Sydney
Subject: [GPCG_TALK] this result was obvious to us
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/07/26/1989167.htm
