<p>As Medicare enters its 40th year and we reflect on its achievements, it is timely to assess the usefulness and relevance of a term that is closely associated with it: bulk-billing.</p><p>The term bulk-billing originated when Medicare was first introduced in 1984, and it referred to the manual process where a medical practitioner would submit collected paper receipts in bulk to Medicare. Although the practice of physically sending bulk receipts to Medicare has long since disappeared, the term bulk-billing has persisted.</p><p>The state of the Australian health system looks very different now than it did 40 years ago when Medicare was first introduced. In that time, the term bulk-billing has become synonymous with marker of access to general practice and in the delivery of health care with zero cost to the patient. This is in part due to current and past governments using the bulk-billing rate as a political indicator of health policy successes and as an indictment by opposition parties on the government of the day's commitment to health care access and equity. For example, in 2021, the former Minister for Health, the Hon Greg Hunt, used bulk-billing rates to demonstrate the then Coalition government's firm commitment to Medicare, despite also being the government responsible for extending the freeze on the Medicare indexation.<span><sup>1</sup></span> Similarly, the current Minister for Health, the Hon Mark Butler, also used increases in the bulk-billing rate as evidence of the success of the 2023 Budget initiatives to triple the bulk-billing incentives for Australians with concession cards and those aged under 16 years.<span><sup>2</sup></span></p><p>At the time of its introduction, Medicare was designed to ensure all Australians have access to affordable health care by subsidising 85% of the cost of general practice services, increasing to 100% in 2004. Since then, Medicare rebates have not kept pace with increasing inflation nor the costs of care. From 1995 to 2022, increases in Medicare rebates averaged just over 1.1% annually,<span><sup>3</sup></span> compared with general inflation reaching up to 7.3% during the same period.<span><sup>4</sup></span></p><p>Although the bulk-billing rate has been used as metric for general practice access, there is no standardised definition or interpretation. The bulk-billing rate typically quoted by politicians reflects the reported percentage of subsidised services that are bulk billed — the <i>volume</i> of bulk billed general practice services — and provides little insight into patient access to general practice.</p><p>Organisations such as Cubiko and Cleanbill have attempted to further interpret the bulk-billing rate with key differences. Cubiko, in their 2023 Touchstone report refers to the bulk-billing rate as “the percentage of invoices [that are bulk billed]” recognising that multiple Medicare services can be provided at one time distorting bulk-billing metrics.<span><sup>5</sup></span> Cubiko als
{"title":"Is the term bulk-billing still relevant in today's landscape of health policy reform?","authors":"Michael Wright, May Chin","doi":"10.5694/mja2.52543","DOIUrl":"10.5694/mja2.52543","url":null,"abstract":"<p>As Medicare enters its 40th year and we reflect on its achievements, it is timely to assess the usefulness and relevance of a term that is closely associated with it: bulk-billing.</p><p>The term bulk-billing originated when Medicare was first introduced in 1984, and it referred to the manual process where a medical practitioner would submit collected paper receipts in bulk to Medicare. Although the practice of physically sending bulk receipts to Medicare has long since disappeared, the term bulk-billing has persisted.</p><p>The state of the Australian health system looks very different now than it did 40 years ago when Medicare was first introduced. In that time, the term bulk-billing has become synonymous with marker of access to general practice and in the delivery of health care with zero cost to the patient. This is in part due to current and past governments using the bulk-billing rate as a political indicator of health policy successes and as an indictment by opposition parties on the government of the day's commitment to health care access and equity. For example, in 2021, the former Minister for Health, the Hon Greg Hunt, used bulk-billing rates to demonstrate the then Coalition government's firm commitment to Medicare, despite also being the government responsible for extending the freeze on the Medicare indexation.<span><sup>1</sup></span> Similarly, the current Minister for Health, the Hon Mark Butler, also used increases in the bulk-billing rate as evidence of the success of the 2023 Budget initiatives to triple the bulk-billing incentives for Australians with concession cards and those aged under 16 years.