Identifying the Carer Project: Final Report and Recommendations for the Commonwealth Department of Health and Ageing

Author(s):  
Janne McMahon ◽  
Judy Hardy ◽  
Ruth Carson
PEDIATRICS ◽  
1981 ◽  
Vol 67 (5) ◽  
pp. 585-596
Author(s):  
James G. Hughes ◽  
Peter P. Budetti ◽  
Daniel D. Chapman ◽  
Henry G. Cramblett ◽  
Allen W. Mathies ◽  
...  

I. INTRODUCTION: THE GMENAC REPORT In 1976, the federal government took two major steps that were to have a major impact on public attitudes and policies toward the health professions. (1) Congress passed the Health Professions Educational Assistance Act of 1976, formally declaring an end to the notion that there was an overall shortage of physicians in the United States, and emphasizing geographic and primary care shortages instead. (2) Earlier, in April of the same year, the Department of Health, Education and Welfare (DHEW), now the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), established the Graduate Medical Education National Advisory Committee (GMENAC) to advise the Secretary of DHEW on a set of issues related to the health professions. The formal charge to GMENAC included five specific questions: (a) What number of physicians is required to meet the health care needs of the nation? (b) What is the most appropriate specialty distribution of these physicians? (c) How can a more favorable geographic distribution of physicians be achieved? (d) What are the appropriate ways to finance the graduate medical education of physicians? (e) What strategies can achieve the recommendations formulated by the Committee? After 4½ years of meetings, analysis, and developing and applying a complex methodology, GMENAC has now completed its work. Its recently published conclusions and recommendations are the subject of this policy statement. II. GMENAC's APPROACH GMENAC chose a ten-year span for its analysis, producing separate estimates for supply of and requirements for health professionals in 1990. Decisions on whether there would be a "shortage" or a "surplus" in a given field were based on a comparison of estimated supply with estimated requirements; the Panel's recommendations were, in turn, based on those decisions.


Author(s):  
Jill Peay

<p align="LEFT">This article compares and contrasts two recently published documents: the Report of the Expert Committee (chaired by Professor Genevra Richardson) entitled ‘Review of the Mental Health Act 1983’, and ‘Reform of the Mental Health Act 1983 - Proposals for Consultation’.</p><p align="LEFT">Whilst both documents were published in November 1999 under the remit of the Department of Health, the Richardson Report preceded the Green Paper. It was delivered in July 1999 to the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Health, John Hutton. The Richardson Committee had been established in September 1998 by the DoH in order to provide them with expert advice. The Committee was serviced by the DoH. Accordingly, the contents of the final report would have come as no surprise to them, since they had themselves been fully exposed to the developing reasoning of Richardson. In publishing their own Green Paper some four months later, the DoH had had an opportunity to reflect upon the final Richardson Report. Nonetheless, some might argue that, given the time-scale involved in the production of other similar documents in the field, this rush to a Green Paper was unseemly and unwise. Moreover, since it departs markedly from the recommendations of Richardson, one might argue that the pressure to produce has been, and will prove, counter-productive.</p>


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document