Health services administration

Objective: To investigate changes in sales to pharmacies of over‐the‐counter (OTC) and prescription analgesics, cold and flu products, and cough suppressants after the rescheduling of codeine as a prescription only medicine in February 2018. Design: Interrupted time series analysis of sales to pharmacies. Setting: Pharmaceutical sales to community pharmacies in Australia, March 2015 – March 2019. The period January 2017 (month after rescheduling was announced) to January 2018 (month before rescheduling was implemented) was excluded from the time series analysis. Main outcome measures: Monthly pack and tablet sales per 10 000 population of OTC and prescription analgesics, cold and flu products, and cough suppressants. Results: During 2016, 7586 packs and 248 127 tablets of OTC codeine per 10 000 population were sold to pharmacies; in the 14 months after rescheduling, a small level increase in monthly prescription codeine sales was evident (2247 tablets/capsules per 10 000 population; 95% CI, 1231–3264 per 10 000 population). Monthly OTC analgesic sales increased by 258 (95% CI, 151–365) packs per 10 000 population and 37 856 (95% CI, 26 143–49 569) tablet/capsules per 10 000 population. Monthly sales of single ingredient paracetamol (41 415 [95% CI, 31 374–51 456] tablets/capsules per 10 000 population), ibuprofen (1392 [95% CI 916–1868] tablets/capsules per 10 000 population), paracetamol/ibuprofen (1618 tablets [95% CI, 1567–1669] tablets/capsules per 10 000 population), and other paracetamol combinations (233 [95% CI, 112–353] tablets/capsules per 10 000 population) all increased, but not those of prescription analgesic products not containing codeine. Rises for OTC cold/flu products containing the opioid derivative dextromethorphan were small; sales of OTC cough suppressants containing opioid derivatives (dextromethorphan, pholcodine, dihydrocodeine) did not change. Conclusions: The rescheduling of codeine was followed by increased sales to pharmacies of paracetamol, ibuprofen, and paracetamol combination products. While these products carry no risk of dependence, their inappropriate use is also associated with harms that warrant adverse event monitoring.

Andrea L Schaffer · Rose Cairns · Jared A Brown · Natasa Gisev · Nicholas A Buckley · Sallie‐Anne Pearson