<span><sup>2</sup></span></p><p>At the time of its introduction, Medicare was designed to ensure all Australians have access to affordable health care by subsidising 85% of the cost of general practice services, increasing to 100% in 2004. Since then, Medicare rebates have not kept pace with increasing inflation nor the costs of care. From 1995 to 2022, increases in Medicare rebates averaged just over 1.1% annually,<span><sup>3</sup></span> compared with general inflation reaching up to 7.3% during the same period.<span><sup>4</sup></span></p><p>Although the bulk-billing rate has been used as metric for general practice access, there is no standardised definition or interpretation. The bulk-billing rate typically quoted by politicians reflects the reported percentage of subsidised services that are bulk billed — the <i>volume</i> of bulk billed general practice services — and provides little insight into patient access to general practice.</p><p>Organisations such as Cubiko and Cleanbill have attempted to further interpret the bulk-billing rate with key differences. Cubiko, in their 2023 Touchstone report refers to the bulk-billing rate as “the percentage of invoices [that are bulk billed]” recognising that multiple Medicare services can be provided at one time distorting bulk-billing metrics.<span><sup>5</sup></span> Cubiko als","PeriodicalId":18214,"journal":{"name":"Medical Journal of Australia","volume":"222 2","pages":"66-68"},"PeriodicalIF":6.7,"publicationDate":"2024-11-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.5694/mja2.52543","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142716512","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Trina Kellar, Chamara Basnayake, Rebecca E Burgell, Michael Kamm, Hannah W Kim, Kate Lane, Kate Murphy, Nicholas J Talley
<p>Untangling the complex interplay between eating disorders, gut–brain disorders and motility disorders is challenging. Nationally and internationally, there has been a concerning increase in patients receiving artificial nutrition that may be unnecessary.<span><sup>1</sup></span> This places patients at risk of iatrogenic harm and results in considerable economic burden to health services. There is a clear need for high quality research to guide care, but in its absence, now more than ever, we require a national treatment consensus to support clinicians working in this field. This article aims to highlight the current status, knowledge, and service limitations in treating this difficult cohort of patients, and make recommendations on future strategies within Australia to move forward for better patient outcomes.</p><p>Diagnostic labels applied to patients with postprandial pain, nausea, regurgitation and satiety limiting oral intake, vary considerably and are influenced by the specialty first encountered.<span><sup>2</sup></span> When a formal eating disorder diagnosis is made, gastrointestinal symptoms are accepted as secondary and may go untreated, leaving patients feeling invalidated and stigmatised. In contrast, patients presenting to gastroenterologists are more likely to receive a diagnosis of a disorder of gut–brain interaction (DGBI), such as irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), functional dyspepsia, chronic nausea vomiting syndrome or gastroparesis, and the eating disorder is overlooked. Once a diagnosis of motility disorder is applied, patients may identify strongly with this, and find it difficult to accept a diagnosis of a co-existing disorder of gut–brain interaction.</p><p>In the internet era, diagnoses are also influenced by unregulated health information and social media. In an attempt to understand their condition, patients may extensively research and invest in diagnoses that are incorrect. In an attempt to help their patients, clinicians may place too great an emphasis on overarching diagnoses that are not yet well understood (eg, mast cell activation syndrome, superior mesenteric artery syndrome, median arcuate ligament syndrome, hypermobility syndromes, postural orthostatic tachycardia and autonomic neuropathy). Some such diagnoses carry greater risk than others, for instance, there are no long term studies describing the clinical outcomes of surgical intervention for superior mesenteric artery syndrome or median arcuate ligament syndrome.</p><p>Critically, there is significant overlap between functional dyspepsia and chronic nausea vomiting syndrome, eating disorders and gastroparesis, regardless of the diagnostic label. There are currently no gastrointestinal investigations that can accurately separate these diagnoses. Indeed, it is possible that these conditions represent a spectrum that cannot be separated. For example, a large American prospective cohort study defined patients with the same symptom phenotype as having eithe
