As I sit down to write this week’s column, I find myself pausing to reflect on the sheer scale of preparation that goes into an event that, for most attendees, will feel like it passes in the blink of an eye. I’m talking, of course, about our annual National Conference, which is now just two weeks away. While the event itself is a whirlwind of activity, networking, and learning, the journey to get there has been a marathon spanning more than a year of meticulous planning, coordination, and sheer hard work. It is genuinely humbling to witness the dedication of the team working diligently behind the scenes, ensuring that every aspect of this gathering—from the scheduling of speakers to the micro-detail of catering and audio-visual setups—is executed with precision and care. Their goal is simple yet ambitious: to create an environment that is not only productive and intellectually stimulating but also welcoming and enjoyable for everyone who walks through the doors. I want to take this opportunity to express my heartfelt gratitude to them, as their tireless efforts often go unnoticed until the moment it all comes together seamlessly.
If you have already secured your ticket, I eagerly look forward to welcoming you to Melbourne and sharing this experience with you. Your presence is what makes this gathering the vibrant community event it is meant to be. For those who have yet to register, consider this your final and most urgent reminder. We have a limited number of tickets remaining, and the window of opportunity is closing rapidly; sales will cease this Sunday. We genuinely do not want you to miss out on what promises to be a professionally enriching and personally rewarding experience, so I urge you to act promptly if you intend to join us. The energy of our community coming together in one place is something truly special, and I hope to see as many of you there as possible.
Now, turning back to the usual, and sometimes frustrating, affairs of my week, I must confess that my patience for politicians offering ill-judged health advice has worn particularly thin lately. It seems that each week brings a new example of government messaging that, while perhaps well-intentioned, demonstrates a profound disconnect from the frontline realities of patient care. Just last week, we saw the unfortunate spectacle of officials advising patients to steer clear of overcrowded emergency departments—a statement that, while acknowledging a real problem, offers no constructive solution. This week, we have been presented with a couple more instances of government-sponsored advertising that instructs the public on where they should go when they have a particular health complaint. Now, to be absolutely clear, if someone is experiencing chest pain, there is no question that an emergency department is the correct and only place to go; that is a life-threatening emergency requiring urgent, hospital-level intervention. However, some of the broader messaging we have seen, particularly that which points people towards urgent care centres for what is essentially routine general practitioner work, is not just ill-advised; I would go so far as to say it is disrespectful to the profession and, more importantly, it is confusing for patients.
Our position remains steadfast and unambiguous: we want patients to think “GP first” whenever they have a health complaint. This isn’t about protecting turf; it’s about championing the very model of care that is proven to provide the best outcomes. Continuity of care and the quality of that care are inextricably linked. A patient who sees the same general practitioner over time builds a relationship founded on trust and a deep understanding of their medical history, their social circumstances, and their personal values. This holistic perspective is the bedrock of effective primary care. It allows for subtle changes in a patient’s condition to be noticed, for preventative care to be tailored to the individual, and for complex, multi-morbid conditions to be managed with a level of coordination that is impossible to achieve in a fragmented, walk-in model. My growing concern is that the rapid expansion of urgent care clinics and pharmacy care pathways, while intended to relieve pressure, is fragmenting this system and creating a confusing and potentially risky landscape for patients. A patient with an undifferentiated symptom might present to a pharmacy, get a referral to a UCC, and never have that issue properly communicated back to their usual GP, leading to gaps in their medical records and a loss of that precious continuity.
I want to be clear: urgent care clinics are not going to disappear, and I do not believe they should. They do have a valuable and specific role to play in our health ecosystem, functioning as a supplement to—not a replacement for—both general practice and hospital emergency departments. However, the way they are being marketed and positioned by governments is what troubles me. We need to shape their development so that they integrate with, and support, the existing primary care system. They should not be trying to take over the role of a patient’s medical home, nor should they pretend to fill a gap they are structurally incapable of filling. A UCC cannot provide a patient’s ongoing cancer screening, manage their complex chronic disease over decades, or coordinate their care with a team of specialists. That is the unique domain of the general practitioner. We are actively following up with both state and federal health departments to impress upon them the importance of getting this messaging right. The public needs clear, unambiguous guidance that reinforces the GPS’ role as the primary coordinator of care, and directs patients to the most appropriate service for their needs, not one that further muddies the waters.
