Under or over? General practitioner charging of Medicare.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: In 2022, media reports alleged that doctors, particularly general practitioners (GPs), are defrauding Medicare, claiming $8 billion lost through fraud/non-compliance. This study examined Medicare Benefits Schedule billing patterns by consultation length to estimate overcharging or undercharging by GPs, and the cost/savings to Medicare. METHOD: A subset of data from the Bettering the Evaluation And Care of Health (BEACH) program from 2013 to 2016, which included length of consultation information, was analysed. RESULTS: Of 89,765 consultations, GPs undercharged 11.8% of consultations and overcharged 1.6%. Of the 2760 GPs sampled, 816 (29.6%) overcharged at least once and 2334 (84.6%) undercharged at least once. Of the GPs who overcharged at least once, 85.4% also undercharged. The total effect of GP undercharging and overcharging was a net saving of $351.7 million to Medicare. DISCUSSION: This study shows that GPs undercharging and overcharging saved Medicare over one-third of a billion dollars in 2021-22. The findings of this study do not support the media claims of widespread fraud by GPs.

A call to action for more disability-inclusive health policy and systems research.

To date, the exclusion of people with disability participating in research has limited the evidence base informing health system strengthening policy and practice more generally, and addressing disability-related inequalities in access to health services and better health outcomes more particularly. Given that more than 1 billion people, or 16% of the world's population, have a disability, we may fail to respond to the needs of a large proportion of the population unless we are purposeful with inclusion. Our research in this area indicates that online qualitative methods can be effective in engaging under-represented groups and are essential to ensure their input into health policy and systems research. This has important implications for researchers whose responsibility it is to make all health research disability inclusive, for ethical and methodological reasons, so they do not perpetuate the under-representation of people with disability in health policy and systems research. Our paper puts forward several recommendations to facilitate more people with disability participating in health policy and systems research. By critically reflecting on a health system strengthening research project, in which we purposefully aimed to support the participation of people with disability, we identify lessons learnt and issues to consider when planning and conducting accessible research. We also propose a set of actions for moving the agenda forward.

Foot, ankle, and leg problems in Australian primary care: consultation patterns, management practices, and costs.

OBJECTIVE: To explore consultation patterns, management practices, and costs of foot, ankle, and leg problems in Australian primary care. STUDY DESIGN: We analyzed data from the Bettering the Evaluation and Care of Health program, April 2000 to March 2016. Foot, ankle, and leg problems were identified using the International Classification of Primary Care, Version 2 PLUS terminology. Data were summarized using descriptive statistics examining general practitioner (GP) and patient characteristics associated with a foot, ankle, or leg problem being managed. Cost to government was estimated by extracting fees for GP consultations, diagnostic imaging, and pathology services from the Medicare Benefits Schedule (MBS) database. Costs for prescription-only medicines were extracted from the Pharmaceutical Benefits Schedule and for nonprescribed medications, large banner discount pharmacy prices were used. RESULTS: GPs recorded 1,568,100 patient encounters, at which 50,877 foot, ankle, or leg problems were managed at a rate of 3.24 (95% confidence intervals [CIs] 3.21-3.28) per 100 encounters. The management rate of foot, ankle, or leg problems was higher for certain patient characteristics (older, having a health care card, socioeconomically disadvantaged, non-Indigenous, and being English speaking) and GP characteristics (male sex, older age, and Australian graduate). The most frequently used management practice was the use of medications. The average cost (Australian dollars) per encounter was A$52, with the total annual cost estimated at A$256m. CONCLUSIONS: Foot, ankle, and leg problems are frequently managed by GPs, and the costs associated with their management represent a substantial economic impact in Australian primary care.

Encounters and management of oral conditions at general medical practices in Australia.

