Three submissions to the parliamentary inquiry into access to and affordability of medical specialists in Australia reinforce concerns raised by the Australian Society of Orthopaedic Surgeons: focusing on specialist fees alone cannot improve patients’ access to care.

The Australian Society of Ophthalmologists (ASO), Council of Procedural Specialists (COPS) and Australian Society of Anaesthetists (ASA) approach the inquiry from different perspectives. However, their submissions share several priorities: strengthening public hospital services, supporting sustainable specialist care, improving patient information and recognising the interdependence of Australia’s public and private health systems.

Specialists need the capacity to treat patients

A central theme is that funded services must support specialist expertise.

Operating theatres, beds, outpatient clinics, equipment, nursing staff and other clinical teams all determine whether patients can receive treatment. Increasing specialist numbers alone cannot overcome constraints in these essential services.

COPS specifically identifies restrictions on public operating time and limited opportunities for younger orthopaedic surgeons to obtain public hospital appointments. ASO calls for stronger public hospital capacity, including outpatient departments. ASA similarly argues that workforce investment must match investment in the facilities and support teams needed to deliver care.

These positions reinforce ASOS’s concern that willing surgeons cannot perform additional public surgery unless funded appointments, operating sessions and hospital resources are available.

Affordability involves more than a specialist’s fee

All three submissions recognise the importance of affordable care. They also examine the funding arrangements behind patients’ out-of-pocket costs.

ASO and ASA call for reviews of Medicare and private health insurance benefits, including how those benefits keep pace with the cost of delivering care. COPS also raises concerns about insurance coverage and arrangements that leave patients facing different rebates depending on their choice of doctor.

The shared message is that affordability policy must consider what patients receive from Medicare and their insurer, as well as what their specialist charges.

Public and private services work together

The submissions recognise that public and private healthcare are interconnected.

Private specialists and hospitals provide substantial treatment capacity, while many specialists contribute across both sectors. Policies affecting the sustainability or availability of private care can therefore affect demand at public hospitals.

Each submission supports strengthening public services while recognising private specialist care’s contribution. Better access requires attention to both parts of the system.

Patients need clear, meaningful information

There is also common ground on transparency and patient protection.

Patients should be able to understand proposed fees, available benefits and likely out-of-pocket costs before planned treatment. Information should help patients make informed choices and reflect their care circumstances.

The submissions support scrutiny of exploitative or excessive charging, while arguing that responses should be appropriately targeted and informed by clinical and financial context.

Reform must reflect different specialist needs

The organisations do not describe identical workforce problems. ASA identifies projected anaesthesia workforce shortages, while COPS highlights opportunities to make better use of specialists already willing to work in public hospitals.

Both argue that workforce planning must connect specialist availability with funded positions, infrastructure, and the needs of the communities being served.

Together, these submissions support a broader reform approach: expand treatment capacity, strengthen public services, review Medicare and insurance funding, and give patients clear information.

For patients, the outcome that matters is timely access to safe specialist care at a cost they can afford.

Read the full submissions

Explore each organisation’s evidence and recommendations: