The medical association is calling for narrower definitions for the information doctors must publish about their fees.
The AMA has pointed out a “fundamental flaw” in the bill designed to fix the medical costs finder website – there is no mechanism to correct inaccurate or misleading information once it is published.
The medical association’s submission to the Health Legislation Amendment (Improving Choice and Transparency for Private Health Consumers) Bill 2026 comes just a week after the RACGP’s, which also criticised the bill for its lack of specificity on what constitutes fee transparency.
“We stand by patients having transparent access to fee information and other information,” AMA president Dr Danielle McMullen told The Medical Republic.
“But you’ve got to make sure that that information is transparent, accurate and meaningful.
“There hasn’t been any consultation about the methodology that the department’s planning to use to derive what they’re calling a single fee per service – that remains to be seen in terms of the details.”
Under the bill, practitioners looking to correct information would have to undergo an internal review by a ministerial delegate or a judicial review under common law.
The AMA argued that the ‘non-sensitive’ information doctors may have to publish under the bill could still harm the careers and income of practitioners.
To correct this, the AMA is recommending the addition of a transparent review process to ensure practitioners are able to correct information published on the medical cost finder.
“We were pleased that this bill does mention the need to include things like insurer benefits alongside the doctor’s fee,” Dr McMullen told TMR.
“But that’s got to happen all at the same time, and we need assurance that as this is rolled out, that patients will get information specific about their insurer alongside that medical fee.
“We think it needs tightening to the protections for practitioners, clearer consultation on the methodology and a clear articulation that that contextual information and other fees, like insurer rebates, will be published alongside medical fees.”
Related
Tackling product ‘phoenixing’ was also addressed in the submission, with the provision of clear definitions noted as a key interest area.
The AMA has recommended the bill be amended to include a clear definition of what constitutes ‘public interest’ when it comes to testing product premium changes.
“Without a clearly defined public interest test, the Bill risks failing to meaningfully deter product phoenixing and undermines its stated policy intent,” the submission reads.
The AMA has also recommended penalties for non-compliance with ‘phoenixing’ measures that would be severe enough to act as an effective deterrent.
“What you don’t want to see is here a penalty that doesn’t actually prevent the behaviour,” Dr McMullen told TMR.
“A penalty to an insurer flouting the phoenixing rule would have to be of a magnitude that makes it unprofitable for them to flout the law.
“It’s important that there is a penalty that exists, and that it’s of a meaningful magnitude to avoid insurers flouting the law.”
