The agency has also entered into one of its largest-ever negotiated repayments with a practitioner, totalling $3.6 million.
The Professional Services Review is on track for one of its busiest years on record, and the powers-that-be have a strong warning on artificial intelligence use in notetaking.
Speaking at the RACGP Practice Owners Conference on Sunday, PSR director and GP Dr Antonio Di Dio said the independent agency had been working hard to “metastasize kindness” in the health regulation space.
“One of the things that we are most serious about is the wellbeing of the people that come to us,” he told delegates.
“It is a stressful and difficult experience, and it doesn’t matter how respectful we are. It doesn’t stop from being unbelievably distressful.”
He also acknowledged that, in the vast majority of incorrect billing cases referred to the PSR, practitioners were acting in good faith.
“Do some people do it deliberately? Perhaps,” Dr Di Dio said.
“But I think most people are pretty honest. From 36 years in this profession, I would say that 99% of our profession are scrupulously, brilliantly honest.
“I don’t think there’s many other professions that could say that.”
Related
With two months left until the end of the 2025-26 financial year, the PSR has finalised 100 investigations.
Of these, nine were cases of no further action or where proper investigation was not possible and 11 of these were final determinations from a committee of peers.
Practitioners in the remaining 80 finalised cases entered into an agreement with the PSR under section 92 of the Health Insurance Act 1973, where they agreed to repay a portion of their billings.
As of 30 April, the committee-based final determinations resulted in $3.9 million in repayments ordered and the S92 agreements resulted in $26 million in repayments ordered.
According to the latest director’s update published on the PSR website, one radiologist was ordered to repay $3.6 million to the Commonwealth in March this year.
This makes it one of the highest single repayments ordered in the scheme’s history.
The director’s report noted the “practitioner rendered an unusually high volume of services, including personal attendances at numerous geographically dispersed locations” and that the practitioner’s records were often incomplete.
All money recouped goes back to Medicare, not the PSR.
The PSR does not have KPI objectives to meet in relation to the number of practitioners it disqualifies from billing Medicare or the amount of money it rakes back for Medicare.
Incomplete or inadequate recordkeeping was often where practitioners under review stumbled, PSR acting general counsel Georgia O’Keefe told delegates at the RACGP conference.
She noted that many practitioners were now using AI assistance to write their records.
“That itself is not inappropriate practice,” Ms O’Keefe said.
“That can be perfectly okay, but we do consider it remains the practitioner’s responsibility to make sure that you have made an adequate record.
“Even if you’re using AI, it’s still your responsibility to go back and look at it and make sure that it reflects what occurred during the consultation, but also that it has the right information and sufficient information so another practitioner could take over care of the patient.”
The PSR lawyer warned against complacency.
“Over time you might start to rely on the AI more and more, and not go back and check the record yourself,” Ms O’Keefe said.
“If there’s one tip from us, it’s to please make sure you are checking your records when you are using AI. It is ultimately your responsibility to make sure that they are accurate.”
She also added that the PSR does not use AI in its decision-making process.
The 2026 RACGP Practice Owners Conference was held at ICC Sydney on 23 and 24 May.
