❓ Mr. Cook questions the Minister for Health about the WA Adult Cancer Care Taskforce report and its recommendations, particularly regarding FTE caps. The Minister acknowledges the report's value and outlines steps being taken to address the issues, while disputing the existence of rigid FTE caps.
AnsweredQoN 680Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
WA ADULT
CANCER CARE TASKFORCE REPORT
680. Mr R.H. COOK to the
Minister for Health:
I refer to the 2015 WA Adult Cancer Care Taskforce report and
its recommendations to improve cancer services in light of scathing performance
statistics and concerns about cancer treatment delays and outcomes.
(1) Has the
minister now had an opportunity to read the report that was submitted to his
department three months ago?
(2) Will the
minister heed the calls of the Australian Medical Association, which has
claimed this morning that the rigidly applied full-time equivalent cap is
causing negative distortions in the system of cancer care, and implement the
recommendations of the report?
CANCER CARE TASKFORCE REPORT
680. Mr R.H. COOK to the
Minister for Health:
I refer to the 2015 WA Adult Cancer Care Taskforce report and
its recommendations to improve cancer services in light of scathing performance
statistics and concerns about cancer treatment delays and outcomes.
(1) Has the
minister now had an opportunity to read the report that was submitted to his
department three months ago?
(2) Will the
minister heed the calls of the Australian Medical Association, which has
claimed this morning that the rigidly applied full-time equivalent cap is
causing negative distortions in the system of cancer care, and implement the
recommendations of the report?
AnswerView source ↗
(1)–(2)
I could easily say ''Yes'' and ''Yes'' and sit
down, but that does not give sufficient credence to the issue at hand. Yes, I
have now requested and read that report. I have to say, I found it was a very
good report. It justifies my—what was the term the Leader of the
Opposition used yesterday?—interrogating the decision; that was the
term he used. I am very pleased that I interrogated that decision and requested
this report because it is very revealing about some of the issues that have
occurred with the transfer of oncology services from Royal Perth Hospital to
Fiona Stanley Hospital. In fact, it reflected some of the issues that had been
raised with me both by doctors and in letters of complaints about the quality
of service. Clearly, requesting this report was the right thing to do. I find
it a very good report. As I said yesterday, I think the director general is
meeting with Professor Saunders on Friday; she is away in Melbourne, as members
know, and will be back on Friday. He is sitting down with her. Already, they
are working through those issues of costings, staffing and implementation of
the recommendations that have been made. I feel confident that we will be able
to address most, if not all, of those concerns over the next few weeks.
With regard to the full-time equivalent cap, I read the
component about the FTE cap. Quite clearly, I understand that not all the
clinicians were at the meeting where all of the report was decided because I
find it hard to understand how 20 clinicians could have it wrong about rigid
FTE caps. The AMA is quoting only what is in the report where the report stated
that rigid FTE caps have caused significant distortions. There are no rigid FTE
caps; in fact, our total FTE numbers are fewer than the cap that has been
provided by Treasury. What we have is an activity-based funding amount.
Remember that our amount that we pay to our staff for activity-based funding is
at present above not only the national efficient price—significantly
above the national efficient price; second highest above it than any other
state—but also the state price. A department, wherever it is, gets an
amount of money based on the demand that comes through the door, so based on
the number of patients needing treatment and their severity. It gets a budget
allocation of that amount, which is greater than any other state. Within that,
it fills the FTEs as required; it can have more FTEs or fewer in another area,
so it is not restricted with an FTE cap. What we do have, though, is the
director general needs to approve any new FTEs going into a department because some
areas have put in more FTEs than their activity-based funding allows. Hence, in
some areas we have staff that are over the numbers that are required. It is not
the case in cancer services, but nevertheless, there is no rigid FTE cap. The
AMA is wrong, but it has copied what is in the report. The clinicians clearly
do not have an understanding—that is not to say that all 20 do not have
an understanding, because I gather that not all of them were at the meeting
when that particular issue was finalised. I would hope that some of them do
have an understanding. But within their budgets, they control FTE numbers,
albeit that they need to tick off from the department, from the DG, on the
amount of money that they spend.
Mr
W.J. Johnston interjected.
The
SPEAKER : Member for Cannington, I call you to order for the first time.
I could easily say ''Yes'' and ''Yes'' and sit
down, but that does not give sufficient credence to the issue at hand. Yes, I
have now requested and read that report. I have to say, I found it was a very
good report. It justifies my—what was the term the Leader of the
Opposition used yesterday?—interrogating the decision; that was the
term he used. I am very pleased that I interrogated that decision and requested
this report because it is very revealing about some of the issues that have
occurred with the transfer of oncology services from Royal Perth Hospital to
Fiona Stanley Hospital. In fact, it reflected some of the issues that had been
raised with me both by doctors and in letters of complaints about the quality
of service. Clearly, requesting this report was the right thing to do. I find
it a very good report. As I said yesterday, I think the director general is
meeting with Professor Saunders on Friday; she is away in Melbourne, as members
know, and will be back on Friday. He is sitting down with her. Already, they
are working through those issues of costings, staffing and implementation of
the recommendations that have been made. I feel confident that we will be able
to address most, if not all, of those concerns over the next few weeks.
With regard to the full-time equivalent cap, I read the
component about the FTE cap. Quite clearly, I understand that not all the
clinicians were at the meeting where all of the report was decided because I
find it hard to understand how 20 clinicians could have it wrong about rigid
FTE caps. The AMA is quoting only what is in the report where the report stated
that rigid FTE caps have caused significant distortions. There are no rigid FTE
caps; in fact, our total FTE numbers are fewer than the cap that has been
provided by Treasury. What we have is an activity-based funding amount.
Remember that our amount that we pay to our staff for activity-based funding is
at present above not only the national efficient price—significantly
above the national efficient price; second highest above it than any other
state—but also the state price. A department, wherever it is, gets an
amount of money based on the demand that comes through the door, so based on
the number of patients needing treatment and their severity. It gets a budget
allocation of that amount, which is greater than any other state. Within that,
it fills the FTEs as required; it can have more FTEs or fewer in another area,
so it is not restricted with an FTE cap. What we do have, though, is the
director general needs to approve any new FTEs going into a department because some
areas have put in more FTEs than their activity-based funding allows. Hence, in
some areas we have staff that are over the numbers that are required. It is not
the case in cancer services, but nevertheless, there is no rigid FTE cap. The
AMA is wrong, but it has copied what is in the report. The clinicians clearly
do not have an understanding—that is not to say that all 20 do not have
an understanding, because I gather that not all of them were at the meeting
when that particular issue was finalised. I would hope that some of them do
have an understanding. But within their budgets, they control FTE numbers,
albeit that they need to tick off from the department, from the DG, on the
amount of money that they spend.
Mr
W.J. Johnston interjected.
The
SPEAKER : Member for Cannington, I call you to order for the first time.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.