Thursday 28 January 2010

My School website: now that's a league table in the making


Well, the Rudd Government's comparative assessment of Australian schools (like to like, overall, government vs private) is now available on the website My School for the very first time today.
This is the message currently showing after any attempt to use the Find a School search:
"An error has occurred. Please try your request again at another time."
Nuff said!

First Blog Quote of the Month for 2010



Just as Keneally has exposed the power of the Right's faction bosses in all its bankruptcy, so has Abbott's ascension exposed the bankruptcy represented by the old guard of the Federal Liberals.
No Going Back post in The Piping Shrike post on 23rd January 2010

e-Health: something's rotten in the State of Kevin


"The End User Security Reviews clearly found that there are instances in which particular users may share user credentials (whether they be passwords or tokens) to facilitate their obligation to patient care.
In situations such as a hectic Emergency Department or a large onsite trauma situation, the adherence to business processes which promote unique identification and authentication of users of the HI Service may not be practically possible.
The security controls and awareness levels found in these assessments have been varied."
{NEHTA - HI Service Security and Access Framework 13/11/09 PUBLIC}

The Medicare smart card and national health information database rolls on.
According to the National e-Health Transition Authority this is its board which is facilitating the progress of this giant collection of the nation's most personal information:

David Gonski AC - NEHTA Chair
Australian public figure and businessman.
Dr David Ashbridge
Chief Executive of the Northern Territory Department of Health and Families.
Mark Cormack
ACT Health Chief Executive.
Dr Peter Flett
Director-General of the Department of Health of WA.
Jane Halton
Secretary of the Australian Department of Health and Ageing.
Prof Debora Picone AM
Director-General of NSW Health.
Mick Reid
Former chief of staff for Federal Health Minister Nicola Roxon, now the Director-General of Queensland Health.
David Roberts
Secretary with the Department of Health & Human Services in Tasmania.
Dr Tony Sherbon
Dr Tony Sherbon is the Chief Executive of the South Australian Department of Health.
Fran Thorn
Secretary of the Victorian Department of Human Services.

Notice the complete absence of anyone from a consumer health lobby group in the key positions of importance?
No, the board is full of former bankers, accountants, bureaucrats, and gawd help us, a couple of individuals who helped drive the North Coast Area Health Service into the dismal state it's in today.
It is only in a list of organisations invited to attend the NEHTA Stakeholder Reference Forum that one consumer health group is invited inside the tent.
I imagine it's no coincidence that this single consumer organisation in that 33 strong group is an organisation which is firmly guided by government, receives funding from the Dept. of Health & Aging, was actively engaged in creating a so-called consumer demand for e-health and remains committed to the database scheme regardless of emerging concerns.
Even this feeble form of consumer protection is not participating in each internal working group.

NEHTA's Stakeholder Reference list:
Jurisdictions
ACT Health Department
Department of Health and Ageing
Northern Territory Department of Health and Community Services
NSW Health
Queensland Department of Health
South Australia Department of Health
Tasmanian Department of Health and Community Services
Victorian Department of Human Services
Western Australia Health Department
Industry Associations and Peak Bodies
Aged Care IT Council
Allied Health Professions Organisation (AHPA)
Australian Association of Pathology Practices (AAPP)
Australian Association of Practice Managers (AAPM)
Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in HealthCare (ACSQH)
Australian General Practice Network (AGPN)
Australian Health Insurance Association (AHIA)
Australian Information Industry Association (AIIA)
Australian Medical Association
Australian Medical Association (AMA)
Coalition of National Nursing Organisations (CONNO)
College of Nursing (CON)
Consumers Health Forum (CHF)
HCF Australia
Health Informatics Society of Australia (HISA) and Coalition for e-health
Medical Software Industry Association (MSIA)
National Coalition of Public Pathology (NCOPP)
Pharmacy Guild of Australia
Private Hospital CIO Forum
Private Hospital CIO Group
Royal Australasian College of Physicians (RACP)
Royal Australasian College of Surgeons (RACS)
Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Radiologists (RANZCR)
Royal Australian College of General Practitioners (RACGP)

Wednesday 27 January 2010

Federal election campaign information 2010: Who is funding Australian hospitals?


By now no-one is in doubt that this is an election year across Australia and, if Tony Abbott, Barnaby Joyce, Joe Hockey, Stephen Conroy, Jenny Macklin and Nicola Roxon are any indication, this will be a year filled to the brim with politically motivated misinformation.

Although I (like many others) have come to expect a high degree of doublespeak and obfuscation from those elected to federal and state parliaments, it is not something the electorate should tolerate.

