Northern Tasmania has limited private hospital services compared to many centres of similar size interstate.

Despite the best efforts of the Calvary group, private hospital services in the North have been restricted by the historical reality of operating two smaller hospitals. Smaller facilities are less efficient, reducing the range, quantity and acuity of patients that could be safely treated.

The need to travel between hospitals, however small the distance, has reduced the attractiveness of private hospital practice for many Northern specialists. Limited private practice options also reduce the attractiveness of Launceston for new specialists and ultimately for junior doctors seeking further training and a long-term career destination.

There have been many challenges for the LGH also. It has had difficulty attracting specialists, such as endocrinologists and neurologists, and limited success in replacing other retiring specialists. One of the consequences of this has been a downgrading of accreditation for training specialist physicians. Unless ultimately resolved, there will be further flow-on effects in retaining good trainees into the future.

In Australia, the majority of services provided by many specialists occurs outside the public hospital setting. Having a modern, conveniently accessed private hospital only adds to the attractiveness of Launceston as a destination for such specialists.

There are many other potential benefits for our public hospital. On any given day, up to one-third of the patients in the LGH have private health insurance. Many of these patients could be conveniently managed in a co-located private hospital.

This would increase public bed availability for non-insured patients, improving staffing to patient ratios and reducing bed block. Privately insured patients in the public hospital are partially funded from the state health budget. There would be a cost saving by transferring them to the new facility.

The current proposal offers the opportunity to cooperate on critical services. Areas such as the public ED, radiology and intensive care could benefit from co-location, by improving the economy of scale, funding and ultimately the overall number of specialist doctors and nurses.

Choosing to have private health insurance is an expensive burden on individuals and families. It is a user pays system, which is nonetheless a critical component of total national health funding. We must allow people who choose this option to access high quality services, or risk the rate of private health insurance falling and further burdening our public hospitals.

This proposal cannot be achieved unless we first have community, business and political support. Once built, the public and private hospitals need to operate closely and cooperatively.

Nationally, sensible cooperation has been the greatest challenge for this type of development. Improving the health outcomes of the whole community must remain central. 

Having spent much of my training and early specialist career in an efficient co-located hospital, I can assure the people of Northern Tasmania that the opportunities and outcomes outlined are achievable and real.

I believe this proposal represents an outstanding opportunity for positive progress and better community health. If these many benefits are clearly understood there is little doubt the community will be active in support of the new hospital.