What the ACCC does

  • We enforce the Competition and Consumer Act 2010.
  • We provide general information about businesses’ obligations under competition law.

What the ACCC can't do

  • We don’t provide legal advice or settle disputes.

On this page

Fee setting by medical professionals practising within the same entity

A single legal entity includes a:

  • single company
  • sole natural person
  • legal partnership with no corporate partners
  • trust.

Medical professionals practising within a single legal entity, in any of these forms, are considered part of the same entity. This includes whether they are practising as:

  • directors
  • employees, or
  • partners.

For the purposes of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010, single legal entities are not in competition with each other. This means they are able to agree on the fees to be charged by that entity, without breaching the Act.

Fee setting in this situation is an internal management decision about prices. It's not considered illegal price fixing, as it is made by the individual entity.

Fee setting by medical professionals practising through separate entities

Medical professionals practising through separate legal entities, or within a legal partnership with at least one corporate partner, are considered competitors under the Competition and Consumer Act 2010.

Joint fee setting in this situation is illegal price fixing. In some circumstances, the ACCC may authorise this arrangement for a specific period. We have also denied authorising these arrangements in other circumstances.

Example

The ACCC has authorised GPs and dentists to set practice prices. However, we have denied authorisation in the case of proposed fee setting by ophthalmologists. For current authorisations, see the ACCC’s authorisations register.

Shared practices

The ACCC considers that common fee setting by professionals in shared practices is likely to result in significant detriment, except where there are a number of competitors in the area that provide a real competitive constraint to the shared practice.

We consider that the main potential benefits from common fee setting by professionals within a shared practice arise from the cost savings, efficiencies and greater teamwork and collaboration from operating as a shared practice. As a result, common fee setting typically only delivers significant benefits where it results in more shared practices than would otherwise be the case.

Bulk billing

Agreements not to bulk bill

Medical professionals practising through separate entities who collectively agree not to bulk bill all patients or certain patients are likely to be in breach of price fixing rules in the Act.

This kind of agreement between separate entities has the purpose of setting prices above a certain level and is likely to breach the Act.

Agreements to only bulk bill

Agreements between medical professionals practising through separate entities to bulk bill all patients may be considered price fixing.

Even though it is an agreement to charge the lowest likely price, it is still an agreement between competitors on the fee to be charged. Therefore, it's technically a breach of the Act.

We have discretion over when we'll take matters to court. In making these decisions, we consider a range of relevant factors, including:

  • the level of harm to consumers from the conduct
  • the overall public interest.

We consider that an agreement between medical professionals to bulk bill all patients would be unlikely to result in any harm to patients. This is because the bulk billed rate is the lowest fee likely to be charged for these services.

However, other people still have a right of private action under the Competition and Consumer Act 2010. To ensure there is no risk of breaching the price fixing law, even regarding collective agreements to bulk bill, each separate entity should independently decide on what fees to charge its patients.

Exchanging information for informed financial consent

Medical professionals who exchange fee information to help obtain informed financial consent from patients aren't breaching the Act, so long as they don't agree on the fees that will be charged to patients.

Breaches of the Act

Actions unlikely to be a breach of the Act

We wouldn't typically consider the following situations or actions by medical professionals to be likely to breach the Act:

  • merely being aware of the fees that other medical professionals charge. It's normal commercial behaviour to know what your competitors charge
  • the fact that 2 or more medical professionals happen to charge the same fee
  • informing other medical professionals of the fees entities have independently decided to charge, when the purpose is to obtain informed financial consent from patients.

Actions likely to be a breach of the Act

We consider that the following actions risk breaching the Act.

If a decision is made between medical professionals practising through separate entities to:

  • charge the same fee
  • charge different fees
  • increase or decrease fees
  • agree on fees, regardless of whether the agreement is actually implemented by some or all of the medical professionals.

Is this page useful?