Advertising


News

HealthLink reveals new subscription fees


Chelsea Heaney


19/12/2024 4:45:31 PM

The provider has sent out alerts about the incoming fees to many GPs and practices, with costs for larger clinics listed at $1000 a year.

A GP sitting at a computer whilst on the phone.
Communication from HealthLink indicates that the new paid subscription model will start on 1 February 2025.

Australia’s dominant electronic health messaging provider, HealthLink, is set to roll out a new paid subscription model for users early next year, according to an email sent to many practices across Australia.
 
In the correspondence, HealthLink says that from 1 February 2025, it will be ‘harmonising our subscription model for general practice … to ensure it is cost effective and scalable to meet the needs of both big and small clinics’.
 
For small practices with one to three GPs, this will see a new fee of $252 a year, medium-sized practices with four to 10 GPs will pay $600, and larger practices with 11 to 20 GPs will pay $1000 a year.
 
For any practices with more than 21 GPs, labelled as an enterprise, the pricing will be ‘subject to practice size and usage’.
 
‘This will mean that charges for each practice will be based on the number of practising doctors at the clinic,’ it states.
 
So far, practices in New South Wales and Western Australian have received notification of the changes from HealthLink.
 
RACGP President Dr Michael Wright told newsGP he is ‘really concerned about new and increasing fees being imposed on practices at a time when they are are already weighed down with high costs and increased bureaucracy’.
 
‘It’s another hit to the costs of running a general practice at a time when inadequate Medicare rebates are already hurting the financial viability of practices,’ he said.
 
‘This new cost seems opportunistic given that many state health services have begun requiring this system to be used – the last thing we need is for these increasing costs to drive GPs back from the shift to digital health that we have been leading, that is bad for patients, and bad for the efficiency of our health system.
 
‘HealthLink now has a virtual monopoly on secure messaging in most parts of Australia and increasingly HealthLink services are being more and more widely used.
 
‘This feels like opportunistic behaviour in a non-competitive market, these increased costs are either going to have to be passed on to patients, worsen the viability of practices, or result in us shifting back from digital health – none of these are good options for general practices or our patients.’
 
HealthLink did not respond to newsGP’s request for comment by deadline, but in its email to clinics it confirmed that in early 2025, managers will receive an invitation to the HealthLink payment portal for invoice details.
 
Dr Rob Hosking, Chair of the RACGP Expert Committee – Practice and Technology Management, said he was particularly concerned that GPs will be required to pay if they need to send referrals to public government-funded hospitals.
 
‘That doesn’t seem right to me,’ he told newsGP.
 
‘A number of hospitals are now requiring us to use HealthLink, and some state governments are requiring people to use HealthLink.
 
‘It’s effectively a tax to participate in hospital referrals, so that’s very disappointing – particularly when we’re being held ransomed by a private company.’
 
Dr Hosking said he was also unsure why this has been done ‘with no consultation with the profession’.
 
‘As far as I’m aware, I’ve had no communication,’ he said.
 
The HealthLink email confirms there will be no charge for administration staff or nurses.
 
‘For 25 years, we’ve worked closely with software partners to ensure that over 100 million secure messages are exchanged annually between general practitioners, specialists, hospitals, and diagnostic services,’ it reads.
 
The email also details that the company will be investing further in standards such as the Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources, or FHIR, and is in ‘close collaboration in initiatives such as the Sparked Program with the CSIRO’.
 
Log in below to join the conversation.


business of general practice digital health HealthLink software technology


newsGP weekly poll Do you support the Queensland Government’s decision to make its pharmacy prescribing pilot permanent?
 
6%
 
89%
 
4%
Related




newsGP weekly poll Do you support the Queensland Government’s decision to make its pharmacy prescribing pilot permanent?

Advertising

Advertising

 

Login to comment

Dr Pete Lou   20/12/2024 7:12:28 AM

Is this considered as 3rd line forcing when the public hospitals won't accept referrals not sent through Healthlink?
I think 3rd line forcing is illegal in Australia.
Where can one formally complain?


Dr Horst Paul Herb   20/12/2024 7:22:51 AM

I have warned that this would happen- there is not just no need at all to have a „man in the middle“ in secure communication, but real risks which include extortionate pricing of de facto monopolies and service disruption risks.
Secure communication should happen via open and proven standards that do not require any „man in the middle“ - and these standards were available all along.


