AMA 'wrong' on genuine rosters: GP's misled on breach of law

The Australian Medical Association is misleading rural general practitioners by alarming its members with claims that their roster arrangements could breach the Trade Practices Act 1974, ACCC Chairman, Professor Allan Fels, said today.

"A genuine roster ensures the availability of medical services from general practitioners after hours and on weekends.

"The Act prohibits primary boycott agreements between competitors that have the purpose of restricting or withdrawing the supply of services – that is, the purpose behind a genuine roster on the one hand and a boycott agreement on the other hand are in opposite directions.

"As the ACCC has told the AMA repeatedly, the AMA's legal advice is wrong because it regards the purpose of the agreement as irrelevant. In fact, purpose is central to determining whether or not there is a primary boycott, as the wording of the Trade Practices Act makes clear and explicit.

"The AMA has been pushing an unfortunate, mischievous public misinformation program which has led some rural and regional practitioners to call the ACCC direct to clarify the situation.

"The AMA has misled its members about the ACCC's interest in this area. It has falsely claimed the ACCC is likely to pursue this issue. In reality the 'issue' was created by the AMA and its lawyers, based on incorrect legal advice, as hypothetical scenarios for a trade practices compliance program.

"The ACCC has not and is not investigating any rural or regional roster arrangements for breaches of the Act. The ACCC's concern is that consumers have adequate access to health services, not to pursue doctors providing such services within the law.

"The professions, including the health sector, remain a priority area for the ACCC.

"The ACCC will investigate claims of independent doctors getting together and collectively agreeing to boycott bulk-billing, or independent doctors agreeing amongst themselves not to bulk-bill and charge a collectively-fixed fee to patients.

"It should be obvious to anyone – including the AMA – that such collective arrangements have the potential to harm regional and rural patients as they already have restricted access to alternative medical practitioners.

"Medical practitioners can choose whatever business structure they want to use to provide their services. If he or she chooses to work as an independent sole practitioner then, consistent with that choice, he or she should set fees and determine availability independently. He or she must not agree collectively with his/her competitors.

"In most sectors where professional associations have qualms about the application of the Trade Practice Act, the association talks with the ACCC to resolve the perceived problems. They do not race to government, or the media, calling for public inquiries and changes to the law nor resort to scare tactics amongst their own members without confirming the concerns are real.

"The AMA's unwillingness to take such a sensible approach tends to confirm a suspicion that it merely wants exemption from the Act – that the medical profession should be above the law.

"To further assist general practitioners understand the trade practices law ACCC is developing a guide specifically written for doctors. It has been developed with the assistance of the Australian Division of General Practitioners, with support from the Commonwealth Department of Health and Aged Care. Input is being sought from the College of General Practitioner, the federal AMA, the Rural Doctors Association and a group of general practitioners.

"The draft guide follows on from an extensive education campaign and also a more general publication on trade practices law and the health sector.