Content area
Full Text
EDITOR The example of the attempted establishment of a GP "super-clinic" by the Harden Shire Council does not bode well for resident GPs close to proposed sites of super-clinics planned by the Federal Government ('If we build it, they will come (hopefully)', 4 July).
Dr Yusuf Khalfan has given a lifetime of service to the Harden community as a GP, providing clinic and hospital cover. His practice includes another GP and has planned to increase cover with recruitment of another assistant.
The Harden Shire Council's $3.5 million clinic - if established with GP services - would attack the viability of Dr Khalfan's practice; the new clinic could well serve the community by providing for visiting specialists and allied health practitioners.
If a super-clinic is to be established as opposition to current GPs, it would seem reasonable for the GPs to be offered the opportunity to join the clinic based on a commercially determined buy-out package covering practice capital and equipment costs. Unless GPs have their costs covered, there would be little incentive to join a super-clinic.
It is hard enough attracting doctors to country areas without creating a climate of dissension within a community.
Taxpayers' money would be better served by maintaining and supporting current GPs and providing the super building to specialists and other health workers to improve health care opportunities.
Dr Ken Doust OAM; Narooma, NSW
EDITOR Your article about a rural council building its own $3.5 million super-clinic in Harden, NSW, may be a valuable trial for planners of the Federal Government's clinics in areas of GP shortage.
Here is a regional test of the proposed super-clinic solution. Perhaps a building does not necessarily create a multidisciplinary general practice; possibly a supply of people to...