Visiting The Cedars*

She greets me impassively from her chair in the corner. The lights are on; the sunlight streams in.  As usual, she smiles slightly – rather knowingly – as we kiss.*

Having been waylaid in the corridor by two gloved-up care workers on their morning round, I know she has been difficult. She is in her PJs. The workers see me as an ally in their cause and come back shortly for another go at getting her dressed.

I withdraw. Her belligerent cries are sharp and clear despite the closed door between us. They think I’m a son, although careful scrutiny of the images on the wall might disabuse them of that.

When I am readmitted she is unwillingly but smartly dressed. I chide her for fighting. She responds that only Lorita knows how to dress her properly, and she’s not on today.

One of the worst times was when I had withdrawn and heard her deeply-sourced anger about not being addressed in English. “Talk to me in English! Speak English,” she shouts.

I ask whether she would like some of the new book. She replies with an over-firm yes – in which I hear an echo of the frustration and anger so recently vented to the care workers who aren’t Lorita.

“Remind me what has happened so far.” Just to check.

“It’s very dense,” she responds, “and difficult to explain”.

“Well remember: there’s this detective from Melbourne who has returned to his hometown for a funeral of three members of one local family who have been murdered. And the father involved was a friend of the detective.”

“That’s right,” she concurs.

I am conscious of a newish symptom of my own condition: an inability to read slowly, and the consequent difficulty of providing meaning for a listener from page after page of dialogue in which one speaker may not be distinguished from another, unless one employs differential accents and sustained acting.

But she says it’s clear – just very dense.

We break off for a cup of tea – one for her and one for me: a mug half-full in case it spills, with little heat, plenty of milk and not much tea. Plus two sweet biscuits.

She takes up one of the crosswords, all of which are carefully folded down to the size of the puzzle alone from a broadsheet newspaper. Rather unusually, she keeps the pen herself and does the scribing. This is a Quick, meaning that essentially it’s a search for synonyms.

But just as for a Cryptic, for the Quick there is a code or language – not so much a language as a vocabulary. She has been speaking this language for many years and still displays a great facility for it. The clue is ‘Robust’. For a beginner the answer might be ‘vigorous’, or ‘sturdy’, or ‘tough’, or ‘powerful’, or ‘muscular’, or ‘strapping’, or ‘burly’.  But for those experienced with this language it has to be ‘strong’. Robust is always Strong.

Then there is Lees (‘Sediment from making wine’), Are (Unit of area), ‘Woman’s dress in Tyrolean style’,** and ‘Canopy over four-poster bed’***.

And so we complete the puzzle in good time, despite her sometimes being flummoxed by a transcription error caused by confusing Across and Down clues.

She has this practice of writing ‘QED’ next to the completed article when we’ve finished.

This relationship is based on having worked with both herself and her husband. An investment of 34 years which, for me, is now yielding unanticipated rewards. The quiet times, the silences are important. Shared with mutual confidence. Sometimes we both snooze.

Her attention is drawn to the window, through which the winter sun shines.

Angrily again: “Be quiet! Quiet! Shut up!! Those birds are driving me mad today” – as if to acknowledge the variety of her mood from moment to moment. And maybe as a kind of Sorry to Lorita’s co-workers.

The brightly coloured rosellas continue their flutter and chatter in the pen outside her window below.

Sharing time with her feels valuable. I wonder which parts of this complex system that is friend, family, artist, critic are broken. Mobility is limited but language and hearing are acute. The thread of thought and conversation is elusive.

It’s as if the individual parts of the system are fine but the connections between them are in poor repair.

She will walk the corridor for me, but not for the duty physio. I’ve reminded him that her hearing is acute but he still bellows his questions and encouragement. It’s as if her hearing is still governed by the perfect pitch for which she was infamous. She interprets my mumbling better than most.

I tread the corridor with her, slow steps to accompany the walking frame, both of us bent, stiff and slow.

We return to the sunlit corner. Her unused bed throbs at the selected frequency, massaging cold sheets.

We have actually had that first chapter twice already. And I’m wondering what happens next to the detective from Melbourne. I’m sure he will solve the puzzle. QED.

*For the  sake of confidentiality everything in this piece has been changed – except its emotional content.

**Dirndl

***Tester

Follow 2019 TdF without losing sleep

SBS again gave TV viewers great access to the Tour de France: 3,366kms in 21 stages;  6-28 July 2019.  The winner was Egan Bernal – the first Colombian and the youngest winner since 1909.

Tadryn was too busy to watch the TdF this year and wondered if I would write a synopsis. Having been busy watching the cricket World Cup, and the women’s soccer World Cup, and Wimbledon – not to mention weekly matches of the Canberra Raiders and Sydney Swans, – I tried not to watch it myself. But the temptation was too great. So I did. Lots.

 

It was on SBS. In my view the commercial opportunities it offered the broadcaster meant that, this year, there was such a proliferation of ads, marketing linkages, SBS cross-promotions related to it and ancillary activities that, as a piece of TV production, it was sometimes rather irritating. My recollection – perhaps misty-eyed and fond – is that in the old days it used to be a brief introduction by Mike Tomalaris, then 20 minutes to air from Matt Keenan, before settling in for the main course which was four hours with the incomparable Phil Liggett and Paul Sherwen.

Through an interview with a very subdued Phil Liggett, casual observers of the sport like me learned that Paul Sherwen had died of heart failure aged 62. There would be no more, then, of the gentle and expert information provided by Sherwen, with near-perfect French intonation and accent, about the chateaux, forts and natural wonders of the French countryside that passed beneath the aerial cameras in oh so perfectly-timed appearances with the peloton.

Certainly the new team of Matt Keenan and Robbie McEwen grew on me and provided plenty of information, expertise and theatre. For someone so experienced in the job, Mike Tomalaris seemed occasionally to be unsettled or perhaps just poorly produced: he sometimes seemed unsure of what was coming next or its timing or of his lines. Many of his pieces to camera were done jointly with ‘Macca’, who spoke well and pleasantly, sometimes giving the opportunity for Mike to catch up with the program’s live schedule

This year’s was the 106th edition of  The Tour. It started on 6 July in Brussels with 176 riders in 22 teams. One of the first things one notices year-on-year is the rapid turnover in the names of the teams. Some of this year’s were familiar to me, like Movistar, AG2R, Lotto-Sudal, Astana, Quick-Step and Dimension Data, but I have no idea of their nationality or commercial basis.

