RBA Card Surcharge Ban 2026: What It Means for Your Practice

September 16, 2026

From 1 October 2026, the way Australian businesses accept card payments is changing, and healthcare practices are no exception.

As part of the Reserve Bank of Australia’s (RBA) biggest payments overhaul in two decades, card surcharging will no longer be permitted, meaning practices won’t be able to add a separate fee when a patient chooses to pay by card.

The cost of accepting card payments isn’t disappearing, though. Payment providers will keep charging businesses to process transactions, so if your practice currently surcharges, now is the time to understand what the change means for your fees, your systems and your patients.

Why the RBA is scrapping surcharging

Surcharging was introduced more than two decades ago, when cash was still the norm, to make the extra cost of paying by card visible so customers could choose a cheaper option. That logic doesn’t hold up today: card payments are now the default for most Australians, including patients at healthcare practices. The RBA has concluded that surcharging no longer steers people toward cheaper payment choices and mostly just adds confusion at the point of payment, so it’s being removed.

What's changing from 1 October 2026

The surcharge ban applies to payments made using eftpos, Mastercard and Visa. American Express has also announced it will remove surcharging from the same date.

Your payment provider will continue to charge a processing fee on every card transaction regardless. That means most practices will need to think about how these costs fit into their overall pricing, rather than passing them on at the point of sale.

Key takeaways

Card surcharging on eftpos, Mastercard, Visa (and Amex, voluntarily) ends on 1 October 2026.

Processing fees still apply; they just can't be passed on as a separate surcharge.

The interchange fee cap is also dropping (roughly 0.8% to 0.3%), which may modestly lower costs, though savings aren't guaranteed to be passed on.

Review your fee structure, payment settings and patient-facing materials before the deadline.

MediRecords/Stripe customers who don't act will have surcharging switched off automatically from 1 October.

Discounts for specific payment methods are still allowed, provided they're genuinely structured and communicated as discounts.

What the surcharge ban means for healthcare practices

It’s an opportunity to review how your practice manages payment costs more broadly. Before 1 October 2026, here’s what’s worth reviewing:

Check your surcharge settings

Find out whether your practice currently applies a card surcharge, and where.

Review your card processing fees

Understand exactly what you currently pay your payment provider to process card transactions.

Review your fee structure

Consider whether your current fees still work for your practice once card processing costs can no longer be passed on as a surcharge.

Update patient-facing information

Check your website, booking systems and other patient materials for references to card surcharges that will need to be removed or updated.

There’s no requirement to increase your fees. Every practice’s costs are different, so it’s worth deciding what approach makes sense for yours.

If you do decide to build card processing costs into your fees, the simplest approach is usually to fold it into your regular annual fee review, factoring in your typical card-to-cash payment split. When communicating any increase, a simple message about your annual review is usually enough; there’s no need to mention card processing costs specifically.

Understanding card processing costs

Previously, practices could recover some or all of their processing fee through a surcharge. From 1 October 2026, that option disappears, so the cost needs to be built into your overall pricing strategy instead.

This is partly offset by another change in the same reform: the RBA is lowering the cap on interchange fees (the portion of a transaction fee that goes to the patient’s bank), from roughly 0.8% to 0.3% on standard credit cards. Stripe has also announced lower domestic pricing from the same date. In theory these should reduce processing costs over time, but providers aren’t obligated to pass savings on in full, so it’s worth treating any reduction as a bonus rather than something to plan around.

Using Stripe with MediRecords?
Here's what to do

If your practice processes payments through Stripe via MediRecords and currently applies a card surcharge, you’ll need to update your settings before 1 October 2026.

1. Turn off your surcharge

Go to Practice and User Configurations > Digital Payments and set the Surcharge toggle to No.

2. Review your fee structure

Consider whether your practice fees need adjusting to account for card processing costs that can no longer be surcharged.

What if you don’t update your settings? MediRecords will automatically switch off surcharging for Stripe customers from 1 October 2026 and remove the surcharge option entirely. Stripe processing fees will still apply to your practice regardless.

Other payment changes worth considering

The surcharge ban only targets fees added specifically because a patient chooses to pay by card. Other ways of structuring fees and payments aren’t affected in the same way.

Discounts

The new rules don’t prevent practices from offering a discount for a particular payment method, for example, a lower fee for patients who pay by direct deposit. If your practice currently varies its prices depending on how a patient pays, it’s worth reviewing that structure before October to make sure it’s presented and communicated as a genuine discount, not a disguised card surcharge.

Online and telehealth payments

The ban applies to card payments made online just as much as in person, including booking deposits, outstanding account payments and telehealth consultations. Check how surcharges are currently applied across these touchpoints and make sure your settings are ready.

Frequently Asked Questions

When does the card surcharge ban start in Australia?

From 1 October 2026, card surcharging will no longer be permitted in Australia for eftpos, Mastercard and Visa payments. American Express has also announced it will remove surcharging from the same date.

Will businesses still pay card processing fees after 1 October 2026?

Yes. Payment providers will continue to charge businesses a processing fee on every card transaction; only the ability to pass that fee on to the customer as a separate surcharge is being removed.

Are the RBA's changes reducing card processing fees too?

Partly. As part of the same reform, the RBA is lowering the cap on interchange fees from roughly 0.8% to 0.3% on standard credit cards, and Stripe has announced lower domestic pricing from 1 October 2026. Any savings aren’t guaranteed to be passed on in full, so it’s worth treating this as a possible bonus rather than something to plan around.

Does the card surcharge ban apply to online payments?

Yes. It applies to card payments made online in the same way as those made in person, including payment links, booking deposits, outstanding account payments and telehealth consultations.

Does this affect bulk billing practices?

If patients have no out-of-pocket cost, surcharging generally hasn’t been relevant to you. This mostly affects practices charging gap or private fees where a surcharge is currently applied at the point of payment.

What should healthcare practices do before 1 October 2026?

Check whether your practice currently applies a card surcharge, review what you pay in processing fees, and decide whether your fee structure needs adjusting once surcharging is no longer an option. It’s also worth updating any patient-facing references to surcharges on your website or booking materials.

What do MediRecords customers using Stripe need to do?

If your practice surcharges through Stripe via MediRecords, turn off the surcharge toggle under Practice and User Configurations > Digital Payments before 1 October 2026. If you don’t, MediRecords will switch it off automatically from that date, though Stripe processing fees will still apply.

Considering a move to MediRecords?

Choose your current system and enter your details into the form below. We’ll show your full migration breakdown, and if you’re ready to proceed, our team will be in touch with your timeframe.

More from the Blog

RBA Card Surcharge Ban 2026: What It Means for Your Practice

Changes to the upcoming Medicare Assignment of Benefit rules

Reducing The Cost of Admin in Australian General Practice

August 27, 2026

“I get home an hour early every day.”

— General practitioner, CSIRO/Avant Mutual focus groups, 2025

That line belongs to an Australian GP describing what an AI tool changed about her working day. Admin is usually costed in minutes – a few lost per consultation, tallied up at day’s end into an operational inconvenience. That accounting is comfortable, since it keeps the issue small enough to live with, but three studies published across 2025 and early 2026 – one from the American Medical Association, one a survey of general practitioners in the United Kingdom, and the Australian focus groups already quoted above – suggest the real figure sits differently.

Across all three, documentation is the task doctors nominate most often for automation, ahead of diagnostic support, referral drafting and patient communication combined.

Where the burden concentrates

The American Medical Association’s 2024 survey of nearly 1,200 physicians found that 57% named reducing administrative burden through automation as the single biggest opportunity AI offered them, ahead of diagnostic accuracy and personalised treatment.

Actual use nearly doubled over the same period – 66% of physicians reported using AI in 2024, up from 38% the year before, a rise of 78% in twelve months. Asked what they used it for, physicians pointed to documentation more than anything else too, with use of AI for billing codes, charts and visit notes rising from 13 to 21% of physicians in a single year, the fastest-growing application in the survey.

The same pattern holds in the United Kingdom, where Charlotte Blease and colleagues’ 2025 survey of 1,005 general practitioners, published in Digital Health, found that 25% now use generative AI in clinical practice, and that among those users, 35% applied it to documentation after patient appointments – the largest single use case, ahead of differential diagnosis (27%), treatment options (24%) and referrals (24%).

A whopping 71% of those users said that the AI tools reduced their overall workload.

“Physicians are increasingly intrigued by the assistive role of health AI and the potential of AI-enable tools to reduce administrative burdens, enhance diagnostic accuracy, and personalise treatments.”

— Dr Jesse M. Ehrenfeld, AMA Immediate Past President

The knowledge gap outranks the fear of error

Adoption remains fairly uneven, and Australian research by CSIRO and Avant Mutual shows why. Asked what stopped them from using AI, or what still concerned them as existing users, doctors in both Sydney and Melbourne ranked not knowing enough about how the technology worked or where their patients’ data went above every other issue, including the risk of the software producing an outright error. 93.3% of users and 94.4% of non-users raised it, ahead of AI error itself at 86.7% and 83.3% per cent respectively.

A doctor who had adopted the technology, asked the same question, admitted she had never been told the answer either. “I can’t say exactly how it works, because no one’s told me.”

The knowledge gap, on both sides of the divide, is not a training deficiency sitting at the margins of the job. It sits at the centre of whether a doctor can use the tool with a straight face.

“If patients ask me, is the data encrypted, where's it stored, is it in Australia or overseas, I don't have the confidence to say yes, this, this and this. And if I don't have that confidence, they'll look at me and say, well, can I trust your advice then.”

— AI non-user, general practitioner, CSIRO/Avant Mutual focus groups, 2025

Nor is that deficit evenly distributed. In the UK survey, 95% of GenAI users had received no formal training from their employer, and 85% said their employer had not even encouraged them to use the tools they were already relying on. The Australian focus groups found the gap bites hardest for doctors in small or solo practices, who have to select and assess AI software themselves, against doctors in larger organisations with an IT department to do that research for them.

When vetting AI tools, who carries the risk?

Doctors with an IT department behind them are better placed than most, but they are not fully insulated from this cost either, since institutional support of that kind usually buys due diligence on one additional piece of software rather than the removal of the category of work altogether.

An AI tool bought as a separate product, however well built, still asks someone in the practice to vet it as a new piece of software before it can be trusted with a patient record. Software that reads or writes the note as a function already sitting inside the system a doctor uses, by contrast, removes that requirement at the point it would otherwise arise, since the practice assessed the record system’s governance once, when it adopted it.

None of this is particular to documentation, either. The same calculation applies to whichever category of AI a practice adopts next, whether that is filing incoming correspondence, summarising a patient’s history before an appointment, or something not yet built.

The object being processed changes but the underlying question does not. A capability bought from the vendor that already holds the record answers that question before it is asked. A capability bought from anyone else asks it again.

MediRecords’ two AI tools to date, Evolve Direct and Evolve Patient Summary, are built on that logic rather than around it.

Evolve Direct files incoming correspondence, referral letters and results into the right patient record automatically, without the documents ever leaving the practice’s own MediRecords environment, and is credited with saving up to two hours a day on that category of admin alone. Evolve Patient Summary works the other side of the same problem, generating a summary of a patient’s last three consultations, recent correspondence and investigations within seconds, so a doctor opening a file before an appointment is not the one doing the collating.

Neither asked a practice to onboard a separate vendor, since both run inside the record the practice had already assessed when it adopted MediRecords in the first place.

The pattern beyond documentation

Each new category of clinical AI will keep arriving promising time saved, and each time, what decides whether the promise holds is not what the software can do but where responsibility for vetting it sits once deployed. A practice that treats every new AI capability as a fresh procurement decision, weighed against a new vendor’s claims about security and data handling, pays that vetting cost again for each one. A practice that expects its record system to extend natively, function by function, pays it once. The saving the AMA and Blease surveys measured, and the hour the general practitioner quoted at the outset got back, hold only under the second model. Otherwise the burden changes shape, from typing to due diligence, without shrinking.

Rather than take the argument above on faith, the more useful test is a practical one. For the next piece of AI a practice is weighing up, ask whether it sits inside a system already vetted, or asks the practice to start that process again from a new vendor.

Nor is that deficit evenly distributed. In the UK survey, 95% of GenAI users had received no formal training from their employer, and 85% said their employer had not even encouraged them to use the tools they were already relying on. The CSIRO focus groups found the gap bites hardest for doctors in small or solo practices, who have to select and assess AI software themselves, against doctors in larger organisations with an IT department to do that research for them.

Sources

American Medical Association. “2 in 3 physicians are using health AI - up 78% from 2023.” AMA, 26 Feb 2025. ama-assn.org/practice-management/digital-health/2-3-physicians-are-using-health-ai-78-2023
Blease, C., Hagström, J., Garcia Sanchez, C., Kharko, A., McMillan, B., Gaab, J., Brulin, E., Locher, C., Hägglund, M., Riggare, S. & Mandl, K.D. “General practitioners' adoption of generative artificial intelligence in clinical practice in the UK: An updated online survey.” Digital Health, 2025;11. doi.org/10.1177/20552076251394287
Irons, J.L., Duenser, A., Pickett, T., Haysom, G. & McGrath, M.J. “AI in medical practice: doctors' perspective on the benefits, challenges and facilitators of artificial intelligence scribe use.” Health and Technology, 2026;16:401–410. doi.org/10.1007/s12553-025-01042-x

Considering a move to MediRecords?

