Health Legislation Amendment (Improving Choice and Transparency for Private Health Consumers) Bill 2026; Second Reading

McBride argued the bill addressed fairness by using existing government data to publish specialist fees and out-of-pocket costs on the Medical Costs Finder. McBride highlighted that low voluntary uptake had previously limited the tool's effectiveness. McBride also explained that the legislation closed a loophole allowing insurers to launch new products at higher prices without ministerial approval, known as product phoenixing.

Webster supported transparency but criticised the government for poor promotion of the existing Medical Costs Finder, which resulted in low public awareness. Webster cited data showing declines in gold-tier private health insurance and rising out-of-pocket costs, particularly in regional areas. Webster argued that transparency alone would not fix affordability and called for a Senate inquiry to examine the broader impact on the health system.

Roberts emphasised that the bill would help constituents make informed decisions by providing clear fee information without imposing administrative burdens on doctors. Roberts detailed how the legislation prevented insurers from exploiting loopholes to raise premiums on new products. Roberts noted that the reforms were supported by medical bodies and would restore confidence in the private health insurance system.

McCormack acknowledged the bill's transparency measures as a positive step but raised concerns about regional health accessibility and affordability. McCormack cited evidence that many Australians delayed specialist care due to cost and travel difficulties. McCormack argued that transparency alone was insufficient and called for multi-lever reforms, including investment in public outpatient services and specialist training.

Campbell argued the bill fixed an information gap that left consumers vulnerable to unexpected medical bills. Campbell explained that the legislation would publish practitioner fees and insurer data to help patients compare costs. Campbell also highlighted that the bill outlawed product phoenixing, ensuring insurers could not bypass ministerial scrutiny when launching new products or reducing cover.

Penfold supported the bill's transparency and anti-phoenixing measures but criticised the government for approving significant premium increases while insurers recorded record profits. Penfold argued that the legislation did not address the declining benefits ratio paid to private hospitals, which threatened their viability. Penfold called for mandatory benefit ratios and a code of conduct for insurer-hospital contracts.

Ryan stated the bill delivered on election promises to strengthen Medicare and protect consumers from price gouging. Ryan explained that the transparency measures would help general practitioners and patients make informed referrals based on cost. Ryan argued that the legislation prevented insurers from exploiting vulnerable customers needing high-level cover by requiring ministerial approval for new products and cover reductions.

lead

Ryan argued that rising out-of-pocket costs and gap fees are driving Australians away from specialist care, exacerbating cost-of-living pressures. Ryan supported the bill's move to mandatory data publication but warned that transparency alone cannot fix structural issues like under-indexed Medicare rebates and specialist workforce maldistribution. Ryan expressed concern that the proposed single fee figure might be misleading without quality markers or regular updates. Ryan moved amendments noting that medical service costs are outpacing inflation and calling for further reforms to keep specialist healthcare affordable.

Young asked if the amendment moved by Ryan was seconded, indicating procedural engagement with the legislative process.

Briskey corrected previous misinformation regarding eye injection reclassification, confirming the government would not proceed with changes that would increase out-of-pocket costs. Briskey argued the bill addresses opaque pricing and product phoenixing by unlocking existing government data to empower patients with comparable fee information. Briskey emphasised that transparency builds trust in the social contract of private health insurance and supports clinicians who already charge fairly.

Scamps supported the bill's transparency measures and ban on product phoenixing but argued these gains require an independent private health system authority to oversee the sector. Scamps highlighted that premium growth has outstripped inflation and wages, leading to consumers downgrading cover and increasing pressure on the public system. Scamps moved an amendment calling for the establishment of an independent authority to regulate the private health system and ensure value for consumers.

Georganas argued the bill provides essential transparency for consumers facing rising health costs and complex insurance products. Georganas detailed how the legislation closes loopholes allowing insurers to replace existing policies with similar, more expensive ones, thereby restoring consumer confidence. Georganas noted that the bill uses existing data to populate the Medical Costs Finder without adding administrative burdens on medical practitioners.

Spender supported the bill's transparency-by-default model and measures against product phoenixing, noting the failure of the previous voluntary system. Spender expressed concern about government decision-making delays and moved an amendment requiring clear timeframes for ministerial approvals of new insurance products to prevent market stagnation. Spender also supported Ryan's amendments regarding quality indicators and timely data updates.

France argued the bill addresses the failure of the previous voluntary Medical Costs Finder by mandating fee disclosure and stopping insurers from using product phoenixing to hike premiums. France highlighted data showing significant variations in specialist fees and unexpected bills, which the bill aims to eliminate through greater transparency. France framed the legislation as part of a broader government commitment to strengthening Medicare and protecting consumers from unfair practices.

Chaney supported the bill as a necessary first step but warned that transparency alone does not guarantee affordability or quality. Chaney seconded Ryan's amendment calling for Medicare rebate indexation and Spender's amendment demanding clear government decision-making timeframes. Chaney urged the inclusion of safeguards such as active fee monitoring and independent review of fee calculation methodologies to prevent unintended consequences.

Fernando argued that the bill addresses rising specialist fees and out-of-pocket costs that force families to delay care. Fernando stated the legislation enables the Department of Health to publish fee data on the Medical Costs Finder website without provider consent, improving transparency. Fernando also supported banning product phoenixing, where insurers close existing products to launch identical ones at higher premiums, thereby bypassing government oversight.

Jordan-Baird noted that low participation in the voluntary Medical Costs Finder had limited its effectiveness, with only one to two per cent of specialists participating by December 2025. Jordan-Baird argued the bill mandates the publication of fee data drawn from government-held billing records, ensuring patients can compare costs before seeking treatment. Jordan-Baird also highlighted that the bill requires ministerial approval for new insurance products, preventing insurers from circumventing premium caps through product relaunches.

Freelander, a former paediatrician, argued that increasing transparency allows patients to understand out-of-pocket costs before consultations, reducing financial shock. Freelander acknowledged that specialist fees have risen due to increased practice costs and training requirements but stressed that patients deserve visibility into these charges. Freelander supported the bill as part of broader government efforts to strengthen Medicare and improve access to healthcare, particularly in rural areas.

Miller-Frost stated that the bill addresses the issue of unpredictable specialist fees, which cause over 800,000 people to delay care annually. Miller-Frost explained that the legislation amends existing acts to allow the publication of detailed practitioner and insurer data, including gap cover arrangements, on the Medical Costs Finder. Miller-Frost also supported banning product phoenixing, citing evidence that insurers used this tactic to increase premiums significantly beyond approved limits.

Comer argued that the bill reduces uncertainty for patients by providing clear information on specialist fees and insurer out-of-pocket costs. Comer noted that the reforms draw on existing data from Medicare and insurers, avoiding new administrative burdens on medical practitioners. Comer emphasized that the legislation strengthens consumer protection and confidence in the private health system by closing loopholes that undermine regulatory oversight.