Inclusion of the right to health in Queensland's Human Rights Act is historic but not without challenge In February 2019, the Queensland Parliament passed the Human Rights Act 2019, which took effect on 1 January 2020. Its introduction makes Queensland the third Australian jurisdiction to implement human rights legislation, after the Australian Capital Territory and Victoria in 2004 and 2006, respectively. While the Queensland Act is based on a model of rights legislation broadly consistent with the Victorian and ACT models, it differs in its inclusion of the right to health services (section 37): Every person has the right to access health services without discrimination. A person must not be refused emergency medical treatment that is immediately necessary to save the person's life or to prevent serious impairment to the person.1 The inclusion of section 37 is historic. The right to health is made subject to law on Australian shores and a state/territory government is finally accountable, by law, to protect and promote the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health. Rights language is part of Australia's public health vernacular, evidenced by the Australian Charter of Healthcare Rights.2 However, unless such rights are expressed in domestic law, then right to health principles and policies are important words on paper without overt legal consequence for effective monitoring and accountability.3,4 As Australia lacks a legal tradition regarding the right to health, the introduction of section 37 creates interpretive challenges for the new Queensland Human Rights Commission (QHRC). The right to health has received limited robust attention in both Australian schools of public health and law, as well as in Australian public health‐related literature.5 The QHRC, and Queensland's courts and tribunals, will likely look to United Nations (UN) commentary on the right to health, and to overseas jurisprudence and scholarship for guidance on section 37's emergent framing.3,6 With the right to health found in over 100 national constitutions and the UN Special Rapporteur on the right to health issuing annual reports, guidance is available.7,8 Health service obligations and remedies under the new Act Queensland government departments and public employees will have a responsibility to protect and promote the human rights of Queensland individuals, and in their health service delivery and decision making, act in a way consistent with their obligations under the Act.1 Health agencies that fit the Act's “public entity” criteria are also bound to comply with the Act. If an individual alleges a section 37 violation, they should make a complaint to the government agency or public entity, which must respond within 45 business days.1,6 If an inadequate or no response is received, the individual — or two or more people jointly — can lodge a complaint with the QHRC.1 Given that the Act's regulatory model favours discussion, rights awareness raising and education, the QHRC will aim to pragmatically resolve section 37 disputes. Monetary damages will not be available.6 In the case of judicial review, a person might have the original decision quashed or referred back to the original decision maker for redetermination.6 In certain circumstances, pending legal advice, a section 37 complainant might have grounds to pursue a distinctly separate medical negligence cause of action if a health professional or service provider breaches their common law duty of care and the complainant has sustained pain and suffering, loss or injury.9 Some grievances against health service providers (notably private providers) can continue to be dealt with by the Health Ombudsman under Queensland's Health Ombudsman Act 2013, and the QHRC may indeed refer complaints to the Health Ombudsman (with the complainant's consent).1,10 However, potential complainants under either Act should be aware the objectives of both Acts markedly differ. The Health Ombudsman Act emphasises that the health and safety of the public are paramount, thereby framing health through a health security lens at the population level, whereas the Human Rights Act takes an individual level approach: the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health of each and every person in Queensland is paramount (Box 1). Additionally, the Health Ombudsman Act does not recognise the special importance that human rights — and by extension, health and human rights and accessible, non‐discriminatory health service provision — has for Queensland's Aboriginal peoples and Torres Strait Islander peoples.1 On this point, there is no reason why the definition of health services in section 37(1) could not be interpreted to integrate a culturally responsive meaning for Queensland's Indigenous peoples, consistent with the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (Box 2).11 Interpreting section 37 and health rights protections found elsewhere in the Act The Act takes a narrow approach to interpreting the right to health Section 37 is modelled on the right to health in article 12 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.12 The UN Committee responsible for the Covenant stated in General Comment No. 14 that article 12 contains two elements: the right to access health services; and the right to access the underlying determinants of health, or the underlying factors that promote conditions in which people can lead a healthy life.3 Regarding the first element of what accessible, non‐discriminatory health services might look like for section 37 achievement, General Comment No. 14 provides the QHRC with instruction (Supporting Information).3 The Queensland Parliament has clarified it will only adopt the first element of article 12 of the International Covenant, which protects right to health service access; section 37 will not extend to include Queenslanders’ right to the broader health determinants. By limiting section 37 to questions of access to emergency medical treatment and non‐discriminatory health service provision, Parliament cautiously chose not to conflate the parameters of section 37. For some right to health academic specialists, this measured approach is prudent.13 Although section 37 claims are not to incorporate the determinants of health, complainants may nevertheless lodge separate or concurrent claims that capture certain health determinants, such as the right to culture (sections 27 and 28). Public health practitioners are well aware that culture is a significant health determinant.14 Housing is also a major determinant of health, and a housing rights claim (that causally impacts a claimant's health and wellbeing) might be realised under section 24 (property rights). Claims that seek to protect and promote the rights of individuals and communities to access the determinants of health relating