Dr Thomas Hilliar   20/12/2024 7:38:51 AM

Pretty massive price. Horrendous service too.
Another example of also punishing clinics that have a lot of part time drs. In ours where most work 2 or 3 days, we have 11 GP's. Which means a $1000 annual punish for having lots of part time gps since we are over the 10 threshold.
We generally don't use it for public clinics since it is slow and clunky to use, and the same for referring to other specialists.
One other specialist locally 12 months ago contact all practices to let them know their health link had been misconfugured and so they had received 6 months worth of referrals at once from health link (all because health link never contacted them to tell them something was wrong.
Just another example of one more shoddy service that Gp clinics are expected to foot the bill for, like argus, that is not for for purpose and that this time the government have inhaled as well.
If the government require us to use it for public clinics they should pay for it to be used.


Dr Vahid Masoumi   20/12/2024 9:36:39 AM

While this is a mandatory channel for GPs to use, it would be illogical and unethical to force clinics to pay an amount they cannot avoid or opt out of. The government should propose a solution and provide financial support through PHNs.


A.Prof Christopher David Hogan   20/12/2024 10:54:06 AM

"harmonising our subscription model for general practice … to ensure it is cost effective and scalable to meet the needs of both big and small clinics’."
My translation from bureaucratese is a little rusty
Does this mean
A) We are running out of money & need to raise our prices
B) We have a large market share & want to make more profit
C) It seemed like a good idea at the time


Dr Jeremy   20/12/2024 2:32:30 PM

Absolutely terrible - we only use it to refer to public hospitals. It's a complete pain as it is.
Hopefully the RACGP will put a stop to it.

Everyone please also put in a ACCC complaint!


Dr Geoffrey Ronald Greig   20/12/2024 3:15:40 PM

Just pure extortion. We are just the messenger between the patient and the outpatients. Why are we being charged as a user . Maybe referring straight to emergency departments would get a change.


Dr Jeffrey Kallawk   20/12/2024 4:12:52 PM

Wouldn't it make more sense to charge the receiving party for the use of the service, ie the government for hospitals, and Specialists who rely on referrals for their private consulting. It makes no sense to me that the GP clinic should bear the cost for referring cases when the initial consult is effectively under supported financially by medicare in the first place. Pardon me if this already happens, but this proposal seems illogical.


Dr Vaso Dzartov   20/12/2024 8:08:10 PM

It is just more BS


Dr Graham James Lovell   20/12/2024 11:39:50 PM

Come on everyone ! - surely we all have a sizeable number of friends/patients that all require a State Government outpatient referral that will see the immortality of this Fee for accessing supposedly “free” Public clinics . Just knock up a template about it, and start sending them with it & their referral/ workcover form direct to the State Health Minister’s office. If we all did this rather than just moaning about it , they’d soon cost shift elsewhere than dumping it on us.


Dr Wayne Richard Piez   21/12/2024 4:54:02 AM

Of course Horst is correct. The system should have been set up very differently but it wasn’t….
If we think about the "legacy system" the person who sent the mail paid the postage. So initially the "senders" (diagnostic service providers, specialists, hospitals ...) paid for secure messaging because it saved them money. To make this work the "receivers" (GPs) received it for "free".
A few GPs used the system to send messages but most did not until large public hospitals demanded it. We then became "senders" and it was only a matter of time before we would be asked to pay our share of the "postage".
So what now?
1. Decide the value proposition is adequate, pay up and stay in the HealthLink world.
2. Opt out and advise patients that we can no longer refer directly to public hospital outpatients. We would provide a letter to ED so that they could still get access.

Our “problem” may be fixed quite quickly if a few practices simply advised the hospital that they were adopting #2


Dr Sean Colin Chesson Stevens   22/12/2024 12:24:55 AM

I suspect that HealthLink is doing this because their monopolistic powers allow them to. You can bet that if this proceeds, the HealthLink prices won't be rising in line with the Medicare rebate!


Dr Isaac   7/01/2025 11:20:22 AM

WOW .... this company is making millions of dollars from nothing! imagine average clinic to pay $600.00/ year x how many clinics? ..... millions of $$$$ , probably will reach billions! Who owns Healthlink? and who is the brain behind charging fees? ..... say hello to the medicare funding and health care ... time to charge patients for every single paper you write!