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

Continued the debate

Brown supported the bill, arguing it addressed the problem of Australians delaying specialist care due to unclear costs. Brown noted that the previous voluntary Medical Costs Finder had failed, with only 88 doctors displaying fees by 2025, and stated the bill would use existing administrative data to publish fee information without requiring manual input from practitioners. Brown explained that Schedule 2 would prevent product phoenixing by requiring ministerial approval for new insurance products or changes that reduce cover value. Brown framed the legislation as part of a broader government strategy to make healthcare more affordable, citing investments in Medicare, bulk-billing incentives, and reduced prescription costs.

Government response

McAllister defended the bill as part of an $812 billion investment in Medicare, arguing it improved transparency and protected consumers from insurers bypassing scrutiny through product phoenixing. McAllister stated that Schedule 1 would help patients compare costs and make informed decisions, while Schedule 2 would formalise the premium approval process. McAllister acknowledged the work of the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee and indicated that a government amendment would be moved during the committee stage to address issues raised.

Opposition response

Ruston stated the coalition would not oppose the bill but would move amendments to ensure the transparency scheme was accurate and useful. Ruston proposed requiring the Medical Costs Finder to display median fees and typical ranges rather than single figures, and to remove disputed data immediately during reviews. Ruston also sought to cap application fees for new insurance products and impose a 30-day decision deadline for ministers to prevent administrative delays. Ruston criticised the government for rising out-of-pocket costs and premium increases, arguing that transparency alone did not address the underlying affordability crisis.