background image
30
theprivatepractice.com.au
receive private specialist treatment.
On the basis that emergency department
clinicians are being paid by the hospital for
the services they provide, their services
will not generally give rise to eligibility for
MBS rebates (of course there are exceptions,
which I will come to) ­ to do otherwise would
be to allow those clinicians to double dip.
Any temptation to move a patient quickly
to an outpatient department to circumvent
this provision would be a breach of the
National Healthcare Reform Agreement.
It's quite nicely stitched up when you
look closely, and it effectively excludes
all telehealth claiming in the emergency
department environment. That's right ­
currently if the patient is in the emergency
department they cannot be the subject of a
telehealth claim, end of story.
Referring back to the case-study example,
it is irrelevant that the urban medical
specialist has received a valid referral and
is ready on the end of the video. A patient's
location determines what happens next
and, as we have seen, in a public emergency
department the patient cannot have MBS
charges raised against them. The exceptions
are described in business rules G21 and G22,
which create specific exemptions for GPs
who provide emergency medical services
in the emergency departments of small
rural hospitals or other approved facilities.
However, this does not impact or alter
anything else telehealth related.
The correct answer to case-study 2 is
therefore `No'. The specialist cannot claim
a telehealth item and, as a consequence,
neither can the GP. The GP may be able
to claim a consultation (though not a
telehealth consultation) if a specific remote
exemption applies.
LIFE SAVING
When considering the bigger health-funding
picture, a Medicare-claiming avalanche could
certainly result from opening up telehealth
claiming to all state hospital emergency
departments. Yet numerous examples do
spring to mind whereby a specific exemption
would save lives and millions in healthcare
costs, such as this example:
"Patient presents to a remote public
hospital emergency department with
a developing stroke. CT scanning is
required and the clot busting drug TPA, if
administered within four hours of symptom
onset, may be lifesaving. The local GP has
access to a CT scanner at the hospital but
needs specialist support and advice to make
the decision to use TPA safely."
Aren't examples like this why we
introduced telehealth in the first place?
Make no mistake, the federal government
wants clinicians to use telehealth, and
substantial incentives are still available both
for getting on board (currently $3900) and
for each claim.
Here's what a standard physician
consultation currently looks like:
·$128.30­theusual85%rebatefor
item 110
·$64.13­telehealthitem112(50%x
schedule fee for item 110 x 85%)
·$192.43­subtotalpaidovernightif
claimed electronically
·$39­claimincentivepaidquarterly
Total = $231.43
Telehealth is a rational approach to
addressing specialist shortages in rural and
remote Australia. It will boost specialist care
for those living in aged-care facilities, as well
as providing much needed specialist support
for our indigenous population.
It is supported by cash incentives and,
while the claiming can seem complex, it
really boils down to one question ­ where
is the patient?
MEDICAl
BIllING