But peak rural health bodies are not giving up, instead planning to step up the fight in the federal election campaign.
With the ink dry on Labor’s no-surprises federal budget, rural and remote doctors are now turning their sights to the looming election.
And while they were thankful for the increased investment in health, in particular Medicare, bulk-billing incentives, hospitals, PBS medications, women’s health and GP training, the absence of a dedicated rural health strategy was a disappointment.
“Rural, remote and First Nations people deserve more than just broad healthcare funding announcements,” said Australian College of Rural and Remote Medicine president Dr Rod Martin.
“They need real solutions that ensure they receive quality, accessible and affordable healthcare that is sustainable and delivered as close to home as possible.”
In addition to this, he told TMR the lack of attention to the closure of rural and remote maternity services was deeply concerning – and that a solution would not be costly but required a collaboration between the states and a nationally coordinated approach.
“The latest data from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare shows that nearly 80,000 women give birth outside Australia’s cities each year,” said Dr Martin.
“At the same time, reports of rural maternity unit closures continue to emerge from all corners of the country.
“Each closure weakens health in rural and remote communities just a little bit more. There has been no commitment to turn this around.
“Targeted funding is desperately needed to attract and retain the rural maternity workforce, including rural generalists skilled in obstetrics and anaesthetics, to ensure women in rural and remote communities can access safe, high-quality maternity care close to home.
“We would also like to see RG-specific MBS item numbers to incentivise and support key specialised services in rural and remote locations that are currently grossly underserved.”
With an election date tipped to be announced within a matter of days, ACRRM is now urging all political parties to step up and prioritise rural, remote, and First Nations healthcare in their election platforms.
Related
Dr Martin said given that the Opposition had already announced its plans to support the healthcare initiatives announced in the budget, a clear commitment from all sides of politics on how they will ensure funding reaches the communities that need it most was now vital.
“With an election on the horizon, this is the time for political leaders to put forward concrete plans that will make a real difference in rural and remote Australia,” Dr Martin said.
“The government has committed approximately $8.5 billion in healthcare funding over four years, and the Liberal Party of Australia has said they’ll match it – but there is little clarity on how much will directly benefit rural and remote Australians – they deserve detail and ACRRM expect it.”
He said a highlight of the budget announcement was the investment in expanding training pipelines GPs and rural generalists.
“The sweetener is a $265.2 million investment to expand the pipeline of future general practitioners and rural generalists, supporting ACRRM’s ongoing call for at least 500 rural generalist training places annually,” said Dr Martin.
“We will be watching closely to ensure these training places are allocated where they are most needed, supporting the growing demand for ACRRM training, addressing the greatest and most urgent workforce shortages, and improving healthcare for people living in rural and remote communities.”
He said ACRRM would also continue to advocate for a Rural Health Service Providers Infrastructure Support Fund to address critical gaps in essential infrastructure, such as accommodation and childcare.
“Investing in these areas is key to making rural communities more liveable, sustainable, and attractive to healthcare professionals and their families,” he said.
Dr Martin was not supportive of the government’s allocation of $644 million to open another 50 Medicare Urgent Care Clinics – bringing the total to 137.
Federal treasurer Jim Chalmers said this would mean 80% of all Australians would have access to a UCC within a 20-minute drive of their home. Dr Martin was not impressed with this investment, especially for rural, remote and First Nations Australians.
“If you funded general practice and rural generalist care appropriately, so that that urgent care could be delivered in an integrated system, you’d probably get 95% of people only having to drive five minutes to get urgent care in the primary care setting,” he said.
The Rural Doctors Association of Australia president Dr RT Lewandowski also had reservations about investment in more UCCs.
“In general, I don’t think that they’ve performed and fulfilled the purpose that they’re supposed to,” he told TMR.
“You might have one in your area, but if you can’t get in because it closes at 4pm that hasn’t really done any service, has it?
“It’s supposed to offer the after hours, I believe, and I don’t know that the evidence shows that it decreases emergency waiting time.
“But more importantly, the rural perspective is we don’t have doctors. And who are you going to staff these things with?
“We don’t have doctors. We don’t have nurses. If you put it [a UCC] in a rural sector, what’s going to happen is you’re going to create competition for the jobs, for the few people that we have.
“I know that they’ve said in their announcement, this is access to primary care, but urgent care is not primary care. It’s urgent care.
“You’re going to replace primary care with urgent care. I think it’s a terrible thing.”
Like Dr Martin, Dr Lewandowski was also disappointed in the budget’s lack of dedicated attention to rural and remote health.
“I am excited about the women’s health expenditures and the decreased spend from PBS, those are good, and also the overall arching idea that we need increased investment into primary care and into training GPS and to supporting nurses and midwives. Those are all really good,” he said.
“I was disappointed in the lack of any mention anywhere of rural and I feel like it’s patently obvious that rural medicine and rural healthcare delivery is different than the same thing done in a capital city or urban centre.
“I continue to hope that there’s recognition in policy and spending of that difference that would allow it to continue to be viable.”
The National Rural Health Alliance described the budget as a “mixed bag” that forgot its rural, regional and remote backbone.
NRHA chief executive Susi Tegen said while certain aspects of the budget benefited rural populations, there was a lack of a targeted strategy to address the unique health challenges these communities faced.
“We are encouraged to see some of the Federal Government’s pre-election healthcare promises reflected in the 2025-26 Budget,” said Ms Tegen.
“We welcome the $8.5 billion investment to strengthen Medicare, which includes funding for an additional 18 million bulk-billed GP visits per year, 400 nursing 400 scholarships, and expanded GP training opportunities.
“However, the benefits are mostly for city-based and corporate practices that have higher throughput. Not all rural practices are able to bulk bill every patient due to the depth, breadth and complexity of services provided and the higher cost-of-service delivery.
“We call on the government to commit to ongoing Medicare reform, flexibility in funding and policy for thin and failing markets. This will ensure all rural healthcare providers including general practice, pharmacy and allied health services are able to sustain their multidisciplinary practices to meet population health need.”
There were some positive measures to help Close the Gap in Indigenous health by increasing the availability of culturally safe and qualified mental health supports and building the First Nation’s health and medical workforce.
Ms Tegen said the NRHA welcomed the availability of more university medical places focused on primary health care, and the previously announced 100 Commonwealth Supported Places from 2026 increasing to 150 per year by 2028.
She said the alliance remained disappointed by the lack of dedicated rural funding and of a comprehensive National Rural Health Strategy.
“With the federal election on the horizon, it is not too late to prioritise rural health. “We owe it to the 7.3 million people who live and work in those communities,” said Ms Tegen.
“We call on all political parties to commit to delivering specific health packages for our rural communities as part of their election campaigns. Rural Australians are integral to the nation’s socio-economic health and wellbeing. Without them, the rest of the nation’s economic health hangs in the balance.”
