|please click on picture to enlarge|
"Roadblocks frustrating women's right to choose a range of birthing arrangements needs clearing." ... "It is time governments across Australia joined together to enable midwives to properly do their work."
The Senate motion focused on the ROADBLOCK of obstruction midwives face in seeking access to hospitals, enabling us to properly do our work, attending women through the labour and birth of their babies, in addition to pre- and postnatal services.
Another ROADBLOCK that midwives face is the veto given to doctors through the requirement that a signed collaborative arrangement be made to enable women to claim Medicare rebate on the fees of midwives who are participating in Medicare.
Here's an actual scenario:
Ms A is pregnant with her first baby, and has been seen by local GP/Obs/Womens Health Dr B. Ms A then decides she would like to be in the care of a midwife who will attend her privately in labour. Ms A is undecided as to whether she wants to give birth at hospital or at home. It's all very new to her!
Ms A visits Midwife C, who agrees to the booking, and advises her about a collaborative arrangement. Ms A visits Dr B, with a letter from Midwife C explaining the collaborative arrangement requirements of Medicare, and requesting a referral for antenatal and postnatal midwifery services. (and that's where it gets interesting)
Dr B's response, in writing, is:
"Unfortunately we [Dr B and Midwife C] have neither met nor previously worked together professionally and I have no knowledge of your practice, your approach to patient care, and your professional experience. Clearly you will understand that I am unable to participate in a collaborative arrangement unless I am completely confident that Ms A will be provided with the best standard of practice.A first reading of this letter might lead one to believe that the doctor is acting with integrity. However, if this doctor’s requests were followed by Midwife C it would set up another tier of regulation, and another tier of responsibility on the part of the doctor. A midwife who has achieved eligibility for Medicare has undergone a rigorous application process which includes extensive professional monitoring. The midwife's registration can be checked on the public register, and there would be no point in complying with the collaborative arrangement rules if the midwife did not actually have current participation in Medicare.
"A clear written agreement between patient, nurse practitioner [this is the first mention of a nurse practitioner] and the nominated medical practitioner is essential to ensure that there is clear delineation of roles and responsibility, to avoid misunderstanding and to ensure the best patient outcome.
"In summary in order to collaborate with a midwife on the antenatal/postnatal care of a patient I need a copy of current registration and indemnity insurance, schedule of visits planned and routine investigations to be ordered and protocol for sharing records/results/referrals/transfer, prescribing arrangements, protocols for following up abnormalities and plans for communication/consultation with named medical practitioner including where and how these would occur and remuneration arrangements. ..."
When GPs write referrals to psychologists, or dentists, or other ‘allied health’ funded under Medicare’s extended care arrangements, do they ask for a similar level of disclosure? I doubt it.
The closing phrase in the quote from Dr B "and remuneration arrangements" suggests there might be something else on her mind -- $$. After all, why would a doctor whose livelihood is partially reliant on women, such as Ms A, want to refer Ms A to a midwife? Conflict of interest? Undoubtedly.
This letter demonstrates the unworkability of the collaborative arrangement ROADBLOCK as it stands. The legislation attached to the government's maternity reforms is in and of itself preventing midwives from properly doing their work.
This is the opinion of the writer. Your comments are welcome.