Liability and collaborative arrangements for nurse practitioner practice in Australia

The purpose of this paper is to clarify the relationship between medical practitioners (MPs) and nurse practitioners (NPs) in general, and privately practising NPs (PPNPs) in particular, in relation to collaboration, control and supervision in Australia, as well as to explore the difficulties reported by PPNPs in establishing mandated collaborative arrangements with MPs in Australia. In order for the PPNPs to have access to the Medicare Benefit Schedule (MBS) and Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) in Australia, they are required, by law, to establish a collaborative arrangement with an MP or an entity that employs MPs. This paper begins by describing the history of and requirements for collaborative arrangements, then outlines the nature of successful collaboration and the reported difficulties. It goes on to address some of the commonly held misconceptions in order to allay medical concerns and enable less restrictive access to the MBS and PBS for PPNPs. This, in turn, would improve patient access to highly specialised and expert PPNP care. What is known about the topic? NPs have been part of the Australian health workforce since 1998, but until 2009 their patients did not receive any reimbursement for care delivered by PPNPs. In 2009, the Federal government introduced limited access for PPNPs to the MBS and PBS, but only if they entered into a collaborative arrangement with either an MP or an entity that employs MPs. What does this paper add? The introduction of collaborative arrangements between PPNPs and MPs seems, in some instances, to have created confusion and misunderstanding about the way in which these collaborative arrangements are to operate. This paper provides clarification of the relationship between MPs and NPs in general, and PPNPs in particular, in relation to collaboration, control and supervision. What are the implications for practitioners? A clearer understanding of these issues will hopefully enable greater collegial generosity and improve access to patient care through innovative models of service delivery using NPs and PPNPs.

Are socio-economically disadvantaged Australians making more or less use of the Enhanced Primary Care Medicare Benefit Schedule item numbers?

We aimed to examine the relationship between levels of socio-economic disadvantage (measured by the Socio EconomicIndexes for Areas [SEIFA] used by the Australian Bureau of Statistics) and uptake of the Enhanced Primary Care(EPC) item numbers on the Medicare Benefits Schedule. Health services are often less likely to reach those that mostneed them and so it is important to monitor whether disadvantaged communities are accessing EPC. The rates ofhealth assessments, care plans and case conferences are similar in each SEIFA quartile (from advantaged todisadvantaged populations), favouring the more disadvantaged quartiles in some cases. These national trends are notobserved in each state and territory. For all EPC services combined, the lowest number of doctors that provide EPCservices are found in the 2 most disadvantaged quartiles, yet more EPC services are provided in these quartiles, due tothe higher mean and median number of services provided by general practitioners in these quartiles. Overall,populations living in the most disadvantaged quartiles have similar or higher levels of EPC uptake, apparently due,at least in part, to greater than average use of EPC services by general practitioners in these areas.