The organisation has $27 million in cash assets. Why isn’t that being used to keep its GP services afloat?
It’s been 14 days since federal health minister Mark Butler announced a review into community health hub Cohealth.
On 20 November he said the federal government would provide $1.5 million to keep Cohealth’s general practice services afloat through to 31 July 2026.
He also announced the Australian and Victorian governments would commission an independent review of Cohealth’s GP service model, governance and finances. Further details would be announced the following week.
Two weeks on, we’re still none the wiser. We don’t know who is going to run the review, when it will take place and what the terms of reference will be.
The Medical Republic asked the Department of Health for an update. A spokesperson gave us the following statement:
“The Department of Health, Disability and Aged Care, with the Victorian Government Department of Health, is in the process of jointly commissioning an independent review of Cohealth general practice and related services.
“As announced on 20 November 2025 … the Australian government will provide up to $1.5 million in funding to support the continuation of Cohealth’s general practice services through to 31 July 2026.
“This funding will be contingent on Cohealth keeping the general practice services at its Collingwood, Fitzroy and Kensington sites open until 31 July 2026, while the review is underway and a long-term solution is developed.”
TMR has looked into Cohealth’s financials and the following questions have been asked but remain unanswered:
Why does this community health organisation need more money when it actually has quite a lot. According to financial documents on the Australian Charities and Not for Profits Commission register, at the end of the financial year, Cohealth had $27 million in cash assets.
TMR asked the federal government spokesperson, who said: “Questions about Cohealth’s cash reserves should be directed to Cohealth.”
So naturally, those questions were directed to Cohealth. It responded:
“All companies are required to maintain sufficient cash reserves to keep their operations stable and meet their obligations, including paying staff, covering core operating expenses and managing unexpected costs.
“Maintaining adequate cash reserves is a standard requirement to ensure organisations can continue to operate in a responsible and reliable manner.
“The $27 million cash figure reported to the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission (ACNC) as part of Cohealth’s FY24 financial statements needs to be considered in the context of the organisation’s overall financial position.
“Each year, Cohealth lodges full audited financial statements and an Annual Information Statement with the ACNC in line with its reporting obligations.
“Cohealth bulk bills 98% of GP appointments and provides long, complex, and relationship-based care to people experiencing chronic illness, trauma, homelessness, addiction and mental ill-health.
“Our salaried GP model reflects the time and coordination required to deliver safe, high-quality care for these communities.
“The general practice service is funded by Medicare and does not cover the full cost of delivering GP services at Cohealth, resulting in a $4 million annual shortfall.”
It’s clear some of this is a political issue. As Cohealth wrote in its 19 November statement on its website:
“We could not continue to be the charity who carried the cost of delivering complex care that the system would not.”
The issues with Cohealth and its funding for GP services poses an interesting case study for community health.
None of the original board members are still involved in the organisation. It used to be a membership-only organisation, but it’s been restructured so now only board members are members.
This has meant there was very little or any community consultation before the decision was made to get rid of GP services.
Related
Some who have spoken with TMR say one of the issues is that the board structure has changed so much since the Doutta Galla Community Health, North Yarra Community Health and Western Region Health Centre were merged in 2014.
And the community is angry. As former board member Stephen Alomes said on LinkedIn:
“Cohealth has betrayed former voluntary, unpaid and committed Board members, dedicated professionals, patients and the communities which created OUR health centres. Board please note – they are not yours.”
Former members with inside knowledge into community health have reached out to TMR to ask pertinent questions about what exactly is going on at Cohealth. They’re asking questions like:
Why couldn’t Cohealth use some of that $27 million to help prop up the GP arm of the business while they negotiated with the federal government?
Why is this organisation finding it so difficult to fund general practice when other community health organisations in Victoria are not?
Why use some of the most vulnerable people as “political pawns” when the Cohealth mission is supposed to “be the exemplar in delivering place-based, integrated, person-centred care that empowers individuals and communities across Australia”.
Where is the Victorian state government on this, considering Cohealth is broadly funded by them?
Just this year Cohealth launched its 2025-35 strategy:
“Our strategy will help us prove what we know to be true – that organisations like cohealth can provide transformative, sustainable health and social care that delivers better outcomes for communities across Australia.”
Opposition health spokesperson Senator Anne Ruston fired off questions about Cohealth in Wednesday’s Senate Estimates hearing. She asked the DoHDA’s First Assistant Secretary for Primary Care, Marc Roddam what federal funding Cohealth had received.
“Through aged care, there was $7.7 million provided in the 2024-25 year with a similar amount foreshadowed in 2025-26,” said Mr Roddam.
“Cohealth also receives funding through the North West Melbourne Primary Health Network, which is $2.5 million in mental health, aged care and First Nations services. That was in 2024-25 and in 2025-26 the total funding was to be $2.9 million,” he said.
“So that’s activity-based funding, as opposed to the operation of the facility?” Ms Ruston asked.
“That doesn’t include MBS funding,” Mr Roddam confirmed.
Ms Ruston also asked what the precedent was in terms of the Commonwealth bailing out a series of clinics.
“I wouldn’t characterise it as bailing out,” Mr Roddam responded.
“It’s giving time to have a proper review of those services undertaken to see how those services may be able to continue, or whether there are alternative ways to support the clients of Cohealth.”
When asked about whether there was any precedent for the government to fund base administration, Mr Roddam denied that was what the funding was for.
“I wouldn’t characterise this as base administrative funding. Cohealth is a diverse organisation providing a number of services to its clients. This is funding to support the continuation of general practice operations for a short period of time while this review is undertaken,” he reiterated.
Ms Ruston also said:
“We see a lot of cost shifting between the states and territories and the federal government. Just making sure that that’s not what this.”
Mr Roddam replied:
“No, it’s not.”
The community is concerned that this process will repeat itself in July 2026 when the next round of funding runs out.
They are hopeful these questions can be answered, preferably publicly by the CEO and the board, and significant changes can be made to keep the GP services running for these vulnerable communities.