Choose your current system and enter your details into the form below. We’ll show your full migration breakdown, and if you’re ready to proceed, our team will be in touch with your timeframe.

More from the Blog

RBA Card Surcharge Ban 2026: What It Means for Your Practice

Changes to the upcoming Medicare Assignment of Benefit rules

Cloud vs On-Premise Practice Management Software

July 8, 2026

Choosing the right practice management software involves more than comparing features like appointments, clinical records, billing and integrations. One of the most important decisions is understanding how the software is built, accessed and maintained.

Practice management systems generally fall into two categories: on-premise software, managed by the practice or its IT provider, and cloud-native software, designed to operate through secure online infrastructure.

This article compares cloud and on-premise practice management software, covering infrastructure, costs, security, telehealth capabilities and the key considerations when choosing the right solution for your practice.

What is the difference between cloud and on-premise practice management software?

On-premise practice management software is installed on servers located within the practice or managed by an external IT provider. The practice is responsible for maintaining the technology behind the system, including hardware, backups, updates, security and troubleshooting.

Cloud practice management software enables authorised users to access patient information securely from anywhere, making it easier to support multi-site teams, telehealth services, electronic prescribing workflows, and hybrid models of care.

The difference is more than simply where data is stored. It impacts how easily a practice can scale, support remote work, introduce new technology and manage the day-to-day responsibilities of running a system.

Some traditional practice management systems were originally built for local servers and later adapted for cloud access. Cloud-native platforms, such as MediRecords, are designed around cloud technology from the beginning, allowing practices to benefit from infrastructure built specifically for secure online access.

Cloud practice management software vs on-premise software comparison

Feature	Cloud practice management software	On-premise practice management software
Infrastructure costs	lower upfront hardware requirements	Requires investment in local servers and hardware
Server maintenance	Managed by the software provider	Managed by the practice or IT provider
Access	Secure access from anywhere	Usually limited to locations with local infrastructure
Software updates	Delivered automatically	Often requires manual installation
Scaling	Easier to add additional users, providers and locations	May require additional hardware and configuration
Telehealth support	Designed to support connected, remote workflows	May require additional setup and integrations
IT requirements	Less reliance on internal IT expertise	Greater responsibility for managing technology

The true cost of practice management software

When comparing software options, it is easy to focus only on subscription fees or licence costs. However, the true cost of a system includes the technology, time and resources required to keep it running.

On-premise systems often require additional investment in areas such as:

Server hardware
Operating system and database licences
IT support
Backups and recovery processes
Cybersecurity management
Hardware replacement

These costs can add up over time and are not always considered when practices first compare software options. Based on a five-year cost comparison, moving to cloud practice management software, such as MediRecords, could save organisations up to $216,900 (approximately $43,380 annually), representing a 64% reduction in total cost of ownership (TCO) compared with an on-premise system.

For smaller practices, these additional responsibilities can create unnecessary complexity and cost. Whether you’re a GP practice, specialist clinic or allied health practice, a cloud-based solution allows you to get started quickly without purchasing servers, managing infrastructure or coordinating ongoing IT support.

Cloud practice management software reduces many of these barriers by providing access to the system through a secure online environment, helping practices focus on delivering care rather than managing technology.

Understand the potential value for your practice

Explore the potential cost savings and benefits of moving to cloud practice management software with our ROI and pricing calculator.

Is cloud practice management software secure?

Security is one of the most common considerations when choosing cloud-based software.

A common misconception is that storing data on a local server automatically provides greater protection. In reality, security depends on how systems are designed, maintained and monitored.

Australian healthcare practices must protect personal and health information in line with the Privacy Act 1988 and guidance from the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC). Cloud-native practice management software supports these requirements through secure infrastructure, controlled access, regular updates and ongoing monitoring managed by specialist technology teams.

With on-premise systems, practices are responsible for security updates, backups, access controls and disaster recovery. Cloud-native healthcare software allows these responsibilities to be managed by specialist technology teams, helping practices maintain strong security processes without requiring extensive internal IT knowledge.

This gives practice owners greater peace of mind, knowing critical infrastructure and security are managed by specialist technology teams.

Supporting modern healthcare workflows

Healthcare is becoming increasingly connected, with clinicians working across multiple locations and patients expecting more flexible care options.

Cloud practice management software enables authorised users to access patient information securely from anywhere, making it easier to support multi-site teams, telehealth services and hybrid models of care.

See how healthcare organisations are using cloud technology to support flexible care delivery, with examples from our customer case studies.

Benefits of cloud practice management software for growing practices

Whether you’re starting a new practice or expanding an existing one, cloud practice management software makes it easier to grow without investing in servers or complex infrastructure. Solo practitioners can get started faster with lower upfront costs, while larger practices can easily add users, providers and locations as they expand.

This allows practices to adopt connected tools such as patient communication, online bookings and other digital health capabilities without the complexity of managing additional local infrastructure.

Ready to move your practice to the cloud?

MediRecords is cloud-native practice management software designed for Australian healthcare practices, bringing appointments, clinical records, ePrescribing, billing, telehealth and patient communication ( via Engage) together in one connected platform.

Whether you’re a solo practitioner starting a new practice or a growing organisation looking to simplify operations, MediRecords provides the flexibility, security and scalability to support the way modern healthcare teams work. Our data migration process helps practices transition smoothly from their existing system, making the move to MediRecords simple and supported. Learn more about our data migration process here.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is cloud practice management software?

Cloud practice management software is hosted online rather than installed on local servers. It allows healthcare practices to securely access appointments, clinical records, billing and other workflows while the software provider manages infrastructure, updates and maintenance.

What is the difference between cloud and on-premise practice management software?

Cloud practice management software is hosted online and managed by the software provider, while on-premise software is installed on local servers managed by the practice or its IT provider. The main differences include infrastructure costs, maintenance responsibilities, accessibility and scalability.

Is cloud practice management software secure?

Yes, cloud practice management software can provide strong security when built and managed correctly. Cloud providers typically manage infrastructure, security updates, monitoring and backups, reducing the technology burden on practices.

Can cloud practice management software support telehealth?

Yes. Cloud-based practice management software supports connected healthcare workflows by enabling secure access to patient information, digital communication tools and telehealth services from different locations.

Is cloud practice management software suitable for solo practitioners?

