Can we obtain the patient’s signature to consent to bulk billing once, and use it for ongoing care?

Date of Answer:
7:36pm | 20 January 2021
View History
5:46 pm  I  January 16, 2023  I  Margaret Faux

Date of Answer: 5:46 pm  I  January 16, 2023

BB 2021/0232

Answer

No.

Context

The question posed was: Can the bulk bill “Assignment of Benefit” be specific to the hospital setting? We understand that patients sign this upon admission, and while it is not specific to any one doctor, it covers all the services rendered to the patient whilst in care.

Relevant Legislative Provisions

Health Insurance Act 1973

Other Relevant Materials

Please read this answer in conjunction with BB 2020/061

Journal article published in the Journal of Law and Medicine, with detailed analysis of bulk billing arrangements: Medicare Billing Law and Practice: Complex, Incomprehensible and Beginning to Unravelhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31682343

Case law

Health Insurance Commission v Peverill [1994] HCA 8

Wong v Commonwealth of Australia; Selim v Lele, Tan and Rivett constituting the Professional Services Review Committee No 309 [2009] HCA 3 (2 February 2009)

Departmental Interpretation

N/A

Detailed Reasoning

Before reviewing the bulk billing law let’s start with a logic check.

Medicare is funded by taxpayers and is a fee-for-service scheme. Do you think the government would be meeting its constitutional obligations to properly account for public money by giving people a blank cheque book? If the answer to this question were yes, it would effectively mean the government was condoning anyone obtaining a patient's signature once, and forever after bulk billing anything, anytime, without the patient even knowing.

Now to the law:

Both section 20A and 20B of the Health Insurance Act 1973 use the singular ‘service‘ as opposed to the plural ‘services‘. The bulk bill process is clearly described as requiring the patient to consent to each separate service. It does not facilitate any form of ongoing consent, which would be antithetical to the operation of Medicare’s fee-for-service structure.

Further, the High Court has confirmed on numerous occasions that each bulk bill transaction is discreet, and the parties to each transaction are a doctor, a patient, and the government.

In the High Court case of Wong, cited above, the court confirmed again the central requirement of consent in every bulk bill transaction.

How can a patient consent to something they have not seen and may not even know about?

Further, the HIA contains numerous sections such as Section 127 which expressly prohibits asking patients to sign blank bulk bill forms or forms with missing details.

So the answer to this question is an emphatic no!

Examples and other relevant information

N/A

Who this applies to

Everyone

When this applies

Always

3:19 pm  I  February 23, 2023  I  Margaret Faux

Date of Answer: 3:19 pm  I  February 23, 2023

BB 2021/0232

Answer

No.

Context

The question posed was: Can the bulk bill “Assignment of Benefit” be specific to the hospital setting? We understand that patients sign this upon admission, and while it is not specific to any one doctor, it covers all the services rendered to the patient whilst in care.

Relevant Legislative Provisions

Health Insurance Act 1973

Other Relevant Materials

Please read this answer in conjunction with BB 2020/061

Academic journal article published in the Journal of Law and Medicine, with detailed analysis of bulk billing arrangements: Medicare Billing Law and Practice: Complex, Incomprehensible and Beginning to Unravelhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31682343

Case law

Health Insurance Commission v Peverill [1994] HCA 8

Wong v Commonwealth of Australia; Selim v Lele, Tan and Rivett constituting the Professional Services Review Committee No 309 [2009] HCA 3 (2 February 2009)

Departmental Interpretation

N/A

Detailed Reasoning

Before reviewing the bulk billing law let’s start with a logic check.

Medicare is funded by taxpayers and is a fee-for-service scheme. Do you think the government would be meeting its constitutional obligations to properly account for public money by giving people a blank cheque book? If the answer to this question were yes, it would effectively mean the government was condoning anyone obtaining a patient's signature once, and forever after bulk billing anything, anytime, without the patient even knowing.

Now to the law:

Both section 20A and 20B of the Health Insurance Act 1973 use the singular ‘service‘ as opposed to the plural ‘services‘. The bulk bill process is clearly described as requiring the patient to consent to each separate service. It does not facilitate any form of ongoing consent, which would be antithetical to the operation of Medicare’s fee-for-service structure.

Further, the High Court has confirmed on numerous occasions that each bulk bill transaction is discreet, and the parties to each transaction are a doctor, a patient, and the government.

In the High Court case of Wong, cited above, the court confirmed again the central requirement of consent in every bulk bill transaction.

How can a patient consent to something they have not seen and may not even know about?

Further, the HIA contains numerous sections such as Section 127 which expressly prohibits asking patients to sign blank bulk bill forms or forms with missing details.

So the answer to this question is an emphatic no!

