campusreview. com. au
NEWS
GAMSAT‘ 1 interview’ rule set to continue
The ACCC looks set to extend the streamlining of medical school admissions.
The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission is poised to grant an extension of arrangements that allow streamlined interview and selection processes for applicants to Graduate Australian Medical School Admissions Test [ GAMSAT ] consortium medical schools.
Under existing Preference Policy and One Interview Policy authorisations the ACCC has set, applicants to GAMSAT consortium schools are granted just one entrance interview. If the applicant is not offered a place in their medical school of first preference, the policy provides that their scores from that interview are then passed on to the applicant’ s next nominated school.
Prospective students are able to nominate up to six medical schools.
The authorisation provides statutory protection from court action for schools operating under the arrangement, which might otherwise raise concerns under consumer competition laws.
In a statement, the ACCC announced it had reached a draft determination to re-authorise this scheme. Once the draft determination is made formal – as appears likely – the new authorisation would come into effect for five more years.
The GAMSAT consortium consists of: Australian National University; Deakin University; Flinders University; Griffith University; University of Melbourne; Monash University; University of Notre Dame Australia; University of Queensland; University of Western Australia; and the University of Wollongong.
The University of Sydney is the only university with a medical school that is not a member.
University of Wollongong medical dean professor Ian Wilson said the arrangements were vital as they saved both students and universities time and money.
“ Otherwise it means every university would have to do their own thing, which would create a lot of extra work and cost,” Wilson said.
ACCC deputy chair Dr Michael Schaper said the authorisation was a“ good example of how the higher education sector can use the authorisation process to enable collaborative arrangements that would otherwise raise competition law issues”. ■
Advance care directives still rare
Researchers say regulations should do more to ensure people make formal plans.
New data indicating that almost 9 in 10 Australians have no determined advance care directives( AD) has led to calls for regulatory changes aimed at increasing uptake.
A national phone-based survey, conducted by researchers at the Queensland University of Technology, found that just 14 per cent of the 2400 respondents had some form of AD.
Whilst there was some variation across states – South Australia and Queensland citizens were more likely to have plans in place. Lead researcher professor Ben White said the results highlighted the need for greater focus on the issue by state legislators to encourage more Australians to think seriously about having a plan that would allow them to die with dignity.
“ The advantage of people doing that is that [ sometimes ] these decisions have to be made by family in conjunction with the treating clinicians. What is happening is that people are reaching emergency departments or are in hospital as they are unwell and nobody knows what they want,” he said.“ Sometimes the default is to just provide treatment but that might not be what they wanted and it might not be good practice in that it may not help them.”
White, who is director of QUT’ s Australian Centre for Health Law Research, noted that, in contrast, about 59 per cent of Australians had a legal and 30 per cent had designated financial power of attorney.
“ The lower figure for the advance care directives also points to a reluctance to think about these sorts of things,” he said.“ So whilst you might be prepared to plan for your financial health or what happens to your money after you die, thinking about your own mortality and the prospect of being in a situation where you may lose capacity and are not able to make decisions for yourself – particularly at the end of life – can be confronting for people.”
In his final report – which the Internal Medicine Journal recently published – White argued that steps were needed to ensure that planning occurring outside the health system was“ sufficiently informed and supported by health information so that it is useful in the clinical setting”. ■
7