Yes. Cloud software can be a practical option for solo practitioners because it reduces upfront technology costs and removes the need to purchase servers or manage complex IT infrastructure when starting a practice.

Do I need an IT team to manage cloud practice management software?

No. One of the key benefits of cloud practice management software is that the provider manages much of the underlying technology, including hosting, updates and infrastructure. This allows practice owners and GPs to focus on running their practice rather than managing IT systems.

How much does cloud practice management software cost?

The cost of cloud practice management software depends on factors such as practice size, users, features and requirements. When comparing options, practices should consider the total cost of ownership, including hardware, maintenance, IT support and upgrades. Access our online pricing calculator here.

How quickly can I set up cloud practice management software?

Cloud practice management software can typically be implemented faster than on-premise systems because practices do not need to purchase or configure servers and supporting infrastructure before getting started.

Check what moves across from your system, and how it looks in MediRecords

Choose your current system and enter your details into the form below. We’ll show your full migration breakdown, and if you’re ready to proceed, our team will be in touch with your timeframe.

More from the Blog

RBA Card Surcharge Ban 2026: What It Means for Your Practice

Changes to the upcoming Medicare Assignment of Benefit rules

June 19, 2026

On 18 June, after sustained advocacy from the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners, the Federal Government softened the Medicare Assignment of Benefit changes due to start on 1 July.

What the announcement changes

Verbal consent available for a 12 month period from 1 July.
Enduring assignment brought forward for MyMedicare registered patients, aged care residents, and patients attending Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisations (ACCHO)
Enduring assignment for ACCHO patients can be held across more than one site.
Activity begins only once the regulatory changes are complete, and starts with education rather than enforcement.
A 12 month transition period has been introduced with a commitment to reduce the administrative load on practices and patients.

The requirement underneath has not gone away

The concessions give practices room to move, yet they sit around the obligation rather than removing it. Consent still has to be captured at the point of claiming, recorded against the claim, and held for two years for whenever a patient or an auditor asks for it. That work happens every day. The only open question is whether the software does it or the front desk does.

This matters because the burden the College fought to reduce is, in practice, an administrative one. When software does not absorb a change, the practice absorbs the labour, and the RACGP 2025 Health of the Nation report found 70% of GPs are already concerned about their administrative workload. A change handled by hand lands straight on top of that.

Cloud-native software removes the burden, not just softens it

The deciding factor is how updates reach the system. Legacy software sits on a server in the practice, so each rule change arrives as a release to wait for, install, and test before it can be relied on. Cloud-native software is updated continuously, so the Medicare Assignment of Benefit changes can be built into the workflow ahead of the deadline and switched on for everyone at once, with no server visit and no version left languishing in a back room.

That is the difference between softening the burden and never carrying it. MediRecords is cloud-native, and the 1 July requirements are already built into the billing workflow, so digital consent is captured at the point of claiming and retained automatically for two years. When the rules shift, there is nothing for the practice to install and nothing to rework.

This is just one deadline, and there will be others. The figure worth weighing is not this month’s licence fee but what every future change will cost in hours, in risk, and in rejected claims. On a legacy system that bill keeps arriving, but on a platform built to update itself, it does not.

How we are supporting MediRecords customers

For practices already on MediRecords, the updated Assignment of Benefit tools will be available in the platform on 1 July, ready to use from day one. With the 12 month transition period in place, customers have time to get comfortable with the new workflow well before compliance begins.

As more detail of the Medicare Assignment of Benefit changes emerges, we will keep updating the platform to match, so the work of staying compliant stays with us rather than landing on your front desk.

See it for yourself before 1 July.

The clearest way to judge whether a system is ready for the Medicare Assignment of Benefit changes is to watch one that already is.

For an obligation-free MediRecords demo, simply reach out to our friendly team via the form below.

More from the Blog

RBA Card Surcharge Ban 2026: What It Means for Your Practice

Changes to the upcoming Medicare Assignment of Benefit rules

Assignment of Benefit changes: What it means for practices

June 9, 2026

Healthcare in Australia is becoming increasingly digital, but many administrative processes have struggled to keep pace. Behind the scenes of every consultation sits a system that relies heavily on trust. Patients expect their information to be handled securely and their Medicare billing to be managed correctly.

From 1 July 2026, this system is being updated. Changes to the Medicare Assignment of Benefits (AoB) process will reshape how bulk billing consent is captured and stored in practices. While framed as a Medicare compliance update, the AoB changes also signal a broader shift toward more transparent, consistent, and digitally enabled healthcare administration in Australia.

For many practices, the Medicare AoB changes 2026 will feel like another layer of administration at first. But beneath that sits a clear path away from paper-based workflows and toward simpler, digital consent processes.

What are the Medicare Assignment of Benefits (AoB) changes?

The Department of Health, Disability and Ageing (DoHDA) is modernising Medicare billing for bulk billed and simplified billing services through amendments to the Health Insurance Act 1973. At its core, bulk billing still requires patient agreement to assign their Medicare benefit to the provider, with that benefit treated as full payment for the service.

The Assignment of Benefits (AoB) process sets out how this consent is captured. From July 2026, updated Medicare AoB requirements will change how bulk billing consent is documented, stored, and verified.

Key changes from July 2026 include:

Verbal consent will no longer be accepted, including for telehealth services.
Consent can be given before or after a service, but must be in place before a Medicare claim is submitted.
Approved or prescribed forms will no longer be required if all mandatory information is included.
Practitioner signatures will no longer be required.
Patient or authorised representative consent must be identifiable and electronically verifiable.
AoB records must be retained for at least two years and provided to patients on request.

Why Medicare is moving beyond paper consent

For years, consent for bulk billed Medicare services has been managed through paper-based forms and manual administrative processes. While these approaches have been long established, they are increasingly being complemented by more efficient digital workflows.

As healthcare delivery becomes more digitally enabled, paper-based processes can add avoidable steps such as printing, scanning, filing, and physical storage. They may also make it more difficult to consistently access or verify consent records when required.

The Medicare AoB changes aim to bring consent processes in line with modern digital health standards. By improving how consent is recorded and stored, the updates support clearer documentation, stronger governance, and more reliable access to records across the system.

What this means for your practice

For practices, the Medicare AoB changes will require planning, including updates to systems, workflows, and staff training to support consistent and compliant consent capture.

While this creates short-term adjustment, it also presents an opportunity to improve how consent is managed. Embedding consent into clinical systems can reduce duplication, streamline workflows, and create a more consistent Medicare billing process.

Consent is a routine part of every patient interaction, but paper-based systems add multiple manual steps that accumulate over time. Digital workflows help reduce this burden, making records easier to capture, access, and manage for compliance and audit purposes.