Examples and other relevant information

N/A

Who this applies to

Everyone

When this applies

Always

 

5:39 pm  I  March 1, 2023  I  Margaret Faux

Date of Answer: 5:39 pm  I  March 1, 2023

BB 2021/0232

Answer

No.

Context

The question posed was: Can the bulk bill “Assignment of Benefit” be specific to the hospital setting? We understand that patients sign this upon admission, and while it is not specific to any one doctor, it covers all the services rendered to the patient whilst in care.

Relevant Legislative Provisions

Health Insurance Act 1973

Other Relevant Materials

Please read this answer in conjunction with BB 2020/061

Academic journal article published in the Journal of Law and Medicine, with detailed analysis of bulk billing arrangements: Medicare Billing Law and Practice: Complex, Incomprehensible and Beginning to Unravelhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31682343

Case law

Health Insurance Commission v Peverill [1994] HCA 8

Wong v Commonwealth of Australia; Selim v Lele, Tan and Rivett constituting the Professional Services Review Committee No 309 [2009] HCA 3 (2 February 2009)

Departmental Interpretation

N/A

Detailed Reasoning

Before reviewing the bulk billing law let’s start with a logic check.

Medicare is funded by taxpayers and is a fee-for-service scheme. Do you think the government would be meeting its constitutional obligations to properly account for public money by giving people a blank cheque book? If the answer to this question were yes, it would effectively mean the government was condoning anyone obtaining a patient's signature once, and forever after bulk billing anything, anytime, without the patient even knowing.

Now to the law:

Both section 20A and 20B of the Health Insurance Act 1973 use the singular ‘service‘ as opposed to the plural ‘services‘. The bulk bill process is clearly described as requiring the patient to consent to each separate service. It does not facilitate any form of ongoing consent, which would be antithetical to the operation of Medicare’s fee-for-service structure.

Further, the High Court has confirmed on numerous occasions that each bulk bill transaction is discreet, and the parties to each transaction are a doctor, a patient, and the government.

In the High Court case of Wong, cited above, the court confirmed again the central requirement of consent in every bulk bill transaction.

How can a patient consent to something they have not seen and may not even know about?

Further, the HIA contains numerous sections such as Section 127 which expressly prohibits asking patients to sign blank bulk bill forms or forms with missing details.

So the answer to this question is an emphatic no!

Examples and other relevant information

N/A

Who this applies to

Everyone

When this applies

Always

1:16 pm  I  May 15, 2023  I  Margaret Faux

Date of Answer: 1:16 pm  I  May 15, 2023

BB 2021/0232

Answer

No.

Context

The question posed was: Can the bulk bill “Assignment of Benefit” be specific to the hospital setting? We understand that patients sign this upon admission, and while it is not specific to any one doctor, it covers all the services rendered to the patient whilst in care.

Relevant Legislative Provisions

Health Insurance Act 1973

Other Relevant Materials

Please read this answer in conjunction with BB 2020/061

Academic journal article published in the Journal of Law and Medicine, with detailed analysis of bulk billing arrangements: Medicare Billing Law and Practice: Complex, Incomprehensible and Beginning to Unravelhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31682343

Case law

Health Insurance Commission v Peverill [1994] HCA 8

Wong v Commonwealth of Australia; Selim v Lele, Tan and Rivett constituting the Professional Services Review Committee No 309 [2009] HCA 3 (2 February 2009)

Departmental Interpretation

N/A

Detailed Reasoning

Before reviewing the bulk billing law let’s start with a logic check.

Medicare is funded by taxpayers and is a fee-for-service scheme. Do you think the government would be meeting its constitutional obligations to properly account for public money by giving people a blank cheque book? If the answer to this question were yes, it would effectively mean the government was condoning anyone obtaining a patient's signature once, and forever after bulk billing anything, anytime, without the patient even knowing.

Now to the law:

Both section 20A and 20B of the Health Insurance Act 1973 use the singular ‘service‘ as opposed to the plural ‘services‘. The bulk bill process is clearly described as requiring the patient to consent to each separate service. It does not facilitate any form of ongoing consent, which would be antithetical to the operation of Medicare’s fee-for-service structure.

Further, the High Court has confirmed on numerous occasions that each bulk bill transaction is discreet, and the parties to each transaction are a doctor, a patient, and the government.

In the High Court case of Wong, cited above, the court confirmed again the central requirement of consent in every bulk bill transaction.

How can a patient consent to something they have not seen and may not even know about?

Further, the HIA contains numerous sections such as Section 127 which expressly prohibits asking patients to sign blank bulk bill forms or forms with missing details.

So the answer to this question is an emphatic no!

