Mark Butler (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the House) | Hansard source

I thank the member for Kooyong for her contribution to this debate generally and for her amendments. I know the amendments moved by the member for Kooyong are grounded in a great degree of goodwill, common purpose with the government about what we're seeking to achieve here and deep experience through her time as a paediatric neurologist. We're not supporting these amendments, not because we don't share the intentions of the member for Kooyong but because we have a different approach. What we're seeking to do here is pass legislation that enables us to set up the Medical Costs Finder as a mandatory system, if you like. But, for implementation, the finer detail about how this is designed and populated is to be the subject of ongoing engagement with stakeholders. I think I indicated that a little while ago.

I note that the member's proposed amendments support the publication of different types of specific information, including fee ranges, extreme fees, quality metrics, upfront fees and some of the things the member just canvassed in her contribution. I can assure her and other members that my department is engaging with stakeholders on the design and the implementation of the changes that are enabled through this bill. That consultation process, in our view, is the appropriate mechanism to work through the details that the member for Kooyong has canvassed in her amendment.

On extreme fees, my department is working with patients, doctors and the private health sector to develop practical reform options that will improve how Australians access, navigate and afford specialist care. That includes exploring options that address concerns over the very high fees charged by some specialists. I think the member called them outliers—a description I've used, as well—compared to their peers. We see a slightly different trend out there compared to GPs, where the band of gap fees being charged is relatively consistent across the country, but there really is a wild variability at the edges of fees being charged by non-GP specialists.

On upfront fees, we agree that administrative fees, booking fees and split billing does negatively affect patients and also often leads to bill shock. Separate work is underway on this issue to explore options that strengthen informed financial consent for consumers in this respect. On the utilisation of gap cover arrangements, this bill already addresses this under proposed section 324-5, subsection (2)(e), of the Private Health Insurance Act. On frequency of data updates, we agree that it is important for users to see up-to-date data to help guide their decisions about seeking specialist care. My department intends to make frequent updates and will refresh as regularly as data availability and quality will allow.

I again want to thank the member for her support for this government's broad effort to improve choice and transparency for private health consumers. As I said, this is something where we're engaging with a range of stakeholders, including doctor representatives through the AMA and others, to make sure we get this detail right. I think we would find value in the member being engaged in that process, as well, so if she's interested I'd be more than happy to continue to engage her with that. But we are not in a position to support the amendments moved by the member for Kooyong.

See this speech in context