PSR Director's update for March 2026

Published date

23 April 2026

A. Section 92 agreements effective in March 2026

Twenty agreements entered into by the Director and persons under review (under section 92 of the Act) came into effect in March 2026.

Radiologist (diagnostic radiology)

During the review period, the practitioner was in the top 1% of providers of services billed as 88 individual MBS items. They were the highest ranked provider of services billed as 7 individual MBS items, including the following MBS items:

18225 (continuous infusion or injection of a therapeutic substance to maintain regional anaesthesia or analgesia)
55848 (musculoskeletal ultrasound, in conjunction with a surgical procedure using interventional techniques)
57963 (orthopantomography for diagnosis or management)

The Director reviewed this practitioner’s rendering of MBS item:

104 (initial specialist attendance)
105 (subsequent specialist attendance)
18225
55036 (ultrasound scan of abdomen)
55065 (ultrasound scan of pelvis)
55848
55850 (musculoskeletal ultrasound, in conjunction with a surgical procedure using interventional techniques, inclusive of a diagnostic musculoskeletal ultrasound service)
57341 (CT in conjunction with surgical procedure using interventional techniques)
57360 (CT of the coronary arteries)
57963

services.

The Director had persisting concerns that:

the general body of radiologists may have considered systemic billing and reporting arrangements by the practitioner to have been inappropriate
the practitioner rendered an unusually high volume of services, including personal attendances at numerous geographically dispersed locations, suggesting it would not always be possible for the relevant MBS requirements to be met or for sufficient clinical input to be provided for each service
the practitioner’s involvement and clinical input into services was often unclear, in many cases when services were performed and reported by other practitioners but signed by the practitioner under review
where requests were for specific services, often alternative services were provided, and the records did not indicate why the alternative service was provided, or that the requesting practitioner was consulted as would have been required
for MBS item 55036, 55065, 55848, 55850 and 57360 services, the practitioner often did not provide adequate supervision
the practitioner’s record keeping was inadequate, including that complete records could not be efficiently accessed and extracted
the MBS requirements were not always met, including:
- the records for MBS item 104 and 105 services often did not contain valid referrals for professional attendances and did not indicate that a consultation occurred separately to a procedure
- the minimum time requirements for MBS item 18225 services did not appear to have been met
- it was not always clear that the practitioner personally attended patients for MBS item 55848 and 55850 services
- MBS item 57963 services were performed in circumstances where the patient did not have signs and symptoms of the eligible conditions
the practitioner often inappropriately co-billed items, including where their records did not support that the MBS requirements for each item were met.

The practitioner acknowledged having engaged in inappropriate practice in connection with rendering MBS Items 104, 105, 18225, 55036, 55065, 55848, 55850, 57341, 57360 and 57963. The practitioner agreed to:

repay $3,600,000 to the Commonwealth
be reprimanded by the Director
be counselled by the Director
be disqualified from providing MBS item 104, 105, 91822, 91823 and 91833 services for 12 months.

General practitioner

During the review period, the practitioner rendered or initiated the following MBS items in excess of 99% of their peers:

723 (attendance to coordinate development of team care arrangements (TCAs))
732 (review of a GP management plan (GPMP) or TCAs)
66596 (iron studies)
91891 (phone attendance lasting at least 6 minutes)
92024 (telehealth attendance for preparation of a GPMP)
92028 (telehealth attendance to review or coordinate GPMP or TCAs)

The practitioner also prescribed PBS items 1215Y (paracetamol 500mg + codeine 30mg) and 2622B (oxycodone tab 5 mg) in excess of 99% of their peers.

The Director reviewed this practitioner’s rendering of a prescribed pattern of services (rendering of 30 or more relevant phone services on 20 or more days in a 12‑month period), their provision of MBS item 721 and 92024 (as a class), 723 and 92025 (as a class), 732 and 92028 (as a class), 91891 and 66596 services, and PBS items 1215Y and 2622B.

The Director had persisting concerns that:

the practitioner rendered 30 or more relevant phone services on each of 23 days during the review period, and exceptional circumstances did not exist that affected the rendering of services on those days
the practitioner’s rendering of chronic disease management (CDM) services did not always meet the MBS requirements, including:
- for MBS item 721 and 92024 services, a comprehensive written plan was not always prepared, the services were often rendered for non-chronic medical conditions, and it was not always clear whether the practitioner personally attended the patient for MBS item 92024 services
- there was often no two-way communication between the practitioner and two other health care providers as required for MBS item 723 and 92025 services
- for MBS item 732 and 92028 services, the documents in the patient’s record were often identical to previous documents indicating that there was an inadequate review of the GPMP and/or TCA
the MBS requirements were not always met for MBS item 91891 services, including where the record contained insufficient clinical input to reflect that the minimum time requirement had been met, and the practitioner did not always undertake clinically relevant actions during the service
the practitioner did not always provide sufficient clinical reasoning or indication for initiating MBS item 66596 services
the practitioner often inappropriately prescribed PBS items 1215Y and 2622B including when they prescribed or changed the dosage of the medication without providing a reason or pain management plan
the practitioner’s record keeping was inadequate as they often failed to include sufficient clinical information which would allow anther practitioner to effectively undertake the patient’s ongoing care in reliance on the record.

