Professor Mark Morgan .

Sarah Simpkins MANDATORY training requirements

for GPs who prescribe hepatitis B antivirals

are unnecessary and a barrier to treatment , says the RACGP .

GPs cannot initiate hepatitis B medications , which are s100 highly specialised drugs , unless they complete up to 11 hours of further training to become accredited community prescribers .

More than 400 GPs are currently accredited .

But in its submission to the Federal

Government ’ s draft hepatitis B strategy 2023-30 , the college says the requirement should be removed , provided GPs have access to up-to-date clinical guidance and the HealthPathways website .

“ Having micro-credentialing can act as a barrier rather than an enabler to GPs being involved in the care of patients ,” said Professor Mark Morgan , chair of the RACGP Expert Committee — Quality Care .

“ The whole idea of having a singlepoint-in-time training hurdle with a

stamp to say you are accredited to prescribe a particular medication , which is then a set and forget , does not really make sense .”

Hepatitis B antivirals were no more complex than most other medications prescribed in primary care , he said .

Infectious diseases physician Professor Gail Matthews — who helped develop the training program for the Australasian Society for HIV , Viral Hepatitis and Sexual Health Medicine — backed the move .

“ There is an absolute need for

more primary care practitioners to be upskilled in all aspects of hepatitis B ,” she said .

“ I would support simplification of any processes that allow that to happen .”

A perception that patients were better managed in the hospital system was part of the problem , she added .

The RACGP also recommended changing the authority listing for hepatitis B antivirals to streamlined authority to make the process quicker .

Rachel Carter A GP has paid back $ 170,000 in Medicare claims for treating patients “ in imminent danger of death ”, as well as for various aged care and skin excision items .

The Professional Services Review ( PSR ) said the doctor was in the top 1 % of claimants for item 160 — “ professional attendance ... on a patient in imminent danger of death ”, lasting between one and two hours .

It was not clear how many patients they had treated or the medical context , but the item had a rebate of $ 242.65 for GPs .

The PSR said the practitioner had failed to meet Medicare requirements , including the time requirements , and that his record keeping was “ inadequate ”. The GP acknowledged the claims were inappropriate and agreed to repay the rebates but was disqualified from claiming item 160 for 12 months .

They were also disqualified from claiming two different items for aged care , 5067 and 90051 , for nine months . The PSR ’ s most recent update revealed it had clawed back almost $ 3 million in June alone : $ 1,475,000 from eight repayment agreements and $ 1,443,000 from three cases that went to a PSR panel .

A chiropractor also agreed to repay $ 30,000 in claims for MBS imaging items , while a nurse practitioner agreed to repay $ 56,000 and was disqualified from nurse practitioner consultation item 82205 — a standard consult — for three months .

The PSR still lacks a permanent director following the departure of Professor Julie Quinlivan more than a year ago , while federal Parliament is yet to vote on legislation that would scrap the AMA ’ s longstanding veto power over PSR director appointments .

See Opinion , page 16