The peak medical body says existing hearing care pathways already provide access to services and warns changes could fragment patient care.
The AMA has thrown its support behind a draft recommendation to deny audiometrists access to a suite of Medicare-funded diagnostic audiology services, arguing the proposal lacks evidence and could compromise patient care.
In a submission to the MBS Review Advisory Committee (MRAC), the AMA backed the committee’s draft recommendation against expanding audiometrists’ access to six diagnostic audiology items – 82306, 82309, 82312, 82315, 82318, 82324 – and two chronic condition management items.
Currently, these items are available only to audiologists, meaning patients attending audiometrists cannot claim a Medicare rebate unless they also consult an audiologist.
Federal AMA president Dr Danielle McMullen said differences in training and qualifications between the professions remained an important consideration.
“While audiometrists are a valuable part of the workforce, there is a difference in the training and education between audiologists and audiometrists,” she told The Medical Republic.
The AMA’s submission said it “does not support autonomous expansion of scope for non-medical professionals where it risks fragmentation, undermines safety, or is not supported by evidence”.
Both AMA and MRAC agreed that the case for expanded audiometrist MBS access was unclear, given existing pathways through the Hearing Services Program, the NDIS, the Department of Veterans’ Affairs, and WorkCover.
The AMA also urged the MRAC to resolve uncertainty around two chronic condition management items – 10952 and 81310 – before releasing its final report.
The committee’s draft review considered the items within scope but stopped short of making a clear recommendation on whether audiometrists should be granted access or considered an alternative approach with minimum safeguards.
“These items sit within chronic/complex care frameworks that require integrated, GP-led management, multidisciplinary planning, and careful recognition of comorbidities – settings where fragmentation risks rise quickly,” the AMA’s report read.
The AMA’s broader objection cited differences in education and training between the two professions, and the risk that divergent interpretations of diagnostic tests could affect diagnostic accuracy and clinical decision-making.
While acknowledging that equity concerns in rural, remote, and disadvantaged areas were genuine, the submission argued that access to testing alone did not guarantee the holistic care audiologists provide and may further disadvantage underserved populations if diagnostic quality varied.
“Patients in rural and remote communities deserve the same standard of care as anyone else – not a substitute,” Dr McMullen told TMR.
Rather than broadening audiometrist MBS access, the AMA called for closing rural and remote gaps by expanding telehealth for audiologists where appropriate, strengthening outreach and rural incentive programs.
It also wants to see clarification of referral pathways – with better public and referrer education to avoid assumptions of equivalence among different hearing professionals.
Dr McMullen said GPs could be better supported in navigating the existing system.
“I think it is sometimes hard as a referrer to know when patients might be eligible for hearing services and how to access them,” she said.
Related
“There could be more done to improve GP awareness of these services.”
Audiometrists typically complete a diploma or certificate IV in audiometry through TAFE or a private registered provider, whereas audiologists generally hold a master’s-level qualification.
At the diploma level, audiometrists can prescribe and dispense hearing aids and other non-implantable devices.
Under Section 3C General Medical Services – Allied Health and other Primary Health Care Services Determination 2024, audiometrists are not classified as allied health professionals.
MRAC noted that audiometrists could continue to perform certain services on behalf of a medical practitioner under items 11300-11345, excluding 11304 – broadly consistent with the AMA’s support for “team-based pathways, clear escalation, and robust clinical governance”.
The MRAC review began in August 2025 following a proposal from the Australian College of Audiology inc. HAASA (ACAud inc. HAASA) in May 2024, with the draft recommendation released in March 2026.
In its own submission, ACAud inc. HAASA has disputed the non-endorsement and encouraged its members to submit responses to the open consultation based on their clinical experiences. Submissions closed on 9 June.
The Medical Republic contacted ACAud inc. HAASA for comment but did not receive a response by publication deadline.
