The federal government is being accused of misleading the public about its rollout of a pilot program to attract more GPs to rural areas, amid calls to "get on" with a permanent nationwide expansion of the model.
The New South Wales minister for regional health, Bronnie Taylor, says she is "disappointed" in a federal decision to expand what's known as the single-employer model for GPs in Tasmania and not NSW, despite her calling for it since late last year.
That model was first piloted in the Murrumbidgee Local Health District in southern New South Wales in 2020, and Ms Taylor said she asked her federal counterpart, Mark Butler, in November to approve more sites in her state.
"To see it rolled out in the smallest state, which is wonderful for Tasmania, but to not have it rolled out in New South Wales when we've done it — we've got rubber on the road, we've actually been running this pilot — it just absolutely beggars belief," she said.
Federal 'disregard' for truth, NSW minister says
The program allows trainee GPs to work in both state-run hospitals and privately run clinics but get paid by a single employer, being the state government or local health district.
It means doctors can move between facilities without losing benefits such as long service and maternity leave, which can be a barrier for GPs to choose to work in rural areas.
The federal government can grant exemptions to allow the model to be used in approved sites.
In early November, Ms Taylor wrote to Mr Butler and requested that four more local health districts in regional New South Wales be granted exemptions.
In response, Mr Butler said the ongoing trials still needed to be evaluated and did not commit to approving more exemptions in New South Wales.
In announcing Tasmania's state-wide trial last week, Mr Butler said at the time that no other state had the level of ambition to make it a state-wide scheme.
"So there will be proposals from the mainland but I'm not sure they will match the ambition that the premier here has put on the table," he said.
Mr Butler also said that a second NSW pilot began in December. However, his office has since clarified that he misspoke and meant to say South Australia.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese also said last week that Tasmania would be "the first government in the country to deliver a program which is [as] innovative [as] here in Tasmania".
Ms Taylor said that was not true, and that she rang the Assistant Minister for Regional Health, Emma McBride, to let her know she was "disappointed" in Mr Butler's comments and "for going out and pretending that this is something that they are starting in Tasmania".
"But that they won't let us have the same mechanism to do in NSW," she said.
"It is that absolute disregard and the absolute not telling the truth that I think is absolutely abhorrent."
Mr Butler's office did not respond to claims that the NSW proposal was overlooked.
In a statement, he said: "The Tasmanian government put forward a well-developed proposal that included their own funding contribution".
Mr Butler said a trial of the model was to be expanded to 10 more sites nationally.
"The NSW state government, along with most other state governments, has been in discussion with the Commonwealth, and those discussions will continue," he said.
GPs needed, not trials: rural doctor
The former president of the Rural Doctors Association of Australia (RDAA) Paul Mara — the man known as the architect of the model — said instead of running more trials the programs should be expanded.
"We need to get on and just do it," Dr Mara said.
"Everything else we've done has cost hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars, and very few of those initiatives have actually borne fruit."
Dr Mara said rural and regional communities were in desperate need of more medical professionals, a problem which could be reduced if more sites across the country could be granted the exemption by the federal government to use the model.
"If the model can deliver for the communities, then we should forget about trials," he said.
"We should just allow those communities to enter into the exemption so that they can be employed by the state, and patients and the practices, or the doctors, would be able to bill under Medicare."
