Payments to visiting medical officers (VMO) have been subject to multiple reviews and Victorian Auditor-General Office audits, over the past twenty years. In 2010–11, rural and regional public hospitals paid over $108 million to contracted VMOs. It is important that these public funds are spent appropriately.
The reliance of rural and regional health services on visiting medical officers (VMO) for the provision of clinical services places significant importance on the appropriateness of these arrangements. Contractual arrangements should be sound and support the best use of public funds and service outcomes for patients.
Medical staff employed in the public health system are either salaried medical officers or contracted private practitioners. The latter are referred to as visiting medical officers (VMO). In 2010–11, public hospitals paid in excess of $139 million to VMOs. Over $108 million, or approximately 78 per cent, of this was spent in rural and regional hospitals.
Independently contracted, fee-for-service visiting medical officers (VMO) are a common feature of medical service delivery in rural and regional health services. Metropolitan and larger regional hospitals have shifted mainly to salaried medical staff. However, the reliance of rural health services on local general practitioners to provide hospital-based services, and the tighter labour market and lower service volumes in these areas, mean contracted VMOs remain the predominant model in rural health services.
Ordered to be printed
VICTORIAN GOVERNMENT PRINTER May 2012
PP No 132, Session 2010–12
In accordance with section 16(3) of the Audit Act 1994 a copy of this report was provided to the Department of Primary Industries, the Department of Health, Dairy Food Safety Victoria, PrimeSafe and the Victorian Committee of Food Regulators with a request for submissions or comments.
The submission and comments provided are not subject to audit nor the evidentiary standards required to reach an audit conclusion. Responsibility for the accuracy, fairness and balance of those comments rests solely with the agency head.
Food safety regulation needs to be underpinned by effective compliance monitoring and enforcement, as well as processes to assess regulatory performance, and to coordinate regulatory activity.
The regulation of agricultural food safety is generally effective, with active, risk-based monitoring of compliance with food safety standards. Improvements are required in some areas, particularly in assessing the performance of the regulators and the impact of regulatory activities.
Victoria's agricultural industries produce raw animal and plant-based food products, such as dairy, meat, seafood, eggs and horticultural products. Together, these industries produce food valued at around $9 billion each year, and 26 per cent of the national agricultural production. Over half of Victoria’s contribution is from the dairy, beef and horticulture industries with the state's largest export earner, the dairy industry, providing around 87 per cent of Australia’s dairy exports.
Agricultural food safety involves the primary production and processing of raw agricultural products. This encompasses activities on farms, during transportation, and at the facilities involved in processing and handling raw products.
Food safety risks can arise from poor management practices at any stage of the supply chain, such as poor controls over the use of chemicals and veterinary medicines and problems with facilities, hygiene, temperature control and handling practices of food items.