Enforcing informed financial consent for specialist fees is a bad idea, AMA warns
The Federal Government should not try to legally enforce informed financial consent, given the complexity of medical billing and the risk of unexpected treatment changes, the AMA says.
A government consultation has canvassed options for reducing so-called bill shock, including potentially expanding the powers of the Professional Services Review, with failure to obtain consent classed as inappropriate practice.
Along with the threat of hefty fines, this would then require doctors to repay Medicare rebates.
The AMA says that it is worried that the suggested reforms and publicity around them will “create a public misapprehension that a lot of doctors are dishonest”.
Rather than a new regime, it argues a better alternative is professional guidance for both patients and doctors, stressing that obtaining consent in the context of emergencies and complications was difficult.
“Given these practical impediments to obtaining informed financial consent before a medical service is provided in 100% of cases, the AMA believes that significant caution should be taken if the government decides to develop an overarching legislative framework regarding informed financial consent,” it wrote in its submission.
It also rejected suggestions that doctors should be required to disclose the fees of any linked medical services — such as the costs of anaesthetists, pathology or devices.
The submission argued that making a “lead” clinician responsible for informed consent for other costs would increase administration and medicolegal risk.
It also argued that any consent obligations should apply to all registered health practitioners, including dentists and allied health workers, not just doctors.
Read more: Another new watchdog? Govt investigating ways to stop medical bill shock
More information:
