----- Original Message ----- From: "Denise Hynd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: "Bronwyn CMWA Keys" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2001 3:33 PM Subject: Re: Professional Indemnity (PI) Insurance for midwives - for distribution > Dear All > Feel free to adapt my letter as below > Denise > > Mr Brian Benger > National Manager > Guild Insurance > Locked Bag 7 > HAWTHORN VIC 3122 > > 12 July 2001 > > Dear Mr Benger, > I am writing to express my disappointment at the decision and manner in > which Guild Insurance is to cease insuring independent midwives for the > following reasons; > Firstly I know that this arrangement with the Australian College of Midwives > was made in concert with the Australian College of Nursing and the > Australian-New Zealand Mental Health Nurses Association, yet it appears to > be only the midwives Guild Insurance is ceasing to insure! > > Secondly I understand that many of the midwives who are affected by this > decision have heard news of it through either the media or their colleagues > and some through anxious clients being informed by the former! > > Thirdly because of your involvement with midwives and their professional > organisation your company must be aware of the many of the professional and > social obstacles Australian midwives and families who choose to > provide/access safe responsible homebirth have and continue to encounter, > yet you gave them no notice of your intention to create another! > > Fourthly this decision not only restricts the future legal practice of 80+ > professionals but also places them at multiple risks should they continue to > meet their present agreements with pregnant women due to birth before an > alternative insurer can be found. > > Fifthly your company should also be cognisant of the limited and prohibitive > options for midwives needing or wishing to stay insured but again you have > taken this action with no notice. > > Sixthly you take an action which is contrary to the research substantiated > social, health and therefore financial benefits of midwifery options of > care, social capital benefits for all including the insurance industry! > > Finally I am disappointed that Guild has contributed to the general > misinformation and scare campaign about birth being a highly litigious area > (your General Manager, Mr David Brown's statement in The Sydney Morning > Herald) without substantiation and contrary to the findings of the National > Tito Report. > > Rather your company should be aware and promoting the reality that whenever > families have been able to equitably access midwifery options of care they > have done so in numbers which usually exceed supply (eg Community Midwifery > Program WA, most Australian birth centres and midwifery team projects)! > > Additionally where such options are available universally (eg Netherlands > and New Zealand) these nations have the lowest levels of mother and newborn > morbidity and mortality which are extras health cost savings to the > accompanying lower levels of interventionist pregnancy and childbirth care. > > It is a sad indication of the short sighted nature and management of the > insurance industry and of your company in particular that you abandon > insuring the most cost effective maternity care practitioners, as recognised > by international research and the WHO, because currently you are making > insufficient profits from them! > > Thus I urge you to reconsider your decision and return to support the right > of birthing families to low intervention, women centred options of care. > Yours sincerely > > > Denise Hynd > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Johnston" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "ozmidwifery list (E-mail)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2001 11:55 AM > Subject: Professional Indemnity (PI) Insurance for midwives - for > distribution > > > > ***The person who sends this should add their own contact details if they > > are prepared to speak to the politician or media or whoever it is sent to. > > A joint statement by consumer and professional groups: The Maternity > > Coalition Inc, Australian Society of Independent Midwives, and the > > Association for Improvements in the Maternity Services. > > PRESS RELEASE > > 14 July 2001 > > Re: Professional Indemnity (PI) Insurance for midwives > > Midwifery practice and the options women have for birth have been thrown > > into chaos by the crisis caused by the withdrawal of Guild Insurance from > > midwife PI Insurance policies. This is an issue that will affect all > > midwifery. The impact of this crisis will be to disadvantage women and > > their families across the country, as midwifery services will be withdrawn > > and further marginalised. > > > > We seek immediate intervention from both federal and state governments, to > > enable midwives to continue practising. Many concessions have been made in > > recent months to obstetric models of care, encouraging pregnant women to > > give birth in private hospitals, and promising to reduce the gap in > rebates > > for doctors' fees. At the same time the basic option of continuity of > care > > from a known midwife - THE model that is strongly supported by research > > evidence - is being withdrawn. This is totally unacceptable. It defies > > logic, removes the midwife's livelihood, is not in the interests of the > > consumer, and is causing great distress to women who have made plans to > > give birth in the care of a midwife. > > > > Signed by > > Joy Johnston, a midwife representing the Maternity Coalition Inc [Tel: 03 > > 9808 9614] > > Robin Payne, a consumer representing the Maternity Coalition Inc [Tel:03 > > 9380 2863] > > Jan Robinson, a midwife representing Australian Society of Independent > > Midwives [Tel: 02 9546 4350] > > Toni Cannard, a consumer representing Association for Improvements in the > > Maternity Services [Tel: 03 3265 4137] > > > > Fact sheet: > > * Birth is not an illness. Internationally accepted best practice > > standards for optimal maternity services promote care by a known midwife > > during pregnancy, birth, and early parenting. This is fundamental to the > > definition of a midwife: one who provides primary care for women > throughout > > the pregnancy and birth, and who collaborates with other practitioners > > (such as obstetric specialists) when a woman requires specialist or > > secondary levels of care. > > * The focus of the midwife's care is the woman, as an individual. The > > wellbeing and safety of the woman and her baby are paramount, and data > from > > Australian and international reporting support midwifery care as > protecting > > the safety of the woman and child. > > * Australian women have very limited access to the optimal standard of > > care. This is due to many social and professional factors, including the > > progressive medicalisation of pregnancy and birth over many years, > together > > with the government funding monopoly that supports medical primary care > and > > excludes most midwifery options of care. > > * A recent Australian Society of Independent Midwives (ASIM) survey of > > members revealed most of the membership was insured with Guild; two have > > been without insurance since their policies expired recently, and the rest > > will gradually become uninsured as their policies expire. A small > > proportion of ASIM midwives are insured with ANF (Australian Nursing > > Federation) Victoria and so far they are unaffected. There were five > > members who carried no professional insurance whatsoever. > > WHAT HAPPENS WHEN INSURANCE RUNS OUT? > > For those midwives no longer insured, there are two alternatives; > > * cease their private clinical practice, thereby requiring the women > booked > > with them to make other arrangements, as well as the midwives losing their > > livelihood. > > * continue to practice without PI insurance ... > > this will mean that midwives who did have visiting/admitting rights in > > hospitals will no longer be able to attend their clients in hospitals and > > therefore reduce women's choice of birth venues to homebirth only. > > If an Independently Practising Midwife (IPM) always acts as a reasonable > > midwife would in any situation then they are unlikely to be a victim of a > > malpractice suit. However, the person who ultimately suffers when there > are > > adverse outcomes is the woman who has a damaged baby and if there is no > > insurance the woman has little hope of any financial assistance for the > > rest of her baby's life. > > * We seek immediate action to address this crisis. Despite the best > > efforts of competent professionals in all settings (hospitals, birth > > centres and home), the unpredictable nature of birth, and of life itself, > > means that there may be adverse outcomes. We recommend government > > insurance arrangements that are made available to all who experience the > > dreadful cost of birth trauma! Women (and their families) deserve support > > through public insurance if they are the victim of bad outcomes from > > encounters with any health professionals. > > > > > > -- > > This mailing list is sponsored by ACE Graphics. > > Visit <http://www.acegraphics.com.au> to subscribe or unsubscribe. > -- This mailing list is sponsored by ACE Graphics. Visit <http://www.acegraphics.com.au> to subscribe or unsubscribe.
