Concerns are raised in a senate inquiry over errors and reputational harm should mistakes be published on the Medical Costs Finder website.
The federal government’s proposed overhaul of medical cost transparency is facing growing scrutiny over whether it adequately protects specialists and other stakeholders from harm if incorrect data is published.
At the centre of the debate was the Health Legislation Amendment (Improving Choice and Transparency for Private Health Consumers) Bill 2026, which would underpin a revamped Medical Costs Finder website, designed to give patients clearer information about specialist fees and out-of-pocket costs.
But evidence to a senate committee hearing yesterday week suggested key safeguards – particularly around liability, error correction and reputational protection – remained unresolved.
Transparency versus accountability
Department of Health, Disability and Ageing officials confirmed the legislation did not expand data collection powers, but instead enabled the publication of existing datasets, including MBS billing data and insurer contributions.
The new Medical Costs Finder will display:
- indicative fees;
- price ranges;
- out-of-pocket costs; and
- how a specialist’s fees compare with peers.
However, officials repeatedly emphasised the data would be “indicative” rather than an accurate quote, with caveats built into the website to guide interpretation.
No clear liability if things go wrong
Opposition health spokesperson Senator Anne Ruston pressed the DoHDA on whether clinicians or providers would be protected if incorrect or misleading data was published by the MCF website.
DoHDA confirmed the bill included provisions to shield the commonwealth from civil liability, drawing on precedent from the aged care star ratings system.
“We have to publish it … and on the basis that we do that there shouldn’t be a civil liability,” the DoHDA officials said, citing legal advice during drafting.
Senator Ruston challenged that position directly, questioning why the department should be indemnified if errors cause “significant or irreparable damage” to providers.
Review process exists, but lacks detail
To manage disputes, DoHDA confirmed it intended to establish an internal review process allowing specialists, insurers or others to challenge published data.
But key elements of that process remained undefined, including, the officials acknowledged:
- no statutory timeframes had been set for reviews;
- it was unclear whether disputed data would be removed while under review;
- resourcing for the process was still being worked through.
“I don’t think we’ve made a decision on that,” Paul McBride, branch manager of the department’s private health strategy division said when asked whether incorrect data would be taken down pending review.
Senator Ruston described the lack of detail as problematic, warning against “legislation on the fly” where operational safeguards were developed after passage of the bill.
No ability for clinicians to directly correct data
Compounding concerns, specialists would not initially be able to edit or correct their own data on the platform. Instead, they would need to:
- raise concerns with the department;
- rely on internal processes to investigate and amend information.
Officials said allowing direct input could introduce risks, particularly given the variability in specialist fees.
“There is a risk that if there was a free text field, that would be misleading,” the DoHDA officials said, although they said they had not ruled out future changes.
Related
Reputational risk front of mind
Witnesses at the inquiry highlighted the potential for reputational damage, particularly if inaccurate data was published, shared or misinterpreted before being corrected.
Concerns raised during the hearing included scenarios where:
- incorrect fee data was published;
- outdated screenshots were circulated online;
- corrections were made later, but the original information persisted.
Department officials acknowledged the risk, noting the need to build “confidence” among providers and ensure data was “reflective or indicative of their charging behaviour”.
However, they stopped short of committing to pre-publication verification by specialists, saying it was “not the current intent”.
The DoHDA reassured the committee that:
- review mechanisms would be in place before launch – expected late this year or early in 2027;
- consultation with stakeholders was ongoing;
- data quality checks were being undertaken with CSIRO’s Data61.
“By the time that the website is launched, we will have clearer guidelines,” officials said.
For Senator Ruston, the concern was that the bill would move ahead without fully resolving those risks.
“I suppose I’m just trying to put the proposal to you that maybe these things should be ironed out before anything actually goes live,” she said.
