SP 2030 Report

What if…

and families were assisted to support optimal communication, eating and drinking for all residents. After a period of time, advances in outcome measurement and the findings of extensive research investment that had been a key feature of the new approach meant it was possible to demonstrate a high return on investment for services to young children, adolescents and adults with disability and chronic and complex needs. As a result, a long-term commitment to continue funding these approaches for these groups was supported strongly. The focus was on supporting function and participation, and building the capacity of the individual and the community. Services for older people in the health sector focused on supporting those who had a prospect of making a good recovery. Speech pathologists continued to work across private, public and not-for-profit settings. However, funding models changed. Individualised funding continued for a tightly prescribed, targeted group of clients. Others seeking individual services were required to cover the full cost independently or through private insurance. As the roles, work contexts, and visibility of speech pathologists in the community changed, the profession started to attract a different mix of individuals to what it had in the past, including people with different career interests and aspirations. A proportion of speech pathologists who could not find roles to fit their skills and interests in the new paradigm moved on to other areas of practice and different professions. Although it took time, gains in outcomes across the community in health, educational, social and employment outcomes emerged. Most notable was the significant reduction in the gap in outcomes across the community.

What if governments chose not to fund services for the very elderly or terminally ill?

• What are the ethical issues involved in taking this stance?

• How could speech pathology be proactive in preparing for such a possibility?

What if the bulk of health and human services funding was shifted to universal and early intervention approaches?

• What advantages and disadvantages would this bring to individuals and the community?

• What changes would need to be made to training, practice, research and other systems in the speech pathology profession?

What if speech pathology became more visible in the community?

• What partnerships and new practices would have facilitated this?

• Would this help the profession attract a more diverse workforce? What other strategies might be required to increase workforce diversity?

38

www.speechpathologyaustralia.org.au/SP2030