Practices will also need to ensure consent remains accessible for all patients, including those less confident with digital tools or who prefer non-digital options.

These implementation challenges have been noted by the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners (RACGP), particularly around administrative burden and the need for clear guidance during transition. While some adjustment is expected, the changes support a longer-term shift toward more efficient and consistent processes across general practice.

What patients can expect

From a patient perspective, the Medicare AoB changes are primarily centred on improved transparency, clarity, and accessibility of consent.

Digital and standardised consent processes are intended to provide clearer records of what patients have agreed to, and when consent was given. This reduces reliance on paper-based forms and improves the ease with which information can be accessed when needed.

In practice, patients are likely to experience a more consistent and streamlined consent process across providers, particularly as digital systems become more integrated into everyday care delivery.

At the same time, maintaining flexible and accessible non-digital pathways will remain an important part of ensuring the system remains inclusive and patient-centred.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is an Assignment of Benefit (AoB)?

An Assignment of Benefit (AoB) is the process where a patient agrees to assign their Medicare benefit directly to a healthcare provider, allowing the provider to receive the Medicare rebate as full payment for a bulk billed service. This agreement confirms the patient’s consent for the provider to bill Medicare on their behalf instead of the patient paying upfront and claiming a rebate themselves.

What are the Medicare Assignment of Benefit (AoB) changes?

From 1 July 2026, the Medicare Assignment of Benefit (AoB) changes update how patient consent for bulk billed services is captured and recorded. Verbal consent will no longer be accepted, and consent must be clearly documented before a Medicare claim is submitted. Practitioner signatures will no longer be required, approved forms are no longer mandatory if required information is included, and records must be retained for at least two years with copies provided to patients on request.

When do the Medicare Assignment of Benefit changes come into effect?

The updated Medicare Assignment of Benefits requirements take effect from 1 July 2026.

How do the Assignment of Benefit changes affect bulk billing?

The changes do not alter the bulk billing process itself. Instead, they focus on how patient consent for bulk billed services is obtained, recorded, and stored, with greater emphasis on clear written or electronic documentation.

Why is Medicare changing the Assignment of Benefit process?

The changes are designed to modernise consent management, reduce reliance on paper-based processes, improve record keeping, and align Medicare administration with contemporary digital healthcare practices.

What do practices need to do to prepare?

Practices should review their current consent processes, assess whether their clinical and practice management systems support compliant consent capture, update workflows where needed, and ensure staff understand the new requirements before 1 July 2026.

How does MediRecords support the Assignment of Benefit change?

We have built the updated AoB requirements directly into our customer’s existing invoicing workflow, so the process will feel familiar. To learn more, visit our Knowledge Base article, here.

More from the Blog

RBA Card Surcharge Ban 2026: What It Means for Your Practice

Changes to the upcoming Medicare Assignment of Benefit rules

1.9 million Australians have a new GP. It isn’t you.

May 15, 2026

In the first half of 2024, an estimated 1.9 million Australian adults asked ChatGPT a health question.

That number comes from a nationally representative survey published in the Medical Journal of Australia in March 2025. It is what 9.9% of a 2,034-person sample reported they had actually done in the six months prior. Roughly the population of Adelaide, walking past their GP and asking a chatbot first.

The survey was conducted in mid-2024. By now, that number is almost certainly higher.

The story underlying the data is about what patients do when the system is too slow or too difficult to navigate, and what it means for the future of AI in general practice.

What the data on patients using ChatGPT shows

The 9.9% headline gets cited everywhere, but it’s the patterns underneath that tell the real story. ChatGPT use was higher, not lower, among Australians with limited or marginal health literacy.

Among users, 18.4% had limited or marginal health literacy. Among non-users, the figure was 9.4%. The narrative that AI is a tool for the digitally-fluent does not hold up under the data.

People are reaching for it when they find the formal system too hard or too expensive to navigate.

Use was also substantially higher among Australians born in non-English speaking countries (29.2% of users, against 18.4% of the broader sample). Among people who speak a language other than English at home, 38.0% had used ChatGPT for a health question, compared with 24.2% of the sample overall. ChatGPT is functioning as a translation layer for cohorts the system has historically served poorly.

The most concerning part is what people are using it for.

61% of users asked at least one higher-risk question. That category includes asking what symptoms mean, asking what to do about a specific health issue, asking whether they should see a doctor, and asking ChatGPT to interpret blood test or imaging results. These are questions that, historically, would go to a clinician.

Trust in the responses sat at a moderate 3.1 out of 5. Patients are using ChatGPT knowingly, with calibrated expectations, and they are doing it anyway.

The third person in your consult room

The patient sitting in front of a GP today may have already asked an AI what their symptoms might mean, and what they should do about them. They may have a translated explanation of their last blood test pulled up on their phone. They may have arrived with a list of follow-up questions seeded by a chatbot during the wait.

The interaction looks different from a Google search, which points people to references and leaves them to their own devices, without offering an opinion or any personalisation. ChatGPT asks follow-up questions, holds context across a thread, and produces something that feels like advice rather than search results. Patients arrive at the consult partially informed and looking for validation or correction.

Clinicians are already grappling with this shift, and the instinct for some will be to push back. Don’t believe what ChatGPT tells you. It gets things wrong.

That instinct is understandable. Early models did get things wrong, sometimes in ways that made the news… but it misreads the moment. The patient using ChatGPT to translate a pathology report into plain English is looking to participate in their own care.

The choice that matters is what the practice does with that.

What AI in general practice means for the tech stack

If patients are using AI to access and contextualise their healthcare, and the data says they are, that has implications beyond the consult room. It changes what a modern practice looks like. It changes which tools belong in the workflow. And it raises a question most practice owners haven’t yet sat down to answer.

What does our technology stack need to do for our patients, not just for us?

The technology already exists. AI scribes, patient-facing explainers, secure ways to bring AI into the clinical workflow rather than around it. None of this is theoretical. The hard part is choosing what fits a specific practice without being dragged into a wholesale platform change every time the market produces something new.

That is a harder problem than it looks, and it sits on top of the workforce pressures already documented in the RACGP’s Health of the Nation 2025 report. It is not one solo GPs or stretched practice managers should be expected to solve alone.

The conversation worth having

This is part of what’s on the agenda for Evolution or Extinction of the GP Landscape, a session at the Digital Health Festival on 20 May featuring our Chief Product Officer, Jayne Thompson and Dr Max Mollenkopf.

If you’ll be at the festival, come along. If not, watch this space.

