Publish specialist fees and stop insurers repackaging products to dodge premium rules — back it or block it?
This bill does two things to private health care. First, it lets the government publish individual doctors' and specialists' fees and likely out-of-pocket costs on the Medical Costs Finder website, drawing on Medicare, hospital and insurer billing data the government already holds — so patients can compare prices before treatment. Second, it bans "product phoenixing", where an insurer closes a policy and reopens a near-identical one at a higher price to avoid needing the minister's approval for a premium rise. Labor speakers backed the bill strongly. The Coalition said it supports the intent but argued the bill is not ready — raising concerns about data accuracy, a clause giving the department legal immunity for publishing errors, and the approval rules covering too many products. The Coalition said it is not opposing the bill but will push for changes in the Senate. The debate ran about 78 minutes with no vote taken.
🗳 A public mood-check, not a scientific poll. Vote to see where the room stands.
For · Government (Labor)Patients often can't find out what a specialist will charge until the bill arrives, and fees vary wildly — one colonoscopy gap might be $50, another $700 — so publishing fees drawn automatically from existing billing data lets people compare and plan without adding paperwork for doctors. The old voluntary website drew only a handful of listings out of thousands of specialists, so mandatory data is needed.
For · Government (Labor)Banning product phoenixing closes a loophole where insurers scrap a policy and launch a near-identical one at a higher premium to bypass the minister's scrutiny — leaving customers paying more or worse covered. Requiring ministerial approval for new products and for changes that cut cover protects consumers and restores trust in private health insurance.
Against · CoalitionThe Coalition supports the goals but says the bill is not ready despite a year of lead time. It warns publishing fees risks errors that could unfairly damage doctors' reputations, criticises a clause shielding the department from legal liability for its own publishing mistakes while holding clinicians to strict standards, and says the premium-approval rules cast too wide a net — covering even minor extras policies — creating red tape that consumers ultimately pay for. It also argues transparency alone won't lower the out-of-pocket costs stopping people seeing specialists.