{"title":"Disorders of gut–brain interaction, eating disorders and gastroparesis: a call for coordinated care and guidelines on nutrition support","authors":"Trina Kellar, Chamara Basnayake, Rebecca E Burgell, Michael Kamm, Hannah W Kim, Kate Lane, Kate Murphy, Nicholas J Talley","doi":"10.5694/mja2.52537","DOIUrl":"10.5694/mja2.52537","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Untangling the complex interplay between eating disorders, gut–brain disorders and motility disorders is challenging. Nationally and internationally, there has been a concerning increase in patients receiving artificial nutrition that may be unnecessary.<span><sup>1</sup></span> This places patients at risk of iatrogenic harm and results in considerable economic burden to health services. There is a clear need for high quality research to guide care, but in its absence, now more than ever, we require a national treatment consensus to support clinicians working in this field. This article aims to highlight the current status, knowledge, and service limitations in treating this difficult cohort of patients, and make recommendations on future strategies within Australia to move forward for better patient outcomes.</p><p>Diagnostic labels applied to patients with postprandial pain, nausea, regurgitation and satiety limiting oral intake, vary considerably and are influenced by the specialty first encountered.<span><sup>2</sup></span> When a formal eating disorder diagnosis is made, gastrointestinal symptoms are accepted as secondary and may go untreated, leaving patients feeling invalidated and stigmatised. In contrast, patients presenting to gastroenterologists are more likely to receive a diagnosis of a disorder of gut–brain interaction (DGBI), such as irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), functional dyspepsia, chronic nausea vomiting syndrome or gastroparesis, and the eating disorder is overlooked. Once a diagnosis of motility disorder is applied, patients may identify strongly with this, and find it difficult to accept a diagnosis of a co-existing disorder of gut–brain interaction.</p><p>In the internet era, diagnoses are also influenced by unregulated health information and social media. In an attempt to understand their condition, patients may extensively research and invest in diagnoses that are incorrect. In an attempt to help their patients, clinicians may place too great an emphasis on overarching diagnoses that are not yet well understood (eg, mast cell activation syndrome, superior mesenteric artery syndrome, median arcuate ligament syndrome, hypermobility syndromes, postural orthostatic tachycardia and autonomic neuropathy). Some such diagnoses carry greater risk than others, for instance, there are no long term studies describing the clinical outcomes of surgical intervention for superior mesenteric artery syndrome or median arcuate ligament syndrome.</p><p>Critically, there is significant overlap between functional dyspepsia and chronic nausea vomiting syndrome, eating disorders and gastroparesis, regardless of the diagnostic label. There are currently no gastrointestinal investigations that can accurately separate these diagnoses. Indeed, it is possible that these conditions represent a spectrum that cannot be separated. For example, a large American prospective cohort study defined patients with the same symptom phenotype as having eithe","PeriodicalId":18214,"journal":{"name":"Medical Journal of Australia","volume":"222 1","pages":"10-12"},"PeriodicalIF":6.7,"publicationDate":"2024-11-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.5694/mja2.52537","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142710502","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Michelle JL Scoullar, Gabriela Khoury, Suman S Majumdar, Emma Tippett, Brendan S Crabb
<p>New insights into post-acute sequelae of coronavirus disease 2019 (PASC) or long COVID are emerging at great speed. Proposed mechanisms driving long COVID include the overlapping pathologies of immune and inflammatory dysregulation, microbiota dysbiosis, autoimmunity, endothelial dysfunction, abnormal neurological signalling, reactivation of endogenous herpesviruses, and persistence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2).<span><sup>1, 2</sup></span> In this commentary, we describe some of these advances that indicate that long COVID may be driven by “long infection” and that persistent replicating SARS-CoV-2 may be the potentially mechanistically unifying driver for long COVID.</p><p>The United Kingdom (UK)<span><sup>3</sup></span> and United States (US)<span><sup>4</sup></span> report that substantial proportions of their populations are affected by long COVID, and that these proportions have remained at similar or slightly elevated levels across the past year at around 3% in the UK, and 5.5% in the US. Factors likely driving this include the chronic nature of long COVID lasting several years in some, and the high number of ongoing infections and cumulative risk of long COVID with each infection,<span><sup>5</sup></span> even in highly vaccinated populations.<span><sup>6</sup></span> Individuals in low income countries also suffer a substantial, albeit less defined, long COVID burden.<span><sup>7</sup></span> Moreover, children are not spared,<span><sup>8</sup></span> with up to 5.8 million children estimated to have the disease in the US alone.