Peter Dutton (Dickson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Hansard source

I move opposition amendment (1) circulated in my name:

(1)   Schedule 1, page 3 (lines 9 to 14), omit items 2 and 3, substitute:

        2 Subsection 16A(3)

Repeal the subsection. Substitute:

        (3)    A medicare benefit is not payable in respect of a pathology service (other than a pathologist-determinable service to which subsection (6) applies) that has been rendered by or on behalf of an approved pathology practitioner unless:

             (a)    the service was rendered pursuant to a request made by the treating practitioner and, if an approved pathology practitioner was specified on the request, the service was conducted by that practitioner; or

             (b)    the service was rendered pursuant to a request made by another approved pathology practitioner who received a request for the service made by the treating practitioner and the treating practitioner did not specify a pathology practitioner.

     (3A)    In subsection (3), a treating practitioner may only specify an approved pathology practitioner on clinical grounds.

As I stated previously, the coalition does not oppose the intent of the bill and the amendment that has been circulated is intended to support quality of care while allowing for patient choice. The amendment allows for a treating practitioner to specify a pathology practitioner when making a request if there is a clinical reason for doing so. The Minister for Health and Ageing, in her second reading speech, stated:

… there are often valid clinical reasons for recommending a particular pathology provider over another.

The evidence provided by stakeholders also agrees with this assessment. The Royal Australian College of General Practitioners identified a number of clinical situations where specifying a pathology provider may be necessary for good patient care—for example, when results need to be reviewed or when other situations arise where there will definitely be a requirement for that involvement. I thank the government, through the minister, for their agreement to this amendment.

In their submissions there does appear to be general agreement among stakeholders on this issue. A similar system operates under the PBS whereby a medical practitioner can specify that a generic medicine substitution is not appropriate. The amendment would need to be consistent with changes to the regulations. The coalition is prepared to work with the government to this end. There are also a number of other implementation issues which will need to be addressed. As I mentioned in my second reading contribution on the legislation, we continue to encourage the government to work with the pathology and medical profession to address these issues. The amendment is consistent with the intent of the bill. It will allow for patient choice whilst maintaining the high quality of clinical care, and it is supported by stakeholders.

See this speech in context