The practitioner acknowledged having engaged in inappropriate practice in connection with providing services that constituted a prescribed pattern of services, rendering MBS items 721, 723, 732, 91891, 92024, 92025 and 92028, and prescribing PBS items 1215Y and 2622B. The practitioner agreed to:

repay $326,000 to the Commonwealth
be reprimanded by the Director
be counselled by the Director
be disqualified from providing MBS item 965, 967, 92029 and 92030 (current equivalents, including video equivalent, for CDM services) services for 12 months.

General practitioner

During the review period, the practitioner rendered services billed as the following MBS items in excess of 99% of their peers:

707 (attendance for health assessment lasting at least 60 minutes)
731 (contribution to multi-disciplinary care plan for patient in RACF)
739 (organise and coordinate a GP case conference lasting between 20 and 40 minutes)
903 (residential medication management review)
5028 (after hours consultation at a residential aged care facility (RACF))
5043 (after hours home visit or consultation)

An Associate Director reviewed this practitioner’s rendering of MBS items 707, 731, 739, 903, 5028 and 5043 services, and their rendering of a prescribed pattern of services (rendering of 80 or more relevant professional attendance services on each of 20 or more days in a 12-month period).

The Associate Director had persisting concerns that:

the practitioner rendered 80 or more relevant attendance services on each of 23 days during the review period, and exceptional circumstances did not exist that affected the rendering of services on those days
the practitioner billed a high volume of services where the practitioner’s record keeping and system for maintaining patient records did not support the items claimed or the practitioner’s involvement in the services
MBS requirements were not always met, including the minimum time requirements for after-hours attendances
in relation to MBS item 707 and 731 services, health assessments and care plans were often auto-populated templates which were not individualised to the patient
the practitioner billed case conference services when it did not appear they were involved in the conference and at times for what appeared to be standard consultations.

The practitioner acknowledged having engaged in inappropriate practice in connection with rendering a prescribed pattern of services and their provision of MBS item 707, 731, 739, 903, 5028 and 5043 services. The practitioner agreed to:

repay $400,000 to the Commonwealth
be reprimanded by the Associate Director
be counselled by the Associate Director
be disqualified from providing MBS item 707 services for 24 months.

General practitioner

During the review period, the practitioner rendered services billed as the following MBS items in excess of 99% of their peers:

44 (attendance lasting at least 40 minutes)
707
91891
91900 (phone attendance lasting at least 20 minutes)

An Associate Director reviewed this practitioner’s rendering of a prescribed pattern of services (rendering of 30 or more relevant phone services on 20 or more days in a 12‑month period) and rendering of MBS item 36 (attendance lasting at least 20 minutes), 44, 707, 721, 723, 732 and 91891 services.

The Associate Director had persisting concerns that:

the practitioner rendered 30 or more relevant phone services on each of 21 days during the review period, and exceptional circumstances did not exist that affected the rendering of services on those days
the practitioner’s record keeping was inadequate as their records were often very brief and sometimes exact copies of previous records
the MBS requirements were not always met, including:
- in relation to MBS item 36, 44, 707 and 91891 services, the relevant minimum time requirements were not met
- the practitioner did not always conduct comprehensive health assessments for MBS item 707 services, and the service was often provided to patients who were not eligible
- for CDM services, the practitioner often did not develop comprehensive GPMPs or TCAs, did not manage serious and potentially fatal conditions appropriately, and did not collaborate with two other health care providers for MBS item 723 and 732 services
the practitioner often co-billed MBS services when it was not clinically relevant.

The practitioner acknowledged having engaged in inappropriate practice in connection with providing services that constituted a prescribed pattern of services and rendering MBS item 36, 44, 707, 721, 723, 732 and 91891 services.

The practitioner agreed to:

repay $350,000 to the Commonwealth
be reprimanded by the Associate Director
be disqualified from providing MBS item 965, 967, 92029, 92030 services for 12 months
be disqualified from providing MBS item 44, 707, 91802 (video equivalent of item 44), 91891, 91910 (phone equivalent of item 44) services for 6 months.