to food and water could be sought under the right to life (section 16). This is because, per the explanatory notes to the Human Rights Bill 2018 (Qld), this right reflects the positive obligation on states “to take positive steps to protect the lives of individuals through, for example … positive measures to address other threats to life such as malnutrition and infant mortality” (emphasis added).6 With this in mind, section 16 allegations that identify a compelling food or water security nexus that threatens the right to life could be made. However, the QHRC can refuse to deal with a complaint it considers “frivolous, trivial, vexatious, misconceived or lacking in substance”.1 The protection of other health rights elsewhere in the new Act As highlighted above, the content of section 37 claims will likely raise other rights contraventions. It is foreseeable, for example, that a section 25 right to privacy breach by a health service provider could directly or indirectly create a section 37 access to health service violation (and vice versa). Further, a section 37 contravention, or its ramifications, may be so egregious that the complainant could rationally argue that they have experienced a breach of their section 17(b) right not to be treated in a cruel, inhuman or degrading way by the health service. Section 17(c) also protects and promotes an individual's health and human right to “not be … subjected to medical or scientific experimentation or treatment without the person's full, free and informed consent”.1 Certainly, in some cases, a fine line will arise between informed consent to medical treatment and health service access under section 37. The Act also covers reproductive health and rights. Section 106 clarifies that the Act “does not affect laws about termination of pregnancy”, thereby referring to and upholding the Termination of Pregnancy Act 2018 (Qld). According to Queensland Health, that Act “ensures termination of pregnancy is treated as a health issue rather than a criminal issue” and “supports a woman's right to health, including reproductive health and autonomy”.15 Final comments Queensland Health already has antidiscrimination policies and protocols for its staff and for its patients and clients. Therefore, compliance with section 37 and the Act's wider provisions should not be onerous for government and many other public health service agencies bound by the new Act. However, if international right to health experience can teach Queensland anything, it is that government response to allegations of section 37 violations should not be reactive and visible at QHRC conciliation meetings alone.4 Advancing the right to health for all Queenslanders will not occur in legal silos but in complement with planned educational and promotional activities that help build a culture in the Queensland public sector and broader community that respects and promotes health and human rights, as well as promotes a dialogue about the nature, meaning and scope of health rights for Queensland's most important asset, its human capital.1,6 This will require the engagement of both government and non‐government stakeholders, as well as community members, beyond the health sector. Box 1 – Objectives and principles of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) and Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (Qld) Human Rights Act 2019 Health Ombudsman Act 2013 Main objects: section 3* Main objects: section 3 † to protect and promote human rights; and to help build a culture in the Queensland public sector that respects and promotes human rights; and to help promote a dialogue about the nature, meaning and scope of human rights. to protect the health and safety of the public; and to promote— professional, safe and competent practice by health practitioners; and high standards of service delivery by health service organisations; and to maintain public confidence in the management of complaints and other matters relating to the provision of health services. Preamble* Paramount guiding principle: section 4 † In enacting this Act, the Parliament of Queensland recognises— The inherent dignity and worth of all human beings. The equal and inalienable human rights of all human beings. Human rights are essential in a democratic and inclusive society that respects the rule of law. Human rights must be exercised in a way that respects the human rights and dignity of others. Human rights should be limited only after careful consideration, and should only be limited in a way that can be justified in a free and democratic society based on human dignity, equality, freedom and the rule of law. Although human rights belong to all individuals, human rights have a special importance for the Aboriginal peoples and Torres Strait Islander peoples of Queensland, as Australia's first people, with their distinctive and diverse spiritual, material and economic relationship with the lands, territories, waters, coastal seas and other resources with which they have a connection under Aboriginal tradition and Ailan Kastom. Of particular significance to Aboriginal peoples and Torres Strait Islander peoples of Queensland is the right to self‐determination. The main principle for administering this Act is that the health and safety of the public are paramount. Without limiting subsection (1), the health and safety of the public is the main consideration for— the health ombudsman, when deciding what relevant action to take to deal with a complaint or other matter; and the director of proceedings, when deciding whether to refer a matter to QCAT; and QCAT, when deciding a matter referred to it under this Act. QCAT = Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal. * Reproduced from https://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/view/html/asmade/act-2019-005;8 † Reproduced from https://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/view/html/inforce/current/act-2013-036.10 Box 2 – The right to health: article 24 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples* Indigenous peoples have the right to their traditional medicines and to maintain their health practices, including the conservation of their vital medicinal plants, animals and minerals. Indigenous individuals also have the right to access, without any discrimination, to all social and health services. Indigenous individuals have an equal right to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health. States shall take the necessary steps with a view to achieving progressively the full realization of this right. * Reproduced from https://www.un.org/development/desa/indigenouspeoples/wp-content/uploads/sites/19/2018/11/UNDRIP_E_web.pdf.11 Declarations are not ratified. Adopted by the UN General Assembly on 17 September 2007. Supported by the Australian Government on 3 April 2009.

