Peter Lindsay (Herbert, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Defence) Share this | Hansard source

Thank you to all of the members who have spoken on the Health Insurance Amendment (Inappropriate and Prohibited Practices and Other Measures) Bill 2007, both opposition and government—the members for Gellibrand, Riverina, Shortland and Mitchell. I appreciate their contributions to this debate. The bill before the Main Committee today addresses the limitations of provisions in the Health Insurance Act 1973 relating to pathology and diagnostic imaging services funded under Medicare. There is strong public interest, particularly taxpayer interest, in the provisions in this bill before the parliament today.

The bill amends the act to more clearly express the government’s intention to prevent inducements between providers and requesters of pathology and diagnostic imaging services. From a policy perspective, it moves to safeguard the public interest and protect Medicare from those very few people who wish to put greed ahead of good practice. We want to ensure that pathology and diagnostic services are referred and provided only in the best clinical interests of patients. We want to ensure that access to Medicare in these areas is not a licence to rort the system for personal or corporate gain. I stress, though, that, in the view of the government, the professions and industries of pathology and radiology do not have widespread problems in this regard, but we all agree that public confidence demands prudence and the ability to take effective action against those who let the whole of the community down by their wrong and unethical actions.

The amendments before the parliament have three main aims: first, to prohibit inappropriate practices relating to the rendering of pathology and diagnostic imaging services, including prohibiting inducements between requesters and providers of those services; second, to prevent payments for pathology and diagnostic imaging services that do not benefit patients; and, third, to encourage fair competition between providers of those services on the basis of the quality of services and their cost to patients.

The revised provisions define commercial relationships that are permitted between those who can request Medicare funded pathology and diagnostic imaging services and those who provide those services. They prohibit requesters and providers from being involved in non-permitted transactions, including those that are channelled through third parties. In other words, they give the legislation compliance and enforcement teeth that it has never had before. The provisions include civil penalties where pathology and diagnostic imaging providers offer or provide non-permitted benefits or make threats to requesters. The bill also prevents requesters from asking for or accepting non-permitted benefits from providers. Similar exchanges of benefits or threats will represent a criminal offence subject to a penalty of up to five years imprisonment where it can be shown that the person intended to induce the requester to request services from a particular provider.

Some stakeholders have raised concerns that the legislation may contain unintended loopholes allowing some inappropriate practices to continue. The government are confident that the legislation and the regulations that will underpin its implementation will address the substance of these concerns. However, we are still considering relevant stakeholders, and the government reserve the right to introduce amendments in the Senate if necessary. These reforms will take effect from 1 March 2008. This will allow everyone to familiarise themselves with the changes and aid a smooth transition to new ways of doing things.

I note that the shadow minister, the member for Gellibrand, made some criticisms of the time taken to conduct these reviews and make consequent legislative changes. As she would understand, this is a highly delicate and sensitive issue for practitioners and the industries in which they work. It was definitely, in the government’s view, a matter of ‘hastening slowly’ and working with the profession and industry, as we share a common interest in stamping out practices when they occur that affect the reputations of all of us. The best result is not a rushed result. For the same reasons, the government decided to pass this legislation before finalising the regulations to give it full effect.

We depend on the deep specialist and corporate knowledge of the industry and profession to implement these changes. By passing this legislation we are giving them assurances about the boundaries of the detailed regulation so that they can work with us with confidence. Therefore, the government undertake to work closely with stakeholders during the development of the regulations to ensure that they do not produce any unintended consequences and so they reflect best professional and corporate practice. We will also ensure that the changes are well understood by those who may be affected. In closing, I would like to thank both government speakers and members of the opposition who have supported this bill. That support is very much appreciated. On behalf of the government, I commend the bill to the House.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.

See this speech in context