BACKGROUND: Poor oral health has been widely recognised as an ongoing public health issue. Patients with oral conditions may visit either a general practitioner (GP) or a dental practitioner for management. The aims of this study are to report (i) the GP management rate of oral health conditions by patient and GP demographics, (ii) what specific oral conditions were managed, and (iii) how GPs managed oral conditions. METHODS: Data from the Bettering the Evaluation and Care of Health study (2006 to 2016 inclusive) were analysed. Descriptive statistics with 95% confidence intervals around point estimates were used to summarise data. Multivariate logistic regression was performed to determine the independent effect of patient and GP characteristics. RESULTS: A total of 972,100 GP encounters were included in the dataset, with oral condition-related encounters managed at a rate of 1.19 oral conditions per 100 GP encounters. Patients who were aged 54 years or younger, resided in a socioeconomically disadvantaged area, came from a non-English speaking background or Indigenous background were more likely to have oral conditions managed by GPs. The most commonly reported oral conditions were dental and oral mucosa-related. Over 60% of oral conditions were managed by GPs through prescribed medications. CONCLUSIONS: This study provided an overview of management of oral conditions by GPs in Australia. Patients from certain vulnerable demographic groups were more likely to attend a GP for management of oral conditions. Common oral conditions and management approaches were identified. The findings of this study contribute to public health and health policy discussions around optimising primary care provision in oral health.

Health Statistics in Australia: What We Know and Do Not Know.

Australia is a federation of six states and two territories (the States). These eight governmental entities share responsibility for health and health services with the Australian Government. Mortality statistics, including causes of death, have been collected since the late 19th century, with national data produced by the (now) Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) from 1907. Each State introduced hospital in-patient statistics, assisted by State offices of the ABS. Beginning in the 1970s, the ABS conducts regular health surveys, including specific collections on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. Overall, Australia now has a comprehensive array of health statistics, published regularly without political or commercial interference. Privacy and confidentiality are guaranteed by legislation. Data linkage has grown and become widespread. However, there are gaps, as papers in this issue demonstrate. Most notably, data on primary care patients and encounters reveal stark gaps. This paper accompanies a range of papers from expert authors across the health statistics spectrum in Australia. It is hoped that the collection of papers will inform interested readers and stand as a comprehensive review of the strengths and weaknesses of Australian health statistics in the early 2020s.

Assessment and management of asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in Australian general practice.

BACKGROUND: Dispensing data suggest potential issues with the quality use of medicines for airways disease. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this article was to describe the management of asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in general practice, and investigate the appropriateness of prescribing. METHODS: The method used for this study consisted of a national cross­sectional survey of 91 Australian general practitioners (GPs) participating in the Bettering the Evaluation and Care of Health (BEACH) program. RESULTS: Data were available for 2589 patients (288 asthma; 135 COPD). For the patients with asthma, GPs classified asthma as well controlled in 76.4%; 54.3% were prescribed inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), mostly (84.9%) as combination therapy, and mostly at moderate-high dose; only 26.3% had a written action plan. GPs classified COPD as mild for 42.9%. Most patients with COPD (60.9%) were prescribed combination ICS therapy and 36.7% were prescribed triple therapy. DISCUSSION: There were substantial differences between guideline-based and GP- recorded assessment and prescription for asthma and COPD. Further research is needed to improve care and optimise patient outcomes with scarce health resources.

Estimating non-billable time in Australian general practice.

OBJECTIVES: To quantify the time that general practitioners spend on patient care that is not claimable from Medicare (non-billable) and the monetary value of this work were it claimable, and to identify variables independently associated with non-billable time. DESIGN: Prospective, cross-sectional survey, April 2012 - March 2014. SETTING: Australian general practice; a substudy of the national Bettering the Evaluation and Care of Health (BEACH) program. PARTICIPANTS: 1935 randomly sampled GPs (77.4% participation rate) from across Australia provided filled questionnaires on 66 458 patient encounters. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Non-billable time spent on patient care since patient's previous consultation; duration of and reasons for non-billable time; estimate of its monetary value were it claimable from Medicare; variables associated with non-billable time. RESULTS: 69.5% of GPs reported non-billable care outside patient visits; 8019 patient encounters (12.1%) were associated with an occasion of non-billable time. Mean time spent per occasion was 10.1 min (range, 1-240 min). Reasons for non-billable time included arranging tests and referrals, consulting specialists or allied health professionals, medication renewals, and advice and education, and encompassed all International Classification of Primary Care Version 2 chapters. The notional average annual value per GP of this work was $10 525.95 (level A rebate) to $23 008.05 (level B). Non-billable time was independently associated with female GPs, younger GPs (under 55 years), female patients, patients aged 65 years or more, and one or more chronic problems being managed at the recorded encounter. CONCLUSION: Most GPs spend a significant amount of unpaid time on patient care between consultations, an inherent problem of the fee-for-service system. This work should inform discussions of future funding models.