Medical college involvement 'critical to the future of SIMG pathway'

Ahpra was consulting on potential reforms to registration pathways for IMGs, which could see the Medical Board overseeing more of the process, taking away some of the responsibility of medical colleges.

Reform was prompted by the 2023 Kruk Review that identified areas to be addressed to tackle workforce shortages while maintaining standards and patient safety in healthcare. The review also led to the establishment of the Expedited Specialist Pathway (ESP), which allows doctors from the UK, Ireland and New Zealand to register in Australia without first being assessed by the Royal Colleges.

The potential changes outlined in the consultation aim to streamline processes, reduce administrative duplication, improve transparency, and incorporate mandatory cultural safety education.

In its submission to the Medical Board of Australia, the AMA said while it was generally supportive of the proposed revisions to the registration standard, it should not be considered an endorsement of the changes.

“It is fundamental to our system that the medical colleges continue to set standards for training, education and practice,” the submission read.

“Provided the colleges remain meaningfully involved in the Medical Board’s development, monitoring and management of new pathways, the AMA is ready to support the revisions.”

The submission stated the Medical Board must also resolve outstanding college concerns before changes proceed.

While not directly detailed in the submission, the AMA said it understood that some of the colleges involved in the first tranche had outstanding concerns with the process.

It said there was a lack of detail regarding the extent of specialist college involvement in eligibility assessments, the appeals process, and supervision arrangements and practice positions.

“We are also concerned the proposed pathway could impose a greater financial burden on SIMGs or result in applications being unfairly rejected if relevant specialist college expertise is not consulted,” the AMA has said.

The body said there was an unrealistic timeframe for reform “dictated by health ministers” with concern it may not allow sufficient time for proper consultation and pathway development.

The AMA also noted its frustration at the financial burden of such reform being placed on the industry itself as the processing of applications would increase the Medical Board's workload.

“The costs of the reforms to date have been borne by doctors and other registered health professionals through their Ahpra registration fees," it said.

“Health ministers must provide appropriate funding for this work, particularly as it is a result of the lack of investment and deliberate decisions to withdraw health workforce infrastructure.”