General practitioner

During the review period, the practitioner rendered the largest volume of MBS item 699 services, the third largest volume of MBS item 703 services, and MBS item 36 (attendance lasting at least 20 minutes) and 5040 (after-hours attendance lasting at least 20 minutes) services in excess of 99% of their peers.

An Associate Director reviewed this practitioner’s rendering of MBS item:

23 (attendance lasting at least 6 minutes and less than 20 minutes)
36
699 (attendance for heart health assessment lasting at least 20 minutes)
703 (attendance for standard health assessment lasting more than 30 minutes and less than 45 minutes)
721
723
732
5020 (after-hours attendance lasting at least 6 minutes and less than 20 minutes)
5040

services.

The Associate Director had no concerns in relation to MBS items 23 but had persisting concerns that:

for some MBS item 36, 5020 and 5040 service, the minimum time requirements were not met, and for many item 36 and 5040 services, other timed attendances were co‑billed and the minimum time requirements were not met for each item
the practitioner did not undertake clinically relevant tasks for most MBS item 36, 5020 and 5040 services
in relation to MBS item 699 and 703 services, the practitioner sometimes performed a health screening service, did not undertake adequate health assessments or meet the minimum time requirements
in relation to health assessment and CDM services, the practitioner was not always the patient’s usual general practitioner
the practitioner’s GPMPs were often not comprehensive and personalised to the patient and the practitioner co-billed item 699 where the heart health assessment would be considered to be a necessary part of the GPMP
the practitioner did not consult with at least 2 other health care providers for MBS item 723 services, and the practitioner did not appear to review all matters set out in the GPMP or TCA for MBS item 732 services, or discuss the review with patients in some services.

The practitioner acknowledged having engaged in inappropriate practice in connection with rendering MBS Items 36, 699, 703, 721, 723, 732, 5020 and 5040. The practitioner agreed to:

repay $212,000 to the Commonwealth
be reprimanded by the Associate Director
be disqualified from providing MBS item 699, 703, 965, 967, 92029 and 92030 services for 12 months.

General practitioner

During the review period, the practitioner rendered services billed as the following MBS items in excess of 99% of their peers:

36
721
723
2715 (preparation of GP mental health plan lasting at least 20 minutes and less than 40 minutes)
2717 (preparation of GP mental health plan lasting at least 40 minutes)
5040
91801 (telehealth attendance lasting at least 20 minutes)
92024
92025
92117 (telehealth attendance lasting at least 40 minutes)

The Associate Director reviewed this practitioner’s rendering of MBS item:

23 and 91891 as a class
36
721 and 92024 as a class
723 and 92025 as a class
732 and 92028 as a class
2713 and 92127 as a class
2715 and 92116 as a class
2717 and 92117 as a class
5040 and 91801 as a class
92737 (phone attendance lasting at least 20 minutes)

services.

The Associate Director had no concerns in relation to MBS item 23/91891, 2713/92127 and 2715/92116 but had persisting concerns that:

for timed attendance items, the services did not meet the minimum time requirements
the MBS requirements were not always met for CDM items, including:
- the patient often did not have a qualifying chronic medical condition to be eligible for a GPMP or TCA
- in relation to some MBS item 721/92024 and 732/92028 services, there was no documented GPMP or review
- some GPMPs and TCAs were not sufficiently comprehensive or personalised to the patient
- for most TCAs and reviews of TCAs, there was no clinical indication for the other practitioners referred to in the TCAs
- there was no record of two-way communication between the practitioner and two other health care providers for MBS item 723/92025 and 732/92028 services, and the practitioner did not always properly explore the patient’s chronic condition.

The practitioner acknowledged having engaged in inappropriate practice in connection with rendering MBS items 36, 721, 92024, 723, 92025, 732, 92028, 2717, 92117, 5040, 91801 and 92737. The practitioner agreed to:

repay $340,000 to the Commonwealth
be counselled by the Associate Director
be disqualified from providing MBS item 967, 965, 92029 and 92030 services for 3 months.

General practitioner

During the review period, the practitioner rendered services billed as the following MBS items in excess of 99% of their peers:

721
723
5020
5040

The practitioner also prescribed PBS item 8254K (amoxicillin 875mg + clavulanic acid 125mg tablet) and 5343F (paracetamol 665mg modified release tablet) in excess of 99% of their peers.

An Associate Director reviewed this practitioner’s provision of MBS item 23 and 5020 (as a class), 36 and 5040 (as a class) 721, 723 and 732 services, and PBS items 5343F and 8254K.