There is no more Sky, with that enormously well-funded team now working for Ineos. It strikes me as quite odd that, given the amount of money spent at the Tour by Ineos – which I assume is a brand of some sort – at no stage during the 21 days did I hear mention of what Ineos is or does; and the same applies for the other brands.

I came to the start line with some obvious special interests. Richie Porte, from Tasmania, was the GC rider for Trek-Segafredo. The Australian team, now called Mitchelton-Scott (still sponsored by Gerry Ryan who I’m told is a lovely man) included the two Yates twins from Manchester, with Simon Y. being the GC candidate. Then there was Geraint Thomas, last year’s winner (“overweight at the start of the 2019 season”) and, following Chris Froome’s dreadful crash a couple of weeks out from the Tour, now surely categorically GC leader for Ineos. (At that stage I knew nothing of Egan Bernal.) There was also the sprinter Michael Matthews (‘Bling’) whose dad is a butcher in Canberra.

I had seen some of the precursors to the Tour, such as Paris-Roubaix, and watched some of this year’s Giro, in which Richard Carapaz, Vincenzo Nibali and Primoz Roglic finished one, two and three. (Paris-Roubaix is The Hell of The North: 257 kilometres that includes 29 cobbled sectors (pavé) spread across 54.5 kilometres. Winning time: a tick under 6 hours!!)

Favourites for the General Classification (GC) included Romain Bardet (second in 2016 and third in 2017) and Thibaut Pinot (both carrying the deadweight of the expectations of France, which last won it in 1985!), Jakob Fuglsang, Steven Kruijswijk, Mikel Landa (fourth overall when riding one year for Froome), Nibali and Nairo Quintana. One of my personal favourites is Movistar’s Alejandro Valverde (39 years) – a sort of Marcus Trescothick of the cycling classics. Tom Dumoulin, second last year, was out injured and Cav wasn’t picked by his team (twitch muscles must have deteriorated). Peter Sagan was saddling up to win the green jersey for a record seventh time. (Robbie won it three times.)

By the time I was paying proper attention there had been couple of bunch sprints, with young Australian Caleb Ewan in the first three in both but not having won a cigar. The commentators were excited by Stage 1 in which Mike Teunissen was in the lead-out train for Dylan Groenewegen. When the latter crashed with 2km to go, Teunissen was free to go for broke – and he did, and he won.

Julian Alaphilippe – apparently known to his growing number of French fans as Lulu – won the third stage and the yellow jersey with a solo attack off the front of a breakaway. He lost the jersey next day but then won it back and, with his popularity growing as his wings were sprouting, retained it right up until stage 19. Most unexpected was his victory in the individual TT over much more fancied specialists – attesting, we were again told, to the magic effect of having yellow on one’s back.

The first significant impact on leading GC contenders was on stage 6 when Nibali,  Porte and Bardet all lost time. One felt sorry for Richie who, when interviewed regularly of a morning by the SBS crew, had to remain positive and matter-of-fact and uncomplaining – which he did with considerable good grace.

Stage 8, which had 4000m of elevation gain, saw Thomas De Gendt staying off the front for what was a very popular win. The next day saw Daryl Impey win the first of four stages for Mitchelton-Scott. One thought how both Phil Liggett and Paul Sherwen, with their own African connections, would have enjoyed Impey’s success.

Stage 10 was an example of how a crosswind on an apparently easy (!!) stage can have a major effect. With 30kms to go splits appeared in the peloton and Team Ineos, presumably because they were better organised or more alert or in better communication, started riding hard to build their advantage. Those who were caught out and lost chunks of time included Pinot, Porte, Rigoberto Uran, Fuglsang and Landa. In terms of the GC podium, their goose was cooked after this Stage. Those who prospered as a result of this day included Geraint Thomas, Egan Bernal, Bardet and Alaphilippe – who continued to confound all doubters by retaining the yellow jersey for fourteen days.

By this time Peter Sagan was quite a way ahead of Michael Matthews in the sprinters’ green jersey competition.

Stage 11 saw the breakaway caught with 5 km to go, before Caleb Ewan finally won his first sprint. Apparently he was nominated to ride the Tour for Mitchelton-Scott in 2018 but was omitted at the last minute; thus his transfer to Lotto-Soudal as the Team’s nominated (and looked-after) sprinter.

The 12th stage was the first in the Pyrenees. Simon Yates, as if making up for his brother’s slide away from GC success, won after a long breakaway by a big group. It was at a feeding station in this Stage that Rohan Dennis mysteriously abandoned – the day before the individual TT for which (as World Champion) he was favourite.

That TT was a standout triumph for LuLu, not fancied as a time triallist, with Geraint Thomas second at 14 seconds down. During the TT there was an awful crash when Wout van Aert got too close to a barrier and ripped his leg muscles open. Horrible to see.

Stage 14 was the one in which Thomas lost some time to his team-mate Bernal. By this time casual followers of the sport like me had heard enough about him from commentators to understand what a terrific young talent he is. In the lead-up to the Tour he won three World Tour one-week races: the Amgen Tour of California, Paris-Nice, and the Tour de Suisse.

Meanwhile, the French audience (nation, probably) were getting revved up by the fact that Alaphilippe was exceeding all expectations, giving rise to the possibility, still unlikely, that he could do well enough in the Alps to win overall. But what seemed more likely was that Pinot would keep rising in the GC rankings and, as a tried and tested climber, prevail overall for a French triumph in Paris.

This, almost unbearably for any viewer, never mind for the French, was of course the making of tragic events four days later. On the second day in the Pyrenees Pinot won and on the third he finished second to Simon Yates. This put Pinot in fourth spot overall. Caleb Ewan won the bunch sprint on the transitional Stage to the Alps, perhaps enjoying that day’s Bowral-like heatwave. Thomas crashed again, and Fuglsang crashed and had to abandon. At this point Bardet, the other main French GC hope, who had a particularly bad day on Stage 14 and dropped out of contention for a GC podium spot, was eleventh in the King of the Mountains.

Trentin won the second transitional stage, making it four for Australia’s Mitchelton-Scott team. Luke Rowe, Geraint’s Welsh buddy and Ineos domestique, had a bit of argy-bargy with Tony Martin and both were expelled from the race. All we saw on the TV was a brief coming-together but apparently there was more we didn’t see which justified what many felt was a harsh decision.

And so to the Alps. Could Alaphilippe possibly hang on? Would Pinot continue his charge to the top? The answers were ‘No’ and ‘No’.

Alaphilippe seemed to be cooked on one of the climbs in Stage 18 and it was now obviously a qestion of whether he could keep a spot on the podium. Everone hoped he would. Nairo Quintana, Movistar’s leader, had been under-performing and was in effect criticised by his team-mates for lack of condition.  However he won Stage 18, the first in the Alps. Bernal gained a small amount of time on other GC favourites. Speculation mounted about whether Thomas would ride for him over the next two days. He did.

Early on in Stage 19 it became clear that Pinot was done for. The French TV producer gave all of us looking on plenty of vision of Pinot in pain, Pinot being distanced, Pinot in tears and being comforted by team-mates while still slowly climbing, and then, finally, Pinot climbing into the team car.

With one descent and then one final climb to go, Bernal was leading the stage with Simon Yates second. Because he is such a good descender, the question was how much time would Alaphilippe make up on the Stage leaders. I think almost everyone watching thought that he would get back seconds on the descent but lose minutes on the final climb. But we’ll never know; way down ahead of the dry descent the leaders were on there was a sudden mud-slide, and snow and ice on the road, and a snowplough pushing aside water and ice. The race was ‘neutralised’ with everone given the time they had at the top of the previous climb. The yellow jersey passed to Bernal.

The next Stage was also shortened because of the weather and road conditions. The ‘ageless’ and popular Vincenzo Nibali won off the front. The GC contenders followed him together close behind, with Alaphilippe being dropped again and slipping from second overall to fifth.

All was not lost however for the French: by being close to the front on several of the scored climbs in the Alps, Romain Bardet came from way back to win the Polka Dot jersey. Caleb Ewan made it three with his sprint win on the Champs-Élysées.

Egan Bernal, 22-year-old Colombian, became the youngest winner since 1909, the first Latin American winner ever, and the fifth rider to win both the general and young rider classifications in the same year.

Thomas was second overall, with Kruijswijk third. Sagan won a record seventh points classification,  with Ewan second. Movistar won the team classification (the best three riders per team on each stage). Julian Alaphilippe won the overall super-combativity award. How could he not.

As usual, the scenery was inspirational (“must go see it again”.) The level of human endeavour still astounds; average speeds on bumpy Stages of over 45 kph; someone did 100kph somewhere along the way. The teamwork – now that one understands it better – is rich in sporting meaning and poignancy (the poor sprinter who couldn’t keep on the wheel of his last lead-out rider coming along by the Place de la Concorde!). It is of course very commercial and TV viewers pay some of the price. But it is so worth staying up and around for!

Vive le Tour indeed!

 

Before a ball is bowled – 1 August 2019

Let me try my hand at cricket prognostication.

I think it’s gonna be a low scoring series with the Duke dominating the Gray-Nicolls. There will not be a single score of over 400 but two innings scores of less than 150. (Curiously, since they will win the series, both from England.) The only batsman to score over 400 runs in the series will be Steve Smith. Jimmy Anderson will break down before the beginning of the third test, enabling Jofra Archer to begin a stellar test career.

There will be no draws unless significant time (over a full day) is lost to rain. The overall standard of fielding seen in the series will be deemed the best ever: some spectacular catches and miraculous run-outs. The bowling is deemed pretty good but the batting is disappointing on all fronts. The authorities are blamed along with the custodians of the pitches for making it such a low scoring series. Taunton, where it’s like batting on a road, comes into the frame as a potential test wicket.

The result will be 4-1 to England. Chris Woakes will continue his good form with bat and ball, and will end up being the leading wicket taker. The bowling surprise will be James Pattinson – the only quick to play for Australia in all five tests. Nathan Lyon will not prosper as he has done in other series over the past five years. Cummins and Hazlewood will bowl tightly and without much luck. Mitchell Starc will have just one good test, in which he takes nine wickets.

England’s top order continues to struggle with only two opening stands of 120+ in the series. Joe Root is the leading run scorer in England’s top five, with Stokes, Buttler, Woakes and Moeen contributing a large proportion of England’s totals.

Tim Paine will prove to be a good leader and a very nice person but will have a disappointing series with both bat and gloves. People will ask, with great respect, what might have been had Steve Smith remained captain and Matthew Wade keeper. We will all come to see at the end of the series that Steve Smith has developed quite his own batting style including some strokes previously uncategorised. He proves to be difficult to get out and is not out in three of the eight innings completed by Australia.

Within six months no one can remember who opened the batting for England twice in the series.

A CD of the barmy Army’s best songs is released in September and goes to the top 10 in the charts. The umpiring is of a consistently high standard but, more than once, a test match turns on the use or abuse made of the review system.

David Warner is a disappointment for those who expect so much of him in terms of long innings at high speeds of scoring. Usman Khawaja loses form and/or becomes injured again and is replaced at three by Travis Head, who firms up as a long-term middle order batting asset. England win because Woakes, Broad, Anderson, Archer and Moeen all have better strike rates than all of the Australians except for Pattinson. Joe Root and Ben Stokes are honoured in the Queen’s Birthday list.

Somerset fail by four points to win the first division county championship. (Boo.) Marcus Trescothick retires. Despite his hamstring and back problems, Jimmy Anderson signs up for another couple of years. In five years’ time he is knighted.

Boris’s Brexit blindness

Brexit (/'breksit, breqzit/;  a portmanteau of 'British' and 'exit') is the withdrawal of the United Kingdom (UK) from the European Union (EU). Following a referendum held on 23 June 2016 in which 51.9 percent of those voting supported leaving the EU, the Government invoked Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union, starting a two-year process which was due to conclude with the UK's exit on 29 March 2019—a deadline that has been extended to 31 October 2019. [From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia]

It’s none of my business. But I have a strong emotional attachment to something called the United Kingdom.

Why on earth would Boris Johnson commit to leaving the European Union on October 31 – “No ifs, no buts” – on the basis of a decision made by the people over three years ago?

Such a dogmatic approach to an outdated electoral outcome makes no sense.

Tying oneself to yesterday’s facts is neither admirable nor principled; it is ideological.

Keynes may or may not have said “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?”. Irrespective of the accuracy of this famous attribution, it’s a fine and robust idea. Matters of fact should be determined by the best information. And the best information must include the most recent.

Surely ‘the statute of limitations’ has been reached for a decision made over three years ago? For goodness sake: in Australia, three years is longer than the average term of an elected parliament! There’s no way we would have our Parliament peopled by candidates who were successful in the election before last.

Rory Stewart, who flared brightly and briefly in the Conservative party firmament in recent months, made a case for not having a second referendum. He pointed out that, should the decision be reversed, the Leave forces would take to the streets immediately and there would be no end to the schism.

But even if that were the case, at least the divisiveness would be based on up-to-date information! And there might be every chance that the case to remain in the EU would be better than 51.9%. The demographics have shifted in favour of the remain vote. There is now much greater clarity about what leaving means in terms of trade and jobs, and what the practical difficulties are.

And surely a significant proportion of those who voted leave would agree that they did not vote for the uncertainty and bedlam of the last three years?

There are only three options: to leave subject to the agreement reached with the EU; to leave with no agreement; or to call the whole thing off. Maybe those could be the choices in a second referendum.

Respecting the primacy of the people and their vote is the essence of democracy. But it is false logic and dysfunctional to be tied to historical decisions of the people which, in all probability, no longer hold.

And there is one way to be absolutely sure. Ask them again.

Post script: in an interview with James O'Brien, and asked whether he thinks Boris Johnson is "dangerous", Rory Stewart paused for 11 seconds before answering. There was an earlier and revealing discussion between the two on O'Brien's LBC radio show.

The deluge and drought of Australia’s health reform cycle

Note: this piece was published in Croakey on 23 July 2019. My thanks to Melissa Sweet and to Amy Coopes, who edited the piece for Croakey.

Serious proposals for redesign of the structure and financing of Australia’s health system have had a chequered history. The level of enthusiasm for discussing radical reform seems to fluctuate like the water level in Lake Eyre, which turns into an oasis only every eight years or so on average.

Currently the health reform discussion cycle is in its barren phase. But ten years ago this week it was in full flood. On 27 July 2009 Prime Minister Kevin Rudd released the final report of the National Health and Hospitals Reform Commission (NHHRC).

The Commission was chaired by Christine Bennett. Its final report, entitled A Healthier Future for all Australians, offered hope of better times to come, including for rural health.

In a section headed Facing Inequities it proposed a series of initiatives for remote and rural health, on matters including equitable and flexible funding, innovative workforce models, telehealth, patient travel support, and expansion of specialist outreach services (e.g. pharmacy and dental/oral services). That same section also had proposals for better Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health, such as improving the affordability of fresh food in remote communities.

But almost certainly the most important of its 123 proposals, because of their centrality, were the recommendations on health system governance: who should manage the health system and how.

Unwieldy and complex

 

The report recommended that Australia develop a single health system, governed by the Federal Government.

Steps to achieving this were to include a Healthy Australia Accord to agree on the reform framework; the progressive takeover of funding of public hospitals by the Federal Government; and the possible implementation of a health funding model, called Medicare Select, under which public and private health plans would compete, allowing consumers to exercise choice and preference.

The problems of the current health system governance arrangements were then and are still well known. The split between the Federal Government and the States/Territories leads to fragmentation of service delivery, cost-shifting, a lack of accountability, and enormous complexity for users of the system.

Currently there are a number of high-level matters causing concern that are related to the system’s governance. They include uncertainty and complexity associated with public hospital funding; increasing out-of-pocket costs incurred by patients; and questions about the place in the system and the purpose of private health insurance.

Also still on the agenda are unresolved access and workforce issues which compromise the universality of Australia’s health system, most notably for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and those who live in more remote areas.

However the central reform issue relating to governance of the health system is not currently being debated.

The pivotal fact around which these current concerns revolve is the mixed (public/private) nature of the health system. Ten years ago the NHHRC report provided a serious challenge to the prevailing assumption that the best health system is one which has a mix of private and public enterprise.

Writing five years after the Commission’s report was presented to government, Christine Bennett renewed her faith in the following terms:

Moving to a single national public funder model with a national health authority responsible to the Council of Australian Governments could provide a system-wide approach that builds on the strengths of a national funder and purchaser.

This is not to say that the federal government would be the sole funder (federal and state contributions could be pooled), nor that the federal government would manage the public hospital system (state governments would continue to operate public hospitals with transparent activity-based funding, and private hospitals could add competition for funding of public patient care).

The independent national body could be an active purchaser across the continuum of services, building on the platform of activity-based funding and exploring more innovative purchasing over time. In the meantime, we could further explore ‘Medicare Select’, as recommended by the Commission, where greater consumer choice, competition and innovation in purchasing may also enable better use of our mixed system of public and private financing and provision.”

Bennett also reiterated the NHHRC’s strong belief about the need to do more for illness prevention, and the critical need for national leadership:

"We need to get more serious about prevention. As with tobacco products, a package of actions is required — from education, social marketing and behavioural change through to regulation and taxation measures. It requires time, investment and the involvement and collaboration of many parts of government, the health system and society. It must be evidence-led where possible, and new initiatives must be actively evaluated.

It is unacceptable to walk away from personal and shared responsibility. We should each have the starring role in our own health and health care decisions. However, inequities mean we do not all have the same life experiences and opportunities. Health literacy, educational attainment, employment, stable housing and many other factors may affect our capacity to make healthy choices. If we are serious about the good health of Australians, we must be serious about making healthy choices easier and fairly available.

In addition to health service reform, there is a serious need for a national action plan that crosses governments and portfolios to address factors in the social environment that affect health status.

Health needs to be a live issue on the national agenda. While there has been some valuable progress, we have not yet resolved the structural flaws in funding and governance that fragment health care delivery in Australia. We have focused largely on public health financing and public hospitals but have not yet considered innovative approaches, such as Medicare Select, to better use the private sector.

We have a long way yet to go on our reform journey, and we need political leadership and strong engagement with the health sector and community as we continue to move towards a sustainable, high-quality and responsive health system for all Australians.”

We need a public debate, made simple enough to be accessible to all of us, about why Australia persists with a mixed system.

Many of the deficiencies of our health system, and much of its complexity, exist only because it is a mixed system. There is duplication and overlap, making it hard to ensure a safe, smooth passage for the patient through an episode of care. There is cost and blame shifting. There are divided responsibilities for workforce planning.

With a unitary public system it would be simpler to identify and fill gaps in services and access; and it would be easier to establish the desirable level of national expenditure on health. In the current situation people are unable to understand how the financing arrangements work.

From deluge to drought

Ten years ago the enthusiasm for radical reorganisation of Australia’s health system dried up for a number of reasons before much was achieved.

Kevin Rudd and then Julia Gillard had to focus on the consequences of the global financial crisis, as well as the turmoil within their own political ranks. They were also consumed by the search for a budget surplus and the possibilities of tax reform outlined in the Henry Tax Review.

The COAG meeting promised by Kevin Rudd to focus on health reform was held on 7 December 2009. It was agreed at that meeting “that national health reform would be a central priority for 2010”.

The assertion that the Prime Minister gave Nicola Roxon, his Health Minister, a weekend to plan and manage the transition is perhaps apocryphal. But it is clear that both Kevin Rudd and Tony Abbott (as then-Leader of the Opposition) were at the time enthusiastic about major reforms to the health system.

When the two of them debated health at the National Press Club the former was promising to take health reform to a referendum if the States and Territories failed to back his proposed change, while the latter was talking up abolishing regional health bureaucracies and moving control of hospitals (at least in the most popular states) to local boards.

This was not Tony Abbott’s only excursion into significant structural change in the health system. In his 2009 book Battlelines he said Medicare should fund dental care for every Australian. As it happened this was one of the proposals in the NHHRC’s final report: a Medicare-style scheme — labelled Denticare — for dental treatments.

However the wheel turned and the lake dried up again.

Some ground was gained and some lost. The Australian National Preventive Health Agency, proposed by the NHHRC and established in January 2011, targeted the prevention of obesity, tobacco use and harmful use of alcohol. It was abolished in the 2014-15 Budget.

Health Workforce Australia, established before the NHHRC in 2008 but which it  saw as providing a platform for a national, coordinated approach to health workforce planning, training and innovation, was also abolished in the 2014-15 Budget.

But all is not lost: we still have images of a time when fundamental health system reform was on the agenda and being seriously considered. Those images can remind us of the good times and inspire us to visit the vision splendid again some time in the future:

Health reform does not happen overnight. It takes time and patience, commitment and goodwill from all of us. But we also believe that there is a pressing need for action, and health reform must begin now.” Dr Christine Bennett, Chair, NHHRC, in letter of transmittal to Minister Roxon, 30 June 2009

COAG agreed that long-term health reform was required to deliver better services for patients, more efficient and safer hospitals, more responsive primary healthcare and an increased focus on preventative health.” COAG Communiqué, 7 December 2009

 

On dizziness and cognition in Parkinson’s

Although every case of Parkinson’s is said to be different, there are some general symptomatic states which occur quite commonly. They include dizziness and mild cognitive impairment. This piece will help those affected, either directly or through a friend or relation, to understand the nature of these two symptoms.

Finding the right word

My own written record shows that I have been complaining for at least three years about my inability to make clear to clinicians and friends the nature of one of the main ‘states of upset’ I have been experiencing.

In November 2016, in the record of an appointment with one of my attending health professionals, I wrote:

I asserted that the matter responsible for the majority of the debilitation I have is what I call my 'undiagnosed condition'. It consists of light-headedness, impaired vision and the need to bend forward and gaze at my knees after even the slightest exercise - but not all the time, just now and then.

I frequently referred uncertainly to the condition as ‘dizziness’ with no confidence that the word connotes the reality. A report I wrote on 23 March 2017 for my neurologist included this:

Since mid-January my symptoms have been those normally associated with low blood pressure (BP): dizziness, blurred vision, light-headedness. My normal BP is c.140/80. Several times it has been in the range 90-110/60-70 (seated) and 60-70/45-55 (standing).

The severity of the low BP symptoms varies from time to time and from day-to-day. When the symptoms are more serious, simple acts like walking a few paces, standing at the sink, or hanging a wash on the line become difficult.

Imagine my relief and delight, then, at discovering a webinar online in which one of the expert presenters deals specifically with the issue of Parkinson’s and the dizzy patient. It was held in the lead-up to the World Parkinson’s Congress (WPC), 4-7 June 2019, Kyoto, Japan.

To view the pre-Congress webinars, use the link below. You will need to register but there is no cost.

  • Webinar 1: Non-motor complications and treatment
  • Webinar 2: Surgical advances and infusions
  • Webinar 3: Motor complications and treatment
 View Recording Now

Professor Tim Anderson is one of the speakers in Webinar 1. He holds the Cas Van Der Veer Chair in Parkinson’s and Movement Disorders at the University of Otago, Christchurch, New Zealand.

My thanks to Professor Anderson for expanding for me on a couple of points in his presentation.

The non-motor symptoms of Parkinson’s are less  obvious or visible than motor symptoms such as tremor, troubled gait and freezing. They include symptoms resulting from changes to the autonomic nervous system and psychological complications. The autonomic nervous system controls things such as blood pressure, sweating, and the function of bowels and bladder.

The dizzy patient

Dizziness can of course occur in people who do not have Parkinson’s and on its own and with no other symptoms it does not indicate Parkinson’s. And when it is experienced by people who do have Parkinson’s it may be caused by other conditions such as problems with the inner ear, anaemia or low blood sugar.

But it is clear to me from the details given by Tim Anderson that my particular dizziness is caused by Parkinson’s. He reports on the sort of exchange he has had with some of his Parkinson’s patients, which rings true with me:

Patient: I feel dizzy.

Clinician: What do you mean by dizzy?

Patient: Well I just don't feel right.

Clinician: Can you describe it?

Patient: No I can't really describe it; I just don't feel well.

About half of people with Parkinson’s report some kind of dizziness. For them it is most commonly caused by low blood pressure on standing (symptomatic orthostatic hypotension). When the systolic blood pressure (the first number) falls by 20mm or more of mercury, and/or the diastolic falls by 10mm or more, it is defined as neurogenic orthostatic hypotension. ‘Neurogenic’ means that BP falls on standing and the pulse rate does not increase by at least 15 beats a minute when one stands up. It indicates that blood flow to peripheral areas is affected; the noradrenaline system is deficient.

Another type of dizziness in Parkinson’s is post-prandial hypotension, caused by pooling of blood in the gut circulation causing dizziness within an hour or so of eating.

Tim Anderson provides a number of tips to help people manage the condition. They need to consider the possibility that one of the medications they are taking may be implicated. They should have extra salt and water, and avoid alcohol, caffeine and sugary drinks during the day, and avoid high carbohydrate meals before bedtime.

Exercise is important and for people with orthostatic hypotension exercise done in a seated or supine position may be best: swimming, rowing or cycling. Some relief can be obtained by doing muscle exercises when standing: clenching the buttocks, crossing the legs and standing on tiptoe.

The amount of blood pooling in the lower extremities or abdomen can be reduced by the use of stockings or abdominal binders. And it may be useful to raise the head of the bed up so  that there’s pooling in the legs when the person lies down at night.

Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI)

Another cluster of non-motor symptoms experienced by people with Parkinson’s is given the name Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI). The general case sees patients becoming aware that they are not thinking clearly, they are becoming forgetful and struggling to be decisive. People close to the patient may note that they have lost confidence and seem unable or unwilling to make decisions about family matters. They don’t want to socialise as much as before, and find conversations in large groups of friends difficult.

Having observed such issues as these, the Parkinson’s specialist is likely to dig a little deeper and administer some cognitive assessment tests to establish whether the subject has MCI. A diagnosis of MCI does not necessarily mean that the person will later develop dementia. In fact in some cases later tests may indicate that normal cognition has returned.

If they do have MCI the affected person should do everything in their power to combat it. Exercise is the most important thing – physical activity every day. They should choose exercise they enjoy because that’s the one they’ll stick with.

The same applies to brainteasers. To date it has been difficult to prove scientifically that doing brain exercises (sudoku, crosswords) is efficacious in improving wider cognition in someone with Parkinson’s. But it can be said with confidence that a key to the maintenance of cognitive function is to do as much reading and learning as you can – in particular, challenging the mind to learn new things.

It is also certain that keeping up social contacts and social activity of all kinds is vitally important to preserving general cognitive ability.

So I’ll be round to see you.

 

 

An eerie policy silence has descended

For some of us, the astonishment felt as a result of the Federal Election result has been replaced by a sense that, where policies are concerned, almost everything is now on hold.

Anyone needing a reminder of the generalist and homely agenda that won the day should re-read the Prime Minister’s Press Club address of Thursday 16 May. It is the clearest and most detailed statement of Scott Morrison’s case, with its focus on the silent majority and avoiding risks by avoiding change.

That speech is full of praise for “the honest, decent, humble aspirations of Australians going about their lives”.  It celebrates those who have no time for political activity because “they’re too busy doing the things that matter most to them and frankly build our country and make it stronger every single day”.

If the Prime Minister’s aim was to get politics off the front pages, he has probably succeeded. With virtually nothing on the national agenda, politics and current affairs seem to have become uninteresting. During the election campaign there was a contest of ideas on a number of fronts. They included wages and Newstart; cancer and national health reform; the speed at which the nation’s response to climate change can be improved; coal and renewable energies as parts of the economic base of rural areas; child care; tilting the balance in the taxation system away from people who are reasonably well-off; housing policy; and dental care.

Now all we are left with are questions relating to free speech, including as they relate to the role of the Federal Police, the Israel Folau case, and the potential advantages of a Charter of Rights.

Of course this is an absolutely fundamental issue. And the media and commentators are not yet dealing with the matter –  expounding. exploring, explaining – in a way that will enable us all to be involved.

For example, discussion on last Sunday’s Insiders on ABC TV (Barrie’s last) hinged on whether the legislated changes have gone too far in enabling intrusion of government agencies into people’s private lives. The Labor opposition will presumably adopt the position that many apparently feel and argue that the balance is not yet right. Whistle blowers and journalists are now too exposed; the nation’s security and other agencies are not sufficiently accountable to the public.

These are complex matters and, to date, there has been very little simple explanation of the nature of the recently-legislated changes. The discussion on Insiders started to do this but then the question seemed to become hypothetical when it was revealed that recent AFP raids were legitimised by the provisions of the previous Act, not the new one.

All of us will continue to grapple with understanding of these complex political and ethical issues and how they are codified and managed in Australia. But in the meantime discussions of things such as public housing policy and dental care for older people seem to have disappeared over the far horizon.

It’s as if the Grand Final was played halfway through the season and, now that it is over, there is nothing but a series of dead-rubber fixtures to which only a few tragics will drag themselves each Saturday afternoon as the Winter rolls on. The rest of us have tuned out from the competition and will stay sullenly indoors until a new season begins.

Election 2019: making sense of miracles and Labor’s love lost

One measure of a person’s engagement with Australian politics might be the word they select to describe Scott Morrison’s election victory. Morrison himself has described it as a miracle. Others have called it a debacle. Plenty of others are not much concerned. Some of those at my hockey game on Saturday were not even aware that the campaign was ending; and few of them intended to forego the Canberra Raiders NRL game or the AFL Match of the Day, in favour of the TV election coverage.

 

A friend of mine who had been on the campaign phones during the week reported that more than one person with whom they had spoken said they had already voted but couldn’t remember who it was for. And when I was in the supermarket on Sunday afternoon the nice young man who served me said he hadn’t yet had time to find out the election result.

Being astonished

The word that continually comes to my mind is ‘astonishing’. This is my word of choice because it connotes the chasm between what I had expected and what actually occurred. In my own defence, it was surely impossible to follow current affairs without being affected by the ongoing and underlying picture painted by the polls that the ALP was ahead.

More detailed attention revealed that the Coalition’s electoral challenge was made even tougher by a seat redistribution, that made two Victorian Coalition-held seats notionally-Labor.

Then there was my close observation of the Labor campaign itself – observed, it has to be said, through the lens of partisanship. It would be natural, I assumed, that the voting public would prefer a plan openly focused on an increase in taxation for some of those who could afford it, as a means of providing a range of additional or new government services for those in greater need. Preferred, that is, over the Coalition’s promise to give everyone a tax cut, and otherwise to continue to do what needs to be done “to maintain a strong economy”.

In pursuing tax cuts it is to be hoped that we have learned from the long-term risks and damage of the regular Howard-Costello tax giveaways and, in contrast, Norway’s sovereign wealth fund approach to current largesse. If we do have to proceed with tax cuts, let’s hope we experience just a gentle global zephyr, not strong headwinds.

Naïvely I really did believe that, if the case was clearly made, people would be prepared to pay a small price to provide more preschool education, dental care for pensioners, penalty rates for workers and a more rapid transition to renewable energy.

Among other things, I gave insufficient attention to the impact of a negative perception of the Labor leader’s personality; to the hatred that some people have for unions and union bosses; to the fact that a number of people still do not believe in the science of climate; and to a generalised fear of change.

Having initially been astonished, I am now sifting through the various commentators’ reflections on what has occurred and drawing my own conclusions.

Three reasons why

It is my view that, in the main, Scott Morrison’s victory was founded on his success in making it a presidential campaign, and Labor leader Bill Shorten’s inability to get ahead in that.

In the light of their spectacular inability to predict the election results it would be ironic to give too much credence to polls relating to the status of ‘Preferred Prime Minister’. But we know that Bill Shorten regularly trailed Scott Morrison on that measure. His automatic response to a question about why people seem not to warm to him, when he said “Wait till you meet me,” was one of his best interpersonal moments in the campaign.

Shorten’s televised set pieces suffered because of his seeming lack of a natural sense of theatre, of an awkwardness in vocal patterns and body language, resulting in a manner of presentation that comes across (to me at least) as wooden or contrived.

Everyone says how good he is face-to-face when working a room, and in negotiating between conflicting interest groups. But I and the vast majority of the population have not had the chance to share such time with him.

My suspicion about the importance of his style of presentation  was deepened by Shorten’s interview to camera immediately following the death of former Labor Prime Minister, Bob Hawke. Here was an opportunity for some ringing phrases, some rhetorical leaps and lucid praise delivered with generosity and gravitas. What we got instead was a hesitant interview based on the formula that Australians loved Hawke because he loved them.

The unsatisfactory nature of this immediate response was counterpointed by the four-page media statement Shorten released a little time later:

In Australian history, in Australian politics, there will always be B.H. and A.H: Before Hawke and After Hawke. After Hawke, we were a different country. A kinder, better, bigger and bolder country.”

So the first and foremost reason for Labor’s defeat, in my belief, was the superiority of Scott Morrison’s interpersonal and media style.

Next, in my view, was Labor’s lack of clarity around its level of support for the proposed Adani coal mine.

Adani as a lightning rod for jobs and economic development of regional areas. (Yes we saw that the ALP proposed alternatives for economic development. But still.)

Adani as a constant reminder of the capacity of politics to project the economy and the environment as being mutually exclusive. (Wrong, yes, but powerful.)

Adani as an emblem of the umbridge taken by locals to interference from those ‘down south’ who are not personally or commercially invested in those affairs.

Finally, I believe the third reason for the election result was the real or perceived losses to be borne by some as a result of the ALP’s suite of revenue raising measures, such as rolling back negative gearing and franking credits.

Target size – a small red herring

Commentators in the media have made much of the asserted folly of an opposition going to the polls with a large policy agenda. Comparisons have been made with John Hewson’s Fightback! Package which is thought to have lost the Liberal Party the federal election in 1993.

In my view, the notion that oppositions with large policy targets lose elections is an artefact created by media commentators.

In the lead-up to the 1996 election, which he won, John Howard made a series of headland speeches in which he considered matters such as the role of government, a fair Australia, national identity, what he called “the innate conservatism of the Australian people”, industrial relations, and telecommunications.

It was Howard’s hero Menzies who emphasised the need to pay attention not only to the what is needed but also to the how and when, in order “to persuade a self-governing people to accept and loyally observe” coherent plans for change.

Labor Prime Ministers Whitlam and Hawke both came to power on the back of policy agendas that had been carefully planned over a long time and were successfully sold to – and even provided inspiration to – voters.

Another Labor contender, Kim Beazley, lost in 1998 and then in 2001. On the latter occasion he was thought by some to have failed to develop alternative policies on domestic issues. If he had won the election this could perhaps have contributed to the myth of election-winning small target strategies, but unfortunately he was undone by the need for a bipartisan approach to the 9/11 terrorist attacks and the Tampa affair.

It is hard to make the case that the losing party leaders between 2004 and 2013 (Latham, Howard, Abbott and Rudd) all lost because of the common characteristic of having a broad policy agenda. One must concede, however, that on at least one occasion the obverse was true. Tony Abbott won in 2013 with a target so small as to be regularly rehearsed in three triptyches: “Stop the boats, Axe the tax, Repay the debt”.

Bill Shorten adopted a similar approach in 2016 but lost. He risked becoming known as ‘Invisibill’ because of his small target, small policy strategy. Perhaps he suffered from a triptych deficit.

It is certainly true that the ALP’s agenda for election 2019 included some very complex issues. Most noticeable among these were proposed changes to franking credits and negative gearing. The complexity of these matters exposed the ALP to both real and invented doubts and uncertainties which could always be traded on by political opponents.

While people might not object to proposed policies in a general sense, they are more likely to take a negative view if they believe the policies will impact on their own income and lifestyle. How many were there who, like a very good friend of mine, failed to vote Labor for the first time ever because his family was set to lose income from the changes to the arrangements for franking credits? How many of that number were correctly informed about the potential impact?

Incidentally the debate about whether those new arrangements would have constituted a retirees’ tax or the withdrawal of an unsustainable gift is merely semantics. What should really have mattered is the number, and economic situation, of people who would have been affected. More should have been made of details about the proportion of the refund under current arrangements going to super funds with large balances.

Frequent references to “the top end of town” and to the investor who already has five or six properties and is benefiting from negative gearing were unhelpful to the ALP’s case.

In housing as in other policy areas there is surely a hierarchy of need, starting with the 100,000 people estimated to be sleeping rough each night in Australia. Then there are issues of public housing supply, rentals and rental regulation.

Home ownership is still a vital and worthy aspiration in Australia but given the changes in patterns of settlement, population numbers and commercial realities it can no longer be viewed as holding the same place in Australian society as it did 30 years ago.

A mandate for Government and Opposition

Some of my views about elections and mandates have been put on the agenda elsewhere. A mandate should be neither a straitjacket nor a carte blanche licence to proceed unencumbered with proposed policy actions.

A mandate won or imposed should not preclude a new government from changing its mind on something promised. The belief that politicians and, in particular, Prime Ministers should never ever change their mind is one of the silliest and most damaging characteristics of government in Australia.

On the other hand, it is annoying and illogical for a new government to claim a mandate for a swag of specific issues as if, when people cast their vote, they were aware of and supported every single commitment in a particular Party’s platform.

The situation with the new Morrison Government is quite odd: in the election the Prime Minister promised very little by way of a forward agenda. This makes it even more important for him to engage with the public in explaining and debating new policy proposals that emerge.

The central economic issue of the winning case in the campaign was preservation or improvement of people’s family income – whatever the consequences for the future. Given this fact, there is an overwhelming case to make one of the first new policy proposals of the new government an increase in the rate of Newstart.

 

Not only would this strike a significant blow for economic fairness but it would also provide a significant boost to the economy through an immediate increase in consumer spending, including in regional areas.

It would be a very sad thing – one might say astonishing – if the 800,000 people on Newstart, which has not increased in real terms for 24 years – were trampled over while the rest of us wait for our (early?) tax cut.

As for the new Leader of the Opposition: whoever it may be, she or he has no mandate from the public but an important responsibility. The Westminster system relies on there being an Opposition at all times, not just for the duration of an election campaign.

The Opposition’s duty is to scrutinise the government’s activities in the light of its own beliefs and agenda, and to provide alternative ways and means of doing government business.

As Labor Senator Penny Wong has already observed, the ALP in opposition will continue to advocate for the sort of reform that will have a balance between securing growth and enhancing fairness, which is different from the stance likely to be adopted by a conservative Morrison Government.

 

Election: claims and counter-claims about budget cuts

Out-of-pocket healthcare costs do include travel

Recent considerations of out-of-pocket health care costs have not included the significant and unavoidable extra costs for people living in rural and remote areas of travel and accommodation.

But there is some good news – most recently in the discussion at a Senate  Estimates hearing on Wednesday, 10 April 2019 – the day before the Federal Election was called. That good news is reprinted below.

Neither the Report of the Ministerial Advisory Committee on Out-of-Pocket Costs (November 2018) nor the media commentaries about it included any reference to the words ‘rural’ or ‘transport’. The Committee comprised representatives of nine specialist medical Colleges plus six other people, but no representative of the specific interests of rural and remote people.

The costs of travel and accommodation involved in accessing health  services must be squarely on the agenda, and a dataset which does not include these is very deficient. And it is not just the health sector where it’s an issue. A recent news item on the ABC referred to a Riverland study showing that clients of the NDIS also fail to meet appointments because of travel difficulties and/or costs.

Policy remediation could be through a variety of means:

  • having the Commonwealth re-assume responsibility for patients’ travel and accommodation assistance schemes;
  • having private health insurance providers offer additional products designed specifically to appeal to people in rural and remote areas and to meet their circumstances – including their need to travel and the possibility of significant lost income; and
  • redesigning the system of incentives and penalties relating to families’ decisions about whether or not to take out private health insurance; (the current system of health insurance rebates is another transfer payment from rural to urban populations).

On the first of these, Treasury and Finance would be unlikely to support action to open up another demand-driven program to the Commonwealth. But if one is serious about equivalent access to health services for people everywhere, this has to be considered.

In the meantime, here is some good news about getting the matter firmly onto the political agenda. It might be like turning the Titanic around but if, as a result, the iceberg is avoided it will surely be worth the effort.

From Senate Estimates, Wednesday 10 April 2019

Senator WATT:  In brief, what were the other main findings [of the Ministerial Advisory Committee on out-of-pocket health care costs]?

Professor Brendan Murphy, Chief Medical Officer:  One of the striking findings was the interstate variation. Pretty much nobody in Adelaide has an out-of-pocket cost for surgery. Just about everyone in Sydney and Canberra does, and some of them are very, very high. One of the clear messages was that people who see a surgeon, or a radiation oncology provider, without knowing in advance what they’re going to be charged, are informed of the bill in practice—they feel they can’t extricate themselves from that relationship and get another opinion. So, there was a clear driver in that committee to promote transparency so that people could find out what someone was charging before they actually made the initial appointment.

Senator WATT:  Were there any findings around the costs for people living in regional and remote areas?

Prof. Murphy:  Again at the level of anecdote, the particular issue there was the additional travel and accommodation costs, because often they would have to travel to have their surgery or their radiotherapy or even sometimes their chemotherapy. That was seen to them as an additional burden of significance.

Senator WATT:  When you are getting those figures about the extreme end of $20,000, the $1,000 up to $5,000, were you including travel and accommodation costs there?

Prof. Murphy:  Some of the anecdotes reported that as well, but mostly not.