Claire E Brolan

Objectives: To assess progress in Australia toward the 2030 WHO hepatitis C elimination targets two years after the introduction of highly effective direct‐acting antiviral (DAA) treatments. Design: Analysis of quarterly data on government‐subsidised hepatitis C RNA testing and hepatitis C treatment in Australia, January 2013 – June 2018. Changes in testing and treatment levels associated with DAA availability were assessed in an autoregressive integrated moving average (ARIMA) statistical model, and the impact by 2030 of different levels of testing and treatment were estimated using a mathematical model. Major outcome measures: Hepatitis C prevalence among people who inject drugs; annual hepatitis C incidence relative to 2015 levels; projections for the hepatitis C care cascade in 2030. Results: The mean annual number of treatments initiated for people with hepatitis C increased from 6747 during 2013–2015 (before the introduction of DAAs) to 28 022 during 2016–18; the mean annual number of diagnostic RNA tests increased from 17 385 to 23 819. If current trends in testing and treatment continue (ie, 2018 testing numbers are maintained but treatment numbers decline by 50%), it is projected that by 2030 only 72% of infected people would be treated (by 2025 all people diagnosed with hepatitis C would be treated). The incidence of hepatitis C in 2030 would be 59% lower than in 2015, well short of the WHO target of an 80% reduction. The identification and testing of people exposed to hepatitis C must be increased by at least 50% for Australia to reach the WHO elimination targets. Conclusion: Hepatitis C elimination programs in Australia should focus on increasing testing rates and linkage with care to maintain adequate levels of treatment.

Nick Scott · Rachel Sacks‐Davis · Amanda J Wade · Mark Stoove · Alisa Pedrana · Joseph S Doyle · Alexander J Thompson · David P Wilson · Margaret E Hellard

If we are committed to closing the gap, we should be committed to transforming relationships of power between Indigenous and non-Indigenous people

Chelsea J Bond · David Singh

Misgendering negatively affects the mental and physical health of trans individuals

Irene J Dolan · Penelope Strauss · Sam Winter · Ashleigh Lin

The balance between benefits and risks could be improved if effective risk-based screening protocols were developed

David M Roder · Elizabeth Buckley

To the Editor: We applaud the astute perspective of Teede in relation to gender equity in medical leadership.1 Organisational culture that promotes male leadership styles is self‐perpetuating and this has implications for our specialty of endocrinology, which is rapidly becoming “feminised”. About 80% of physician advanced trainees in endocrinology are female and yet only 20% of heads of endocrinology departments in Australian training hospitals are women (Royal Australasian College of Physicians Advanced Training in Endocrinology Program, unpublished data). Waseem and colleagues2 documented significant under‐representation of women at higher academic levels in endocrinology societies internationally. Only 23% of full professors and 31% of board members were female. Women have fewer publications or research citations, but their skill sets are diverse and they bring value to executive boards through negotiation and problem solving skills. The historical biases around the expectations of women are perpetuated by male powerbrokers. Unconscious bias can be subtle. Duma and colleagues3 reported that when introducing female speakers at an international conference, men were more likely to use a woman's first name alone, but male speakers were introduced with full professorial title and surname. This undervalues the women who already tend to underplay their own skills. Part‐time employment may be supported in theory, but it is left up to the woman to find a solution. Women fear that part‐time work may challenge perceptions of competence. A healthy endocrinology training scheme must support our significant female workforce and serve the 70% of endocrinology outpatients who are women. We have wonderful male colleagues who are willing to support progress, but they may be deterred by the stigma attached to issues such as paternity leave. The current chair of the Royal Australasian College of Physicians Advanced Training Committee and the coordinator of the Advanced Training in Endocrinology Program are both women, so we do see a bright future ahead. This is an important issue for our patients, for women and for men.