The 2007 federal election campaign demonstrated that NSW North Coast candidates for elected office had not always factored in the possibility that voters would use the Internet to check the 'facts' they presented. At least one of these local candidates had obviously hoped that his face and a soundbite would last longer in voters' minds than the truth - needless to say he was spectacularly unsuccessful in his bid for a parliamentary seat.

Hopefully this year's local candidates will be mindful of that salutary lesson and stick to factual accounts and realisitic promises.

The public hospital system is a constant source of concern and debate on health will likely form part of the election campaigns of all major political parties during the 2010 federal election.
To offset at least some of the inevitable mudslinging, here are excerpts from The state of our public hospitals:June 2009 report (C'wealth Dept of Health & Aging) with regard to beds, funding sources and basic costs.

How many hospitals were there?

At June 2008, Australia had 1,314 hospitals, of which 58 per cent (762) were public.

There were 742 public acute hospitals in Australia, ranging from small remote hospitals with a few beds providing a narrow range of services, to large metropolitan hospitals providing a wide range of specialist services.

How many beds were there?

The number of available beds indicates the availability of hospital services. An available bed is defined as a bed which is immediately available for use by a patient and may include same-day beds, neonatal cots, hospital-in-the-home and overnight beds.

In 2007–08, the total number of available beds nationally was 84,235.
In 2007-08, the number of available public hospital beds was 56,467 (67 per cent). This means there were around 2.5 beds per 1,000 people.
The number of available private hospital beds was 27,768 or about 1.3 beds per 1,000 people.

Who funds hospitals?

Australia spent an estimated $94 billion on all health care in 2006–07 (the latest year for which this figure is available). More than a quarter ($27 billion) was spent on public hospital services. Almost 8 per cent ($7.1 billion) was spent on private hospitals.

The Australian Government funded around 40 per cent of public hospital services expenditure ($10.8 billion) through public hospital funding, rebates for private health insurance, hospital services for veterans and direct expenditure such as payments for blood products, specialised drugs and grants for diagnostic equipment.

State, Territory and Local Governments contributed 53 per cent ($14.3 billion) of public hospital services funding. Private sources contributed 7 per cent ($1.9 billion), these included private health insurance benefits and out-of-pocket payments from patients.

In comparison, more than 70 per cent (nearly $5 billion) of private hospital expenditure came via private health insurers. Of this, over 23 per cent (nearly $1.7 billion) was provided by the Australian Government through health insurance premium rebates and 47 per cent ($3.3 billion) came from premiums paid by contributors and other revenue to insurers. These figures do not include funding provided by the Australian Government through the Medicare Benefits and Pharmaceutical Benefits Schedules or for blood and blood products for patients in private hospitals.

What was the cost of an average patient?

The average cost of a patient treated in a public hospital in 2007–08 was $4,232 (excluding depreciation). This cost covers nursing and medical staff, supplies such as surgical dressings and support services such as meals, cleaning and security.

Salaries for medical and nursing staff represent 50 per cent of admitted patient costs.

Placing those climate change denialists into perspective


Information Is Beautiful attempts to visulise those oft cited numbers used to support anti-global warming claims.


Click on images to enlarge

Tuesday 26 January 2010

26 January 2010 is also a day we celebrate........


.......the courage and resilience of those original Australians, the Aboriginal communities across this nation.

A thought on Australia Day 2010: 'according to local laws, regulations and policies, some search results are not shown'


The Great Rudd screenshot found at The Orstrahyun


据当地法律法规和政策,部分搜索结果未予显示。
According to local laws, regulations and policies, some search results are not shown.

This is the current legend at the bottom of a Google China search result page due to that country's mandatory national Internet censorship.

This is also the information Australians may see at the bottom of a Google Australia, Yahoo! or Bing search result page sometime after Australia Day 2011 if the Rudd Government insists on censoring the Australian Internet.

The Scot and A Currency Lad battle it out over Teh Republic


There is nothing like a uninformed argument over constitutional monarchy versus republic and it was played out again in the letters column of The Daily Examiner on 23 January 2010 between a Scots-born Aussie letter writer and a Currency Lad deputy editor.
Yawn..............

The crown

SUBJECT: Throwing in the crown. I do not think that the editorial by Mr Carroll in the DEX edition of January 20 served his newspaper well. A referendum on the subject of Australia becoming a republic was held just a few years ago. The case for a republic was led by Malcolm Turnbull and failed at the ballot box. I wonder if Mr Carroll seriously considered why this should be.
Was he aware that the most stable countries in the world are constitutional monarchies and that most of the world's refugees are escaping from republics controlled by despots and the like.
A lot of those people have found sanctuary in this country and many more wish they were here.
Leave the subject alone Mr Carroll. It will resolve itself in time and is deserving of more than your immature and vain comments in the editor's column.

THOMAS MACINDOE, Yamba.

EDITOR'S NOTE: The referendum was held more than 10 years ago, and not 'a few' as you suggest in your missive. Times have changed, Thomas. Yes, the case for a republic was led ineptly - by Malcolm Turnbull. The republicans were divided over the proposed republican model - and the rest, as they say, is history. As most would agree, the referendum should never have been about the proposed model. Thomas, are you seriously suggesting Australia would descend into anarchy without the guiding influence of Queen Elizabeth? Rot. -Adam Carroll.

Monday 25 January 2010

The Iraq Inquiry: so what did the then Australian PM John Howard know and when did he know it?


The Brown Labor Government has convened an inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the unlawful invasion of Iraq by Britain (as part the Coalition of the Willing) and lack of evidence supporting the reasons given for going to war.

This coalition included Australia, but thus far former Prime Minister John Howard and his Cabinet are escaping scrutiny at home, with the exception of an October 2003 censure motion passed by the Senate.

Perhaps the Chicot-led inquiry (which is still conducting public hearings through 2010) will give some indication as to Howard's role in staging the invasion, given he was so publicly proud of this role and his association with then British Prime Minister Tony Blair and U.S. President George W. Bush on 28 March 2003:

Howard of course picked up the ball and enthusiastically ran with it without too much urging as he had earlier told the National Press Club on 13 March 2003:

I did speak to him [President GW Bush] yesterday. He didn't ask me to lobby anyone, but if you want to know, I have already spoken to a number of countries and I hope to speak to others. I had a conversation with President Musharraf of Pakistan last week. I'm pleased to say that part of the conversation was an indulgence by both of us in our common love of a particular sport. And I spoke two nights ago to President Fox of Mexico, and I hope to speak to one or two other leaders over the course of the next day or so. But I have not been asked to lobby by President Bush. I have not been asked to lobby by Tony Blair. There are somethings that I can usefully do, and I'm doing them, but we haven't been sent a list of countries to lobby. It doesn't work that way, whatever may be the view.......
In the end, all of these things involve questions of judgement. We're not talking about proving to the, beyond reasonable doubt, to the satisfaction of a jury at the Central Criminal Court in Darlinghurst, if you'll excuse my Sydney origins, I mean if you wait for that kind of proof, you know, it's virtually Pearl Harbour. You've got to make judgements, and judgements are made and I have given you the judgement of the [inaudible] and I've given you our judgement. I mean, people are saying well, you know, where is the further proof? I mean, what I am saying is you have Iraq with weapons of mass destruction, Iraq's terrible track record, refusing to disarm, the world in effect buckles at the knees and doesn't disarm Iraq....
Iraq is demonstrably, to use my language, a rogue state. If we don't make sure that Iraq is disarmed, that of itself will encourage other rogue states to acquire and develop weapons of mass destruction....

Of course the British inquiry may never reveal any information on the part Howard played, as it is well within the realms of possibility that as soon as this inquiry was mooted the Australian Government made representations to the effect that all mention of our involvement should be kept to a minimum during proceedings. The Rudd Government would not enjoy talk of war criminals and national culpability in an election year, given its current tacit support of the War on Terror.

From The Iraq Inquiry website:

The Prime Minister announced on 15 June 2009 that an Inquiry would be conducted to identify lessons that can be learned from the Iraq conflict. The Iraq Inquiry was officially launched on 30 July 2009. At the launch the Chair of the Inquiry, Sir John Chilcot, set out the Inquiry's Terms of Reference:
"Our terms of reference are very broad, but the essential points, as set out by the Prime Minister and agreed by the House of Commons, are that this is an Inquiry by a committee of Privy Counsellors. It will consider the period from the summer of 2001 to the end of July 2009, embracing the run-up to the conflict in Iraq, the military action and its aftermath. We will therefore be considering the UK's involvement in Iraq, including the way decisions were made and actions taken, to establish, as accurately as possible, what happened and to identify the lessons that can be learned. Those lessons will help ensure that, if we face similar situations in future, the government of the day is best equipped to respond to those situations in the most effective manner in the best interests of the country."
The Inquiry committee members are Sir John Chilcot (Chairman), Sir Lawrence Freedman, Sir Martin Gilbert, Sir Roderic Lyne and Baroness Usha Prashar.
The Inquiry will take evidence over a number of months, with as many hearings as possible held in public. Hearings will begin in the autumn and continue into the New Year. A report of the Inquiry's findings will be published at the end of this process, but as the Inquiry has such a complex task ahead of it the report is unlikely to be ready for publication before summer 2010. The Inquiry committee intends to include in the report all but the most sensitive information essential to our national security. The report will then be debated in Parliament.

So far over sixty witnesses have been heard in sitting days spread over seven weeks. Evidence presented so far is posted on the website as transcript or video.