|
Written by joni
|
|
Wednesday, 03 March 2010 20:54 |
|
More detail was released earlier today on the Rudd government "takeover" of health. The idea is that the federal government will remove some of the amount of GST that goes to the states, and will use this money to directly fund the health system. SMH says:
Mr Rudd has also promised a new national health network to bring together the eight state-run systems under one set of "tough" national standards, but says hospitals will be run locally in small groups with local professions given added powers.
A lot of the funding changes revolve around Primary Health Care - that is, the care outside of the hospital network.
This is in line with some of the recommendations of the National Health and Hospitals Reform commission report handed down last year. Part of that says:
Single responsibility for funding primary health care would give clear responsibility and accountability to the Commonwealth Government to formulate a coherent national primary health care policy with identified goals, outcomes and strategies, supported by adequate funding.
The question is, will the opposition - who oppose legislation and then complain that the government is not doing anything - support the legislation or not? And how will the states react?
|
|
|
Written by joni
|
|
Wednesday, 03 March 2010 09:36 |
|
SMH is reporting that GST funding will be used to fund the governments new health plan.
The Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, will today announce the new funding arrangements which will involve the Commonwealth bypassing the states as he launches the government's long-awaited health reform agenda.
It looks like the opposition will block the move, by saying that if the government cannot run an insulation program, how can they possibly run hospitals?
The doctors union (BOO!) seems to like the idea, with the president saying that "he welcomed the idea of a single funding body".
And is not that what is needed, a single nationwide funding body, instead of each state and territory having their own? |
|
Written by joni
|
|
Tuesday, 16 February 2010 19:28 |
|
Years and years ago, Guinness was advertised as being good for you. In fact, they even had ads that said the same.
But recent researched (beer reviewed?), says that beer could be good for preventing osteoporosis. The ABC reports:
But recent research (beer reviewed?) says that beer could be good for preventing osteoporosis. The ABC reports: Scientists from the University of California have found beer is a significant source of dietary silicon, which they say helps build bones.
They looked at the raw materials and the processes involved in making beer and concluded that the majority of silicon is found in the husk of malting barley. They also found large quantities in hops.
Based on the findings, the researchers say moderate beer consumption may help fight osteoporosis.
Of course, the sceptics are out saying that other things are more important than silicon. To them we say meh!
And in further good news, researchers in Germany say that beer could help protect you against breast and prostate cancers:
They say the hops found in beer contain a powerful molecule which blocks excessive testosterone and estrogen action.
It also prevents the release of a protein called "PSA," which helps increase the spread of prostate cancer.
To that I say cheers! But please drink in moderation.
|
|
|
Written by joni
|
|
Sunday, 14 February 2010 22:54 |
|
The coalition has announced that if it wins the next election it would devolve management of major public hospitals to local boards.
Boards would be made up of community representatives, a director of nursing, a chairman of medical staff, and a chief executive officer, and would be given the power to set hospital funding and oversee levels of care.
Abbott is comparing the takeover to the NT intervention?!
"Particularly in NSW and Queensland, where chronic systemic mismanagement really requires federal intervention along the lines of the intervention in the Northern Territory's remote communities back in 2007."
Firstly, the NT intervention is not a success and should be stopped.
Secondly, I am probably in favour of the coalitions plan. But the problem (from what I remember back in the UK) is that local boards can sometimes get major political pressure applied when things go wrong and the press turns against them. So the coalition's plan must have something in place to deal with that.
Finally - it seems very unlikely that the coalition will win the election, so will this be like their ETS that they took to the last election. Will it be something that they then completely disown? |
|
Written by joni
|
|
Wednesday, 03 February 2010 10:00 |
|
The Lancet has retracted the 1998 paper that caused so many parents to shun the MMR vaccine.
The Lancet said following the judgment of the General Medical Council (GMC) fitness to practise panel last Thursday it had become clear that several elements of the 1998 paper by Dr Andrew Wakefield and others were incorrect.
The original paper led many parents in the UK to "refuse the MMR vaccine for their children and sparked a surge in infections and health problems" according to the Financial Times.
However, Dr Wakefield’s subsequent calls for separate vaccines for the different infections – including an experimental product under development by a company in which he had an interest – came under sharp scrutiny as MMR vaccination rates fell sharply in some parts of the UK, and infections rose.
I was in the UK at the time of the scare - and some of the media deliberately ignored the real science to put fear and doubt into parents minds. So many lives were put at risk, and all because of bad science. |
|
|
|
|
<< Start < Prev 1 2 3 Next > End >>
|
|
Page 1 of 3 |