More from the Blog

RBA Card Surcharge Ban 2026: What It Means for Your Practice

Changes to the upcoming Medicare Assignment of Benefit rules

Re-thinking general practice beyond the clinic walls

April 27, 2026

by Dr Gaveen Jayarajan

This article was originally published by GPRA Futures, a dedicated showcase of future thinkers, provocateurs, and healthcare innovations from visionary start-ups to established developers.

Can you please give a brief overview of your career to date, including qualifications and career pathway?

I graduated from The University of Melbourne in 2003 then worked in public and private hospitals as a resident and locum doctor for 4 years before starting my GP training, which I finished in 2010. I then worked full-time in several GP clinics till 2017, after which I moved to focus on full-time work in aged care, only visiting residential aged care facilities as part of a mobile GP practice. In 2022 I started my own solo mobile GP practice, Doctors in Aged Care, and continue this work today.

This year we became one of the first AGPAL-accredited mobile GP practices in Australia, accredited under the RACGP 5th Standards as a non-traditional practice without a physical premises/consulting rooms.

Doctors in Aged Care also has a dedicated Facebook Group with over 2700 doctor members where peer-to-peer learning and discussion occurs about all things related to aged care from administration, Medicare, clinical and organisational aspects.

What is the product you are using?

I use MediRecords as my clinical and practice management software as it gives me much greater reliability and speed working in mobile settings and without relying on remote access connections to access server-based software. It also provides much greater security along with automatic backups and ensures my IT costs are kept to a minimum by avoiding the need to pay for expensive third party IT service providers and maintaining hardware such as servers.

I also use Snapforms for various online forms that integrate directly into MediRecords and can auto-populate fields — for example, using an online new patient registration form that automatically creates a new patient file in MediRecords with certain demographic fields populated and a copy of the form automatically uploaded to the Correspondence tab.

I don’t use any AI software at present, but I do use a text shortcut software called Phrase Express to speed up my note-taking significantly.

What do you see as some of the enablers and barriers to health innovation in primary care in Australia?

Enablers include the current economic climate with rising costs across the board meaning we need to find new ways of doing things in order to be leaner, more efficient and thus more financially sustainable. I think there is openness to such innovation amongst the GP community.

Barriers include current operating models where GPs are operating their own independent medical practices within a common physical premises with the Practice Owner providing administrative and support services. Owners somehow need to cater to the needs of these individual GPs running their own practices and be able to customise their offering to each GP without increasing their costs too much.

A significant change — like a change of practice software — is harder to achieve in this situation as buy-in from many independent doctors is needed, who won’t necessarily see any direct financial benefit if their services fees remain the same and may be resistant to alterations to their usual workflows.

What do you think the future of general practice looks like?

I think the future of general practice will need to move towards one that is underpinned by modern cloud-based software that is more secure, scalable and interoperable. One where face-to-face visits are complemented by phone and video consultations as well as asynchronous communications via cloud-based patient portals, where patients have more access and visibility over their own patient health records.

It will incorporate new operating models such as the use of more virtual or remote administrative and support staff to reduce operating costs and improve financial sustainability. GPs must expand their service offerings and become more accessible to counter the effects of the Telehealth/Online-only providers that are providing more convenience to patients, but without the continuity of care that patients should expect.

Why is it important GPs are involved in health innovation/new technology design?

GPs should be involved in the early stages so the products built are fit for purpose and designed with fewer iterations and ultimately lesser time and cost. Incorrectly designed software will get very little traction amongst GPs, who will not have the time to see patients and adjust to this with work-arounds.

What would you say to early career doctors about general practice/primary healthcare?

Early career doctors should ensure they get the broadest exposure to General Practice through the different medical centres they work in, and later on consider sub-specialisation into a niche area that suits their interests and abilities and meets their financial and lifestyle objectives and family needs.

Let the work fit into your life, not the other way round!

This article was originally published by GPRA Futures, a dedicated showcase of future thinkers, provocateurs, and healthcare innovations from visionary start-ups to established developers.

Opening a medical practice involves more than finding a location and hiring staff. From Medicare compliance to digital health registrations, there are many steps to get right. We’ve simplified the process into a practical checklist to help you launch a modern, compliant clinic with confidence.

More from the Blog

RBA Card Surcharge Ban 2026: What It Means for Your Practice

Changes to the upcoming Medicare Assignment of Benefit rules

HepLink Launches Using MediRecords to Expand Hepatitis C Care

March 30, 2026

Media Release

Hepatitis Australia has launched a new national telehealth service designed to deliver unprecedented access to hepatitis C testing and treatment, helping Australia move closer to eliminating hepatitis C as a public health threat.

The service forms part of HepLink, the national hepatitis information and linkage service, and allows people anywhere in Australia to connect with trained nurses, streamlined care pathways, and rapid access to treatment via telephone and virtual care.

Powered by MediRecords’ secure cloud technology and the Coviu telehealth platform, HepLink enables Australians to receive testing guidance, arrange blood tests, access clinical consultations and, where appropriate, receive prescriptions for curative hepatitis C treatment, without needing to attend an in-person appointment.

Hepatitis Australia CEO Lucy Clynes said the new service builds on the extraordinary progress Australia has made since hepatitis C cures were made widely available through the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme in 2016.

“More than 100,000 Australians have now accessed treatment and almost 100,000 have been cured of hepatitis C. That is one of the most significant public health achievements in a generation.

But around 63,000 Australians are still living with hepatitis C and many are unaware they have it or are not currently connected to care. HepLink helps close that gap by making testing, treatment and expert support easier to access from anywhere in the country.”

Lucy Clynes, Hepatitis Australia CEO

Digitally enabled care pathway

The HepLink telehealth service is supported by secure cloud-based clinical technology from MediRecords and its Engage patient portal, integrated with the Coviu telehealth platform and AI Scribe technology, enabling an end-to-end digital care pathway for patients.

Through the system, nurses and clinicians can securely manage patient records, share information and education materials, arrange testing, conduct telehealth consultations and issue ePrescriptions where appropriate.

This digitally enabled workflow allows people to move from their first enquiry to treatment initiation through a streamlined virtual care model — removing barriers for those who may struggle to access traditional health services.

Alongside Canada, Australia is now among the only countries to offer a nationwide telehealth service of this kind.

HepLink also supports general practitioners who may be unfamiliar with hepatitis C treatment, offering guidance and referral pathways to ensure patients are not left untreated.

MediRecords CEO Matthew Galetto said digital health platforms play a critical role in expanding access to care for people who may otherwise fall through the cracks.

“Digital care models are essential to reaching patients who may not present through traditional healthcare pathways,” Mr Galetto said.

“By supporting HepLink with secure cloud infrastructure and integrated telehealth capability, we’re helping enable a scalable national approach to hepatitis C care.”