Diana L Learoyd · Jane Holmes‐Walker

The impact of discharge destination on outcomes after treatment for orthopaedic trauma requires further investigation

Lara A Kimmel · Pamela M Simpson · Anne E Holland · Elton R Edwards · Peter A Cameron · Richard S Steiger · Richard S Page · Raphael Hau · Andrew Bucknill · Jessica Kasza · Belinda J Gabbe

What is value in health care and how can the system deliver it at scale?

Elizabeth Koff · Nigel Lyons

Inaccurate recording of Indigenous status in administrative datasets can influence health service decision making

Mary O'Loughlin · Linton Harriss · Jane Mills · Fintan Thompson · Robyn McDermott

Greater investment is needed to support eye health coordinators, community-based liaison officers, and family members and carers

Aryati Yashadhana · Ling Lee · Jessica Massie · Anthea Burnett

Tiered universal screening systems that save lives are cost- effective

Megan Hitchins

Cancer overdiagnosis is a substantial problem that urgently requires changes in public health policy

Paul P Glasziou · Mark A Jones · Thanya Pathirana · Alexandra L Barratt · Katy JL Bell

Engaging frontline clinicians in effective quality and safety improvement is essential for improving patient outcomes

Ian A Scott · Jennifer Kallie · Areti Gavrilidis

Unlocking the potential of health data to improve patient outcomes requires the integration of research, health care and education

Helena J Teede · Alison Johnson · Jim Buttery · Cheryl A Jones · Douglas IR Boyle · Garry LR Jennings · Tim Shaw

Physicians share a collective responsibility to support their peers in the help-seeking process

Margaret P Kay · Victoria Dawes

Lessons from both sides of the Pacific on how to approach struggling junior doctors

Juan N Lessing · Sheila Bryan · Christina Johnson · Janita Keating · Jeannette Guerrasio

The reason I was not finding great satisfaction was that I was searching in all the wrong places

Zhenghong Liu

Introducing the floor price was followed by a significant reduction in ICU admissions associated with acute alcohol misuse

Paul J Secombe · Penny Stewart · Alex Brown · Michael J Bailey · David Pilcher

Hospitals need to actively identify unconscious bias to achieve equitable workplaces

Laura RE Chapman · Sara Mellow · Hannah Coombridge

Australia needs to develop and implement policies to ensure that data are disaggregated, analysed and presented by sex and gender

The Sex and Gender Sensitive Research Call to Action Group

Glucose and HbA1c screening alone does not increase detection of previously unidentified diabetes in patients admitted from EDs

N Wah Cheung · Lesley V Campbell · Gregory R Fulcher · Patrick McElduff · Barbara Depczynski · Shamasunder Acharya · John Carter · Bernard Champion · Roger Chen · David Chipps · Jeff Flack · Jen Kinsella · Margaret Layton · Mark McLean · Robert G Moses · Kris Park · Ann M Poynten · Carol Pollock · Debbie Scadden · Katherine T Tonks · Mary Webber · Chris White · Vincent Wong · Sandy Middleton

The lack of national policy means that Australia remains at significant risk of declines in health due to climate change — substantial and sustained national action is urgently required

Paul J Beggs · Ying Zhang · Hilary Bambrick · Helen L Berry · Martina K Linnenluecke · Stefan Trueck · Peng Bi · Sinead M Boylan · Donna Green · Yuming Guo · Ivan C Hanigan · Fay H Johnston · Diana L Madden · Arunima Malik · Geoffrey G Morgan · Sarah Perkins‐Kirkpatrick · Lucie Rychetnik · Mark Stevenson · Nick Watts · Anthony G Capon