<span><sup>8</sup></span> Using the UK and US figures to extrapolate the global prevalence of long COVID generates an estimate of several hundred million people with long COVID.</p><p>Common symptoms of long COVID include fatigue, brain fog and post-exertional malaise (PEM).<span><sup>9</sup></span> Long COVID is also highly associated with cardiovascular and autonomic dysfunction, particularly postural autonomic tachycardia syndrome (POTS) and a vast range of fluctuating symptoms,<span><sup>5, 10</sup></span> and shares overlapping symptomology with myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS). These symptoms can make undertaking typical activities extremely difficult with implications for workforce access and productivity, and school participation. There are several definitions of long COVID and this creates a barrier to timely diagnosis and access to care, in addition to the research and epidemiological challenges this creates. Clearer terminology for the distinction between increased risk of specific health conditions (eg, type 1 diabetes, cardiac events) and the syndrome of long COVID is also important.</p><p>The long term impacts of COVID on the brain are becoming clearer. Sustained inflammation disrupting the blood–brain barrier has been shown to be a key mechanism driving the cognitive and related symptoms in long COVID.<span><sup>11</sup></span> A recent
{"title":"Towards a cure for long COVID: the strengthening case for persistently replicating SARS-CoV-2 as a driver of post-acute sequelae of COVID-19","authors":"Michelle JL Scoullar, Gabriela Khoury, Suman S Majumdar, Emma Tippett, Brendan S Crabb","doi":"10.5694/mja2.52517","DOIUrl":"10.5694/mja2.52517","url":null,"abstract":"<p>New insights into post-acute sequelae of coronavirus disease 2019 (PASC) or long COVID are emerging at great speed. Proposed mechanisms driving long COVID include the overlapping pathologies of immune and inflammatory dysregulation, microbiota dysbiosis, autoimmunity, endothelial dysfunction, abnormal neurological signalling, reactivation of endogenous herpesviruses, and persistence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2).<span><sup>1, 2</sup></span> In this commentary, we describe some of these advances that indicate that long COVID may be driven by “long infection” and that persistent replicating SARS-CoV-2 may be the potentially mechanistically unifying driver for long COVID.</p><p>The United Kingdom (UK)<span><sup>3</sup></span> and United States (US)<span><sup>4</sup></span> report that substantial proportions of their populations are affected by long COVID, and that these proportions have remained at similar or slightly elevated levels across the past year at around 3% in the UK, and 5.5% in the US. Factors likely driving this include the chronic nature of long COVID lasting several years in some, and the high number of ongoing infections and cumulative risk of long COVID with each infection,<span><sup>5</sup></span> even in highly vaccinated populations.<span><sup>6</sup></span> Individuals in low income countries also suffer a substantial, albeit less defined, long COVID burden.<span><sup>7</sup></span> Moreover, children are not spared,<span><sup>8</sup></span> with up to 5.8 million children estimated to have the disease in the US alone.<span><sup>8</sup></span> Using the UK and US figures to extrapolate the global prevalence of long COVID generates an estimate of several hundred million people with long COVID.</p><p>Common symptoms of long COVID include fatigue, brain fog and post-exertional malaise (PEM).<span><sup>9</sup></span> Long COVID is also highly associated with cardiovascular and autonomic dysfunction, particularly postural autonomic tachycardia syndrome (POTS) and a vast range of fluctuating symptoms,<span><sup>5, 10</sup></span> and shares overlapping symptomology with myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS). These symptoms can make undertaking typical activities extremely difficult with implications for workforce access and productivity, and school participation. There are several definitions of long COVID and this creates a barrier to timely diagnosis and access to care, in addition to the research and epidemiological challenges this creates. Clearer terminology for the distinction between increased risk of specific health conditions (eg, type 1 diabetes, cardiac events) and the syndrome of long COVID is also important.</p><p>The long term impacts of COVID on the brain are becoming clearer. Sustained inflammation disrupting the blood–brain barrier has been shown to be a key mechanism driving the cognitive and related symptoms in long COVID.<span><sup>11</sup></span> A recent","PeriodicalId":18214,"journal":{"name":"Medical Journal of Australia","volume":"221 11","pages":"587-590"},"PeriodicalIF":6.7,"publicationDate":"2024-11-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11625527/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142710509","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}