Matthew Galetto, MediRecords Founder and CEO

Supporting Australia’s elimination goal

Australia has made major progress toward eliminating hepatitis C since the introduction of direct-acting antiviral treatments in 2016.

Since then:

The number of Australians living with chronic hepatitis C has fallen by more than 60 per cent
Deaths among people living with hepatitis C have declined significantly
Almost half of treatments are now prescribed in primary care settings, improving access across the country.

However, treatment rates have slowed in recent years as remaining patients are harder to reach.

HepLink is designed to reconnect those individuals with care by providing confidential, easy-to-access support and clinical guidance.

Ms Clynes said initiatives like HepLink will be essential if Australia is to achieve its goal of eliminating hepatitis C.

“We now have the tools to cure hepatitis C quickly and safely,” she said.

“The challenge is ensuring people know about the cure and can access care when they need it. HepLink helps ensure no one misses the opportunity to be tested and treated.”

How to access HepLink

Anyone in Australia can access the HepLink service by calling 1800 437 222 or visiting www.heplink.au.

The service provides:

Information about hepatitis C testing

Support to arrange blood tests

Virtual clinical consultations where required

Access to prescriptions for curative treatment

HepLink is the national hepatitis information and linkage service operated by Hepatitis Australia in partnership with community hepatitis organisations nationally. HepLink is funded by the Australian Government Centre for Disease Control.

The HepLink telehealth service is made possible through a community grant from Gilead Sciences Australia.

MediRecords and Coviu are proud to support this vital healthcare initiative.

Media Enquiries

Hepatitis Australia: Darren Rodrigo, 0414 783 405

MediRecords: Matthew Galetto, CEO, [email protected], 0407 374 910

Coviu: Diana Pitts, CEO, [email protected], 02 7908 1346

More from the Blog

RBA Card Surcharge Ban 2026: What It Means for Your Practice

Changes to the upcoming Medicare Assignment of Benefit rules

Why choosing a Practice Management System shouldn’t be a marriage for life

Why choosing a Practice Management System shouldn’t be a marriage for life - but neither should it be married at first sight

March 10, 2026

by Tim Pegler

Choosing a Practice Management System (PMS) is not a decision to take lightly.

Like a significant other, a PMS needs to be dependable, adaptable, and easy to spend time with. It should be open to growth, including making new connections. It should not be stuck in the past.

However, for time-poor clinicians their clinical software is all too often a set and forget decision. It’s the equivalent of ‘til death do us part’ (or the servers need replacing). Until then, inertia wins the day.

Fortunately, Australian healthcare is at a crossroads. There’s never been a better time to review technology partnerships, following Federal Government confirmation the future of healthcare is cloud-first and FHIR-enabled.

This doesn’t mean it’s time for a software swingers party or a married at first glance impulse buy. Migrating to a new Practice Management System can be complicated. Here are six things to consider carefully if you’re ready to reconsider your pairing:

1. Technology is evolving. Your PMS needs to keep pace

The Federal Government preference for cloud-hosted technology with FHIR (Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources) connectivity is pragmatic and based on worldwide trends. There are rising expectations for data to be shared from Primary (e.g. GP) to Tertiary (e.g. hospital) care organisations in real time because communication silos create risk. Consumers increasingly expect access to their data – and their doctors – wherever they are. Your technology needs to support this with secure integration to government systems. Ask your vendors:

What security certifications do they have?
Are they conformant with government regulations for prescribing safely?
How often do they release product updates and how easy are these to install?
What’s on their roadmap?

2. Scalability is not negotiable

Growth looks different for every organisation. You might:

Add multidisciplinary teams for holistic, shared care
Expand to multiple sites
Provide a combination of face to face and telehealth care

A scalable PMS accommodates growth rather than impeding it. This is why cloud systems have become the modern standard; they scale effortlessly, securely, and cost effectively.

3. Remote workforces are here to stay

The pandemic changed healthcare forever, resulting in workforce casualisation, proliferation of virtual care services, and teams working from anywhere with Internet access. Your preferred PMS needs to be limber enough to support:

Telehealth consultations
Distributed administrative teams
After hours clinical care
Offsite reporting, billing, and triage
Multilocation collaboration

If your workers are grinding away via legacy remote desktop systems, you’re likely to be losing time, money and team morale.

4. API connectivity is essential

API and FHIR interoperability enable innovation. Look for a PMS technology partner with open, well documented APIs ensuring secure connection with:

AI-powered tools to enhance efficiency
Digital front doors
Patient engagement portals
Medication dispensing and delivery systems
And much more.

A PMS that resists integrations is holding your organisation back. (To read about MediRecords’ connectivity, check out Connect by MediRecords – Connected Health Care.)

5. Look at the big picture on budget

A wedding costs more than a dress, rings, catering and flowers. Factor in photography, suits, vehicle and venue hire, celebrants, music, and so much more. Licence fees for a server-based or hybrid PMS may be attractively low, but you need to budget for desktop downtime and IT support for managing your back-ups, software updates and security patches, not to mention the hardware, building and utilities expenses for owning, running and cooling servers. A server is a short-term investment; you’re committing to $40k or more, each time you replace the hardware. You also need to dispose of it securely and, ideally, sustainably.

Cloud PMS systems mean you can ghost server issues, swipe left on IT contractors and let your technology partner automate software management for you.

6. Where do you see yourself in a decade?

People change. So does the healthcare sector. Hospital-, aged-, and palliative care will increasingly be delivered at home, to maximise patient comfort and convenience, and minimise costs. Can your nursing teams deliver patient care wherever they need?

Actively seek PMS software with the flexibility to satiate new needs as they arise.

If it’s not marriage for life, what is it?

Think of your PMS as a long-term partnership, built on performance, adaptability, and trust. You shouldn’t feel trapped by it. You shouldn’t choose it impulsively. You should feel confident it’s the right pairing for today and tomorrow. If it’s cloud-based, scalable, FHIR-enabled, and API-driven, that’s a lot of green flags.

Moving forward

If you’re considering opening a new business, MediRecords’ Complete Medical Practice Startup Blueprint provides a comprehensive checklist on things to work through.

If your existing business is looking for a new technology partner, please book a call via [email protected] so we can discuss your requirements.

Opening a medical practice involves more than finding a location and hiring staff. From Medicare compliance to digital health registrations, there are many steps to get right. We’ve simplified the process into a practical checklist to help you launch a modern, compliant clinic with confidence.

More from the Blog

RBA Card Surcharge Ban 2026: What It Means for Your Practice

Changes to the upcoming Medicare Assignment of Benefit rules

Predictions and peer pressure in the AI playground

January 21, 2026

by Tim Pegler

For a few years now I’ve dusted off my crystal ball each January, gazed into its misty depths, and asked, ‘What will change in digital health in the 12 months ahead?’

This year it felt pointless asking as all the omens point to obvious answers. I didn’t need to be psychic to predict AI and cyber security would dominate developments in healthcare in 2026.

And then the ground shifted, possibly seismically. AI giants OpenAI and Anthropic formally launched healthcare initiatives and the aftershocks have begun. So, hot on the heels of the announcements, let’s look at what the big five AI platforms are doing in health:

OpenAI’s ChatGPT

Watch how your friends and family get their health information now. If they’ve dumped Dr Google in favour of a ChatGP(T), they’re part of a mass migration. It’s estimated that 5% to 25% of ChatGPT searches now relate to healthcare, so it’s no surprise OpenAI is cementing its role in health.

OpenAI’s January 8 announcement said ChatGPT Health will be a consumer-facing information and assistance tool where you can upload results and ask questions, draft clinical documents, review research and summarise data. In the US, personal health records can be connected via middleware, to analyse progress. Major training tools, like MyFitnessPal and Peloton, are looking to integrate with ChatGPT.

For large healthcare organisations, ChatGPT for Healthcare promises a HIPAA-ready workspace, focused on administrative efficiency. It can be integrated with an Electronic Medical Record (EMR) to boost automation, clinical decision support and planning. Major hospitals are already proceeding to pilot implementations.

ChatGPT Health is available to a limited user group in Australia, with broader access likely from next month.

Anthropic’s Claude

Claude for Healthcare launched on January 11 with beta products for enterprise and consumers. At present, these are limited to US subscribers, with no timeline for entering the Australian market. On the consumer side, Apple and Android integrations will enable sharing of health histories, results, and wearable device data with Claude. Claude says this will enable detection of patterns, “more productive conversations with doctors” and humans who are better informed about their health.

At enterprise level, Claude is also HIPAA-ready and aligning with major databases such as PubMed, the international Classification of Diseases (ICD-10) and the US system detailing medical billing codes.

Microsoft’s Copilot

Microsoft announced its health AI push early and has the advantages of being pre-installed in many computers. Copilot for Health identifies as a consumer-friendly ‘AI Companion’ that draws on medical journals, especially Harvard Medical School resources. It can provide symptom and wellness information and point you toward nearby health services, (hopefully with available appointments).

At EMR level, Microsoft’s play is through Dragon Copilot for medical professionals (no known Australian release date) and enterprise documentation tools under the Microsoft for Healthcare banner.

Google’s Gemini

Google has research tools and enterprise cloud platforms in its armoury. The former includes Med-Gemini, which can assist with medical exam preparation, clinical reasoning and patient file analysis, and MedGemma which is used with diagnostic imaging, medical devices and other clinical documents. Finally, Personal Health LLM (looks like the marketing team haven’t got to this one yet) will coach consumers based on data from devices like Fitbit.

At enterprise level, Google has Vertex AI Search for Healthcare in EHR systems and MedLM for documentation, scribing and clinical coding. Hospitals using Google Workspace will likely use Google AI tools.

Google’s Health Connect is also promoting FHIR (Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources) standards to improve interoperability of health information sources.

Beyond these initiatives, Google Health is a leader in deep dive medical research and drug development.

Perplexity

The other big AI player, best known for its comprehensive referencing, hasn’t announced a formal healthcare move. Partnered with large research libraries like Wiley, Perplexity promises an “AI research and productivity layer” but lacks AI scribe features or options for EMR integration.

Peer pressure

With Claude, Copilot and Perplexity licensing respected sources of peer-reviewed research, it’s clear that attribution and credibility are invaluable to AI platforms. It’s also obvious everyone is nervous about being a global test case for inaccurate, dangerous, or deadly “hallucinated” data. The platforms all warn they are not diagnostic in nature; they ‘inform’ but cannot substitute for advice from qualified medical practitioners. And they can all make mistakes.

In the interests of objectivity, I asked each of the five tools to discuss the pros and cons of their peers, versus themselves. The findings were remarkably consistent:

Claude won plaudits for ethics, safety, privacy controls and clinical reasoning but was marked down for US-centric data and limited interoperability.
Gemini had the advantages of deep learning from Google search tools and medical research, along with software omnipresence.
ChatGPT has market maturity and mass usage, but this comes with a perceived higher risk of hallucination.
Copilot scored for being a handy administration and documentation tool embedded in hospitals. That was a back-handed compliment; for clinical reasoning, Claude and Gemini were the go-tos.
Perplexity was nominated as the best place for doctors to verify information and perhaps the least likely to hallucinate.

Dance partners

The other battleground is for data partners. Alliances with the developers of phones, wearables, health apps, medical devices, fitness and rehabilitation equipment, and clinical trials, will be critical. Primary care practice management systems might even come under the microscope.

Doing it Down Under

Australia is significantly smaller than the US and lagging on data interoperability, (despite the best efforts of FHIR-friendly vendors like MediRecords.) Just like we don’t see new features for Apple Watches for months or years after they’re released, the new AI platforms may face regulatory reviews and other hurdles Down Under.

One thing is clear. The Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) will be watching to see if they stray into diagnostic device territory.

And for those that are already fearful of AI, here’s a project to really get the heart racing. A pilot program in Utah, USA, has begun using AI for repeat prescriptions for specific medications.

MediRecords Evolve is our growing suite of agentic AI tools designed to expand the clinical and admin capabilities of your practice, while saving time and minimising the risk of human error.

Reduce your workload today, and increase your capacity with every new release.

Sources

More from the Blog

RBA Card Surcharge Ban 2026: What It Means for Your Practice

Changes to the upcoming Medicare Assignment of Benefit rules

OUR SOLUTIONS

BY FUNCTION TYPE

PATIENT ENGAGEMENT

OUR SOLUTIONS

BY FUNCTION TYPE

PATIENT ENGAGEMENT

OUR PRODUCTS

ADD-ONS

OUR PRODUCTS

ADD-ONS

SUPPORT SERVICES

RESOURCES

CONTACT INFORMATION

SUPPORT SERVICES

RESOURCES

CONTACT INFORMATION

OUR COMPANY

INFORMATION

POLICIES

OUR COMPANY

INFORMATION

POLICIES

OUR SOLUTIONS

BY FUNCTION TYPE

PATIENT ENGAGEMENT

OUR SOLUTIONS

BY FUNCTION TYPE

PATIENT ENGAGEMENT

OUR PRODUCTS

ADD-ONS

OUR PRODUCTS

ADD-ONS

SUPPORT SERVICES