The Associate Director had persisting concerns that:

the practitioner’s record keeping was inadequate, including that records were very brief and did not include sufficient clinical information to explain the service, and where entries were almost identical across services
the MBS requirements were not always met, with many services not meeting minimum time requirements, services not being conducted in the relevant ‘after‑hours’ period, and many clinically relevant tasks not being undertaken
the practitioner’s GPMPs and TCAs were often generic templates that were not sufficiently individualised to the patient
in relation to the practitioner’s prescribing of PBS item 8254K, there was sometimes no clinical indication for the service, and the PBS restriction was not always satisfied
the practitioner prescribed PBS item 5343F where the reason for prescribing was not recorded, and the notes did not support that the patient was receiving palliative care and had an intolerance to alternative therapy.

The practitioner acknowledged having engaged in inappropriate practice in connection with providing MBS items 23, 36, 721, 723, 732, 5020 and 5040 services, and PBS items 5343F and 8254K. The practitioner agreed to:

repay $600,000 to the Commonwealth
be reprimanded by the Associate Director
be counselled by the Associate Director
be disqualified from providing MBS item 721, 723, 732, 965, 967, 92029 and 92030 services for 24 months
be disqualified from providing MBS item 36, 5040 and 91801 services for 12 months.

General practitioner

During the review period, the practitioner prescribed PBS item 12075M (semaglutide solution) and rendered or initiated services billed as the following MBS items in excess of 99% of their peers:

160 (attendance of not less than one hour and less than 2 hours on a patient in imminent danger of death)
585 (urgent attendance after‑hours)
599 (urgent attendance in unsociable after‑hours)
2713
5020
5040
56022 (CT scan of spine)
56223 (CT scan of lumbosacral spine)

An Associate Director reviewed this practitioner’s provision of MBS items 160, 585, 599, 2713, 5020, 5040, 56022 and 56223 services, and PBS item 12075M. The Associate Director had persisting concerns that:

MBS item 160 was billed when a patient was not in imminent danger of death
MBS items 585 and 599 were billed when the practitioner did not return to and open consulting rooms for the attendance, and when patients did not require urgent assessment
the records often did not include sufficient detail to reflect that the minimum time requirements were met for relevant attendance services, or to reflect that clinically relevant actions were undertaken or that the practitioner’s clinical input was adequate
the practitioner initiated MBS item 56022 and 56223 services in instances where the records did not adequately demonstrate they were clinically indicated
on most occasions the PBS criteria for prescribing PBS item 12075M was not met
the practitioner’s record keeping was inadequate, because they largely relied on template notes which were not sufficiently personalised to each patient presentation.

The practitioner acknowledged having engaged in inappropriate practice in connection with providing MBS item 160, 585, 599, 2713, 5020, 5040, 56022 and 56223 services, and prescribing PBS item 12075M. The practitioner agreed to:

repay $400,000 to the Commonwealth
be reprimanded by the Associate Director
be counselled by the Associate Director
be disqualified from providing MBS item 160, 585, 599, 2713, 92115, 92127, and 92210 services for 12 months.

General practitioner

During the review period, the practitioner rendered services billed as the following MBS items in excess of 99% of their peers:

5028
5049 (after‑hours attendance at RACF lasting at least 20 minutes)
90035 (attendance at RACF lasting at least 6 minutes and less than 20 minutes)
90043 (attendance at RACF lasting at least 20 minutes)

For prescribing the following PBS items, the practitioner was also nationally ranked:

first for item 3132W (oxazepam tablet 15 mg)
second for item 8865N (buprenorphine 5 mg patch)
second for item 8866P (buprenorphine 10 mg patch)
seventh for item 2089Y (temazepam tablet 10 mg).

An Associate Director reviewed this practitioner’s provision of MBS item 703, 705, 5028, 5049 and 90043 as a class, 5067 (after‑hours attendance at RACF lasting at least 40 minutes) and 90051 as a class, and 90035 services, and PBS items 2089Y, 3132W, 8000C (oxycodone hydrochloride 5 mg + naloxone hydrochloride 2.5 mg modified release tablet, 28) and 8866P. The Associate Director had persisting concerns that:

the MBS requirements were not always met, including that the minimum time requirements had not been met where relevant, and the practitioner did not always perform the required tasks as set out in the item descriptor
in relation to some MBS item 5049, 5067, 90035, 90043 and 90051 services, the practitioner did not appear to have attended the patient on the date of service
for some MBS item 703 and 705 services, the practitioner did not appear to attend the patient and perform a health assessment on the date of service
the practitioner prescribed PBS items 2089Y, 3132W, 8000C and 8866P without a clear clinical rationale, and there was often no record of the patient’s past or current medications, or when PBS items 8000C and 8866P were started, changed or ceased
the practitioner’s record keeping was inadequate, largely due to the lack of clinical information and variability in the recording of necessary information in the practitioner’s records and the RACF records.

