Ms ROSOL question to MINISTER for HEALTH, Mrs PETRUSMA
Yesterday, a person with glaucoma contacted us about a concerning development. They received a letter advising them that the regular six-monthly monitoring of their glaucoma had been stretched out to nine months. On contacting the clinic to ask why, they were told it was due to availability. They say staff told them this is due to the impact of the government’s cuts. Proper glaucoma monitoring requires three‑ to six‑monthly appointments, so six months between check-ups is already at the upper limit of safe practise. Stretching monitoring out to nine months places this person at increased risk of blindness.
Is the change to nine month intervals for glaucoma appointments universal? If not, how widely does it apply? Is this what Tasmanians can expect from your government’s ‘right-sized’ health service?
ANSWER
Honourable Speaker, I thank the member sincerely for her question. While I am unable to comment on specific patient circumstances, if the member can provide me with more details, I am very happy to investigate the particular concerns raised and get back to the member regarding this specific patient. I thank her for raising the question with me.
SUPPLEMENTARY QUESTION
Ms ROSOL – A supplementary question, Speaker?
The SPEAKER – I will hear the supplementary question.
Ms ROSOL – Thank you to the minister for responding to that individual’s concerns. My question was broader than that. I was asking about whether these interval increases for glaucoma appointments are universal and how widely the increases to time between appointments applies, and does it apply to others as well?
The SPEAKER – I will draw the minister to the original question that was asked.
Mrs PETRUSMA – I do need to look into the specifics of this because I am not sure if it is just this individual patient or the service. I would appreciate the member forwarding me the constituent’s concerns so that we can look into this issue more clearly.
The SPEAKER – Can I just clarify –
Mrs PETRUSMA – It might be just an individual so that is why I want to look into this particular case.
The SPEAKER – You cannot require more than that, I am afraid.