In stark contrast to the frustrating conversations I’ve had regarding these advertising campaigns, I also had the opportunity this week to sit down with the newly appointed head of the Medicare Benefits & Digital Health Division at the federal Department of Health. While he is undoubtedly new to this specific role, the clock is ticking on a number of critical issues, most notably the reforms to the Medicare Benefits Schedule (MBS) and the broader, and what I consider to be the urgent, need for Medicare reform. The current rebates are woefully out of step with the real cost of delivering high-quality care, and this underfunding is putting immense strain on practices, driving up out-of-pocket costs for patients, and threatening the financial sustainability of general practice itself. We need a fundamental overhaul that recognises the complexity of modern general practice, moving beyond the short consultation model to adequately compensate GPs for the cognitive work they do, for managing complex patients over time, and for leading multidisciplinary teams. Our conversation was robust and, I believe, candid. We impressed upon him the absolute necessity of keeping patient care, workforce sustainability, and smooth, efficient workflows at the very front of mind as these reforms are designed and implemented. It is a small window of opportunity to get this right, and we cannot afford to squander it.
Today, my attention is focused on a slightly different stage, as I am scheduled to appear before the Senate inquiry into rural, regional, and remote Medicare access and funding. My message will be simple, yet it speaks to a fundamental principle of equity in our healthcare system: where you live should not, and must not, determine the quality or accessibility of the healthcare you can access. Over the years, I have witnessed the vital, often heroic, role that local GPs play in keeping rural communities healthy. They are not just doctors; they are community anchors, employers, and advocates. Despite the immense challenges of their environment—thinly stretched resources, professional isolation, and the pressure of being on call constantly—they provide a level of care that is essential to the social fabric of small towns. I will reiterate our call for Medicare to better support the complexity of modern care, especially in these regions. This includes stronger funding for longer consultations, which are so often needed to manage the high burden of chronic disease in these populations, and more robust financial support for GP-led multidisciplinary teams. Anticipatory care, which is crucial in rural areas where specialists are scarce, requires time and coordination that the current funding model simply does not reimburse. Furthermore, we need significantly expanded support for practices that are delivering care in rural and remote communities, acknowledging the higher overheads and the need to attract and retain a skilled workforce.
My testimony will also highlight the urgent need to improve access to specialist services closer to home. Too many rural patients are forced to travel for hours, sometimes even days, to see a specialist, incurring significant personal cost, time away from work and family, and often leading to delays in diagnosis and treatment. We must invest in and expand outreach specialist services, harness the potential of telehealth more effectively and sustainably, and create robust rural training pathways for specialists so that the doctors of tomorrow are equipped and incentivised to practice in the regions that need them most. The goal is a system where a patient’s postcode is not a predictor of their health outcomes. We need a connected system where GPs, specialists, and allied health professionals work collaboratively, regardless of their physical location, to ensure that every patient can receive timely, affordable, and high-quality care. The inquiry represents a critical opportunity to make the case for structural change, and I intend to make the most of it.
Finally, I would be remiss not to address a deeply concerning issue that resurfaced in the media this week: the corrosive and dangerous impact of misinformation on public health, particularly in the realm of immunisation. It is both profoundly sad and deeply worrying that we continue to have this very same conversation, year after year. We see the tangible impacts of uninformed opinion, spread at tremendous scale and speed via social media, manifesting in vaccine hesitancy, falling immunisation rates, and the resurgence of diseases we had all but consigned to the history books. This is not a matter of free speech; it is a matter of public safety. The consequences of this misinformation are real, and they are being borne by the most vulnerable members of our communities—the young, the elderly, and the immunocompromised. As a profession, we are united in our commitment to evidence-based medicine, and we must continue to be strong, vocal advocates for the life-saving benefits of vaccines. To help guide our advocacy and understand the scale of this problem, I strongly encourage all of our members to participate in our member survey on misinformation. The more we understand about how it is affecting your practices and your patients, the better equipped we will be to combat it with truth, empathy, and the unassailable power of scientific evidence.