Examples and other relevant information

N/A

Who this applies to

Everyone

When this applies

Always

1:16 pm  I  May 15, 2023  I  Margaret Faux

Date of Answer: 1:16 pm  I  May 15, 2023

BB 2021/0232

Answer

No.

Context

The question posed was: Can the bulk bill “Assignment of Benefit” be specific to the hospital setting? We understand that patients sign this upon admission, and while it is not specific to any one doctor, it covers all the services rendered to the patient whilst in care.

Relevant Legislative Provisions

Health Insurance Act 1973

Other Relevant Materials

Please read this answer in conjunction with BB 2020/061

Academic journal article published in the Journal of Law and Medicine, with detailed analysis of bulk billing arrangements: Medicare Billing Law and Practice: Complex, Incomprehensible and Beginning to Unravelhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31682343

Case law

Health Insurance Commission v Peverill [1994] HCA 8

Wong v Commonwealth of Australia; Selim v Lele, Tan and Rivett constituting the Professional Services Review Committee No 309 [2009] HCA 3 (2 February 2009)

Departmental Interpretation

N/A

Detailed Reasoning

Before reviewing the bulk billing law let’s start with a logic check.

Medicare is funded by taxpayers and is a fee-for-service scheme. Do you think the government would be meeting its constitutional obligations to properly account for public money by giving people a blank cheque book? If the answer to this question were yes, it would effectively mean the government was condoning anyone obtaining a patient's signature once, and forever after bulk billing anything, anytime, without the patient even knowing.

Now to the law:

Both section 20A and 20B of the Health Insurance Act 1973 use the singular ‘service‘ as opposed to the plural ‘services‘. The bulk bill process is clearly described as requiring the patient to consent to each separate service. It does not facilitate any form of ongoing consent, which would be antithetical to the operation of Medicare’s fee-for-service structure.

Further, the High Court has confirmed on numerous occasions that each bulk bill transaction is discreet, and the parties to each transaction are a doctor, a patient, and the government.

In the High Court case of Wong, cited above, the court confirmed again the central requirement of consent in every bulk bill transaction.

How can a patient consent to something they have not seen and may not even know about?

Further, the HIA contains numerous sections such as Section 127 which expressly prohibits asking patients to sign blank bulk bill forms or forms with missing details.

So the answer to this question is an emphatic no!

Examples and other relevant information

N/A

Who this applies to

Everyone

When this applies

Always

BB 2021/0232

Answer

No.

Context

The question posed was: Can the bulk bill “Assignment of Benefit” be specific to the hospital setting? We understand that patients sign this upon admission, and while it is not specific to any one doctor, it covers all the services rendered to the patient whilst in care.

Relevant Legislative Provisions

Health Insurance Act 1973

Other Relevant Materials

Please read this answer in conjunction with BB 2020/061

Academic journal article published in the Journal of Law and Medicine, with detailed analysis of bulk billing arrangements: Medicare Billing Law and Practice: Complex, Incomprehensible and Beginning to Unravelhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31682343

Case law

Health Insurance Commission v Peverill [1994] HCA 8

Wong v Commonwealth of Australia; Selim v Lele, Tan and Rivett constituting the Professional Services Review Committee No 309 [2009] HCA 3 (2 February 2009)

Departmental Interpretation

N/A

Detailed Reasoning

Before reviewing the bulk billing law let’s start with a logic check.

Medicare is funded by taxpayers and is a fee-for-service scheme. Do you think the government would be meeting its constitutional obligations to properly account for public money by giving people a blank cheque book? If the answer to this question were yes, it would effectively mean the government was condoning anyone obtaining a patient's signature once, and forever after bulk billing anything, anytime, without the patient even knowing.

Now to the law:

Both section 20A and 20B of the Health Insurance Act 1973 use the singular ‘service‘ as opposed to the plural ‘services‘. The bulk bill process is clearly described as requiring the patient to consent to each separate service. It does not facilitate any form of ongoing consent, which would be antithetical to the operation of Medicare’s fee-for-service structure.

Further, the High Court has confirmed on numerous occasions that each bulk bill transaction is discreet, and the parties to each transaction are a doctor, a patient, and the government.

In the High Court case of Wong, cited above, the court confirmed again the central requirement of consent in every bulk bill transaction.

How can a patient consent to something they have not seen and may not even know about?

Further, the HIA contains numerous sections such as Section 127 which expressly prohibits asking patients to sign blank bulk bill forms or forms with missing details.

So the answer to this question is an emphatic no!

Examples and other relevant information

N/A

Who this applies to

Everyone

When this applies

Always

Close

Subscribe to mbsanswers.com.au

Signup to receive instant updates when new or revised answers have been posted.

If you have posted a question this is the quickest way to be notified that the answer is available.