Antony Scholefield THE Scope of Practice Review is going

“ primary care provider organisations ”. This money , which would poten-

we are experiencing an acute GP workforce shortage .”

there is an impact on scope ) without in any way considering their effective-

beyond its remit by suggesting “ cash-

tially run to more than a billion dollars

It added : “ While the AMA remains

ness or efficiency .”

ing out ” a string of GP programs to

a year , would then be used for a “ flex-

supportive of blended funding models

The AMA has also denounced the

fund multidisciplinary care teams , the

ible mix of health services to meet the

supporting multidisciplinary care , the

review ’ s suggestion to let some allied

AMA says .

local health needs of their enrolled

suggestion that this should be funded

health workers refer to non-GP special-

The review ’ s 120-page issues paper ,

population ”.

in part by cashing out MyMedicare —

ists under Medicare .

published in April , made a radical

The AMA said the review provided

among other programs — when the

Opening up allied health referrals —

suggestion to assimilate the Practice

“ minimal detail or evidence to explain

program has barely started would rep-

outlined in the review ’ s second paper

Incentives Program ( PIP ), Workforce

why these recommendations are being

resent a tremendous retrograde step .

— risked a major health budget blow-

Incentive Program ( WIP ), MyMedicare

made or what the outcomes will be

“ The commentary about cashing

out , it said .

payments and MBS care plan items

while essentially proposing to reallo-

out the WIP and PIP also veers outside

“ This option is emblematic of a

into a single payment scheme for GP

cate significant pools of funding away

the terms of reference of the review as

major flaw present throughout the

practices and what it described as

from GPs and general practice while

it proposes cashing them out ( implying

paper : lack of evidence .”

FROM PAGE 1

seeking an abortion

to another doctor in his

practice .

He added : “ I accept that

using language such as ‘ serial

killer ’ is inappropriate . [ And ] I

don ’ t believe it ’ s appropriate for

a doctor to be speaking publicly

about abortion using the word

‘ murder ’.”

But he said , as a Christian ,

he considered abortion to be the

“ intent to kill a human being in

the womb ” and “ morally wrong ”

and that he had an obligation to

speak out against the procedure .

And his faith meant he

believed that marriage between

a woman and a man was the

“ only appropriate place to

express sexuality ”.

“ I accept that there are people

who experience involuntary

same-sex sexual attraction ,” he

said .

“ I don ’ t believe people should

be blamed for these involuntary

feelings , but I believe Christians

have an obligation to resist those

feelings and not act on them .”

However , during his testimony

, he agreed he was wrong

to use the phrase “ child abuse ”

in reference to same-sex couples

with children .

“ I voiced my belief that children

have a right to be raised

by a mother and a father . I was

making the point that it ’ s not in

the child ’ s interests and a violation

of their rights to be raised by

same-sex [ parents ].

“ I recognise the phrase ‘ child

abuse ’ is very emotive [ and one ]

which has connotations of sexual

abuse and physical abuse .

“ I should have said something

like , ‘ The child ’ s rights are

being violated .’ I look back and

regret phrasing it that way .”

Dr Kok went on to say his

faith meant he believed there

were only male and female genders

and that these could not

be altered through treatment or

surgery .

Because he believed this surgery

to be harmful and unethical

, he said , as a doctor , he had

an obligation to speak out .

As Australian Doctor went to

press last week , the tribunal had

yet to cast its judgement .