The practitioner acknowledged having engaged in inappropriate practice in connection with rendering MBS item 703, 705, 5028, 5049, 5067, 90035, 90043 and 90051 services and prescribing PBS items 2089Y, 3132W, 8000C and 8866P. The practitioner agreed to repay $135,000 to the Commonwealth and be counselled and reprimanded by the Associate Director.

General practitioner

During the review period, the practitioner rendered MBS item 197 (acupuncture attendance lasting at least 20 minutes), 721 and 723 services in excess of 99% of their peers. An Associate Director reviewed this practitioner’s rendering of MBS item 197, 721, 723 and 732 services. The Associate Director had persisting concerns that:

the practitioner’s record keeping was inadequate, namely that records were often brief and omitted relevant clinical information, such as examination findings
in relation to MBS item 197 services, often the minimum time requirements were not met
for MBS item 721, 723 and 732 services, the documentation did not always record the patient’s conditions, measurable goals, and for TCAs, did not include the collaborating health care providers.

The practitioner acknowledged having engaged in inappropriate practice in connection with rendering MBS items 197, 721, 723 and 732. The practitioner agreed to:

repay $288,492 to the Commonwealth
be reprimanded by the Associate Director
be counselled by the Associate Director
be disqualified from providing MBS item 197, 965, 967, 92029 and 92030 services for 24 months.

General practitioner

During the review period, the practitioner rendered MBS item 197 services in excess of 99% of their peers. The Director reviewed this practitioner’s rendering of MBS item 44, 197 and 91891 services, and rendering of a prescribed pattern of services (rendering of 30 or more relevant phone services on 20 or more days in a 12‑month period). The Director had persisting concerns that:

the practitioner rendered 30 or more relevant phone services on each of 24 days during the review period, and exceptional circumstances did not exist that affected the rendering of services on those days
the practitioner’s records were not adequate or contemporaneous, and lacked sufficient clinical input to adequately explain what occurred during the service
for MBS items 44, 197 and 91891, the MBS requirements were not met, including that the minimum time requirements had not been met
in relation to some MBS item 197 services, it was not always clear whether an acupuncture service was clinically indicated, and the practitioner would attend multiple patients simultaneously, not spending at least 20 minutes with an individual patient.

The practitioner acknowledged having engaged in inappropriate practice in connection with rendering MBS item 44, 197 and 91891 services, and in rendering services that constituted a prescribed pattern of services. The practitioner agreed to repay $120,000 and be counselled by the Director.

Medical practitioner

The Director reviewed this practitioner’s rendering of MBS items 23 and 91891 and rendering of a prescribed pattern of services (rendering of 30 or more relevant phone services on 20 or more days in a 12‑month period). The Director had persisting concerns that:

the practitioner rendered 30 or more relevant phone services on each of 21 days during the review period, and exceptional circumstances did not exist that affected the rendering of services on those days
the MBS requirements were not always met for some MBS item 23 and 91891 services, including services where the practitioner did not perform clinically relevant tasks, billed services that did not include any clinically relevant input, and did not provide sufficient input to justify billing a Level B professional attendance.

The practitioner acknowledged having engaged in inappropriate practice in connection with rendering MBS item 23 and 91891 services and in providing services that constituted a prescribed pattern of services. The practitioner agreed to repay $42,000 and be counselled by the Director.

General practitioner

During the review period, the practitioner rendered services billed as the following MBS items in excess of 99% of their peers:

36
699
705
715
721
723
2715
30192 (premalignant skin lesion)

An Associate Director reviewed this practitioner’s rendering of MBS item 36, 699, 705 and 715 as a class, 721 and 723 as a class, 732, 2715, 30192 and 91891 services. The Associate Director had no concerns in relation to MBS items 36 and 91891, but had persisting concerns that:

the practitioner’s record keeping was inadequate as records were often brief and did not include sufficient clinical information to enable another practitioner to effectively assume care of the patient in reliance on the record
some records in relation to MBS item 2715 and 30192 services were inaccurate and inconsistent
the MBS requirements were not always met for CDM services, namely that management plans were often templated and not individualised to the patient, there was no two-way communication with 2 other healthcare providers for TCAs, and when rendering MBS item 732 services, it was unclear whether the practitioner had reviewed the GPMP or TCA documents
in relation to MBS item 699, the practitