Adjudication No. 1106 (January 2001) [2001] APC 7

Adjudication No. 1106 (January 2001)

A complaint of imbalance by Dr Geoffrey Edelsten after a column on big business taking over Sydney's medical practices has been upheld by the Australian Press Council.

The lead sentence in The Sunday Telegraph's Zachariah's column on 2 July said: "In an emerging scandal, 'five minute medicine' dispensed by the infamous Dr Geoffrey Edelsten in the 1980s has become common practice in Sydney".

The column went on to argue that, based on average earnings, doctors contracted to the big groups would need "a turnover of nine patients every hour to earn the industry average of $90. That equates to little more than five minute consultations".

Dr Edelsten sought a correction from the newspaper to the claim that he dispensed "five minute medicine", saying the writer had confused his championing of bulk billing with the mode of practice being criticised.

Dr Edelsten further argued that the article was inaccurate, as it was based on the flawed premise that industry average earnings after payment of expenses were $90 per hour. Government studies showed that the average GP, after expenses, was earning about $100,000 per year - which represented $50 - $60 per hour.

The newspaper did not reply to Dr Edelsten, or publish his letter.

He then took his complaint to the Press Council, claiming that the description implied poor quality medical care, when no such allegations had been made against him; and the article was factually incorrect.

In its defence, The Sunday Telegraph says there is ample evidence that much of the medicine dispensed by Dr Edelsten's so-called super clinics was very much of the "five minute medicine" order. It says he had been involved in fee sharing; in over-servicing; and in process medicine.

Articles and information supplied by Dr Edelsten contend that the column used an inaccurate figure for average hourly earnings to arrive at its "five minute" consultations.

The standards of health services; their cost; and the future of small private health practices under the Medicare system are important issues for the community. They demand informed analysis and debate. Articles in other publications in the weeks following The Sunday Telegraph column support this.

While Dr Edelsten is a controversial figure, he has considerable experience in the area under debate. For this reason, and in fairness, he should have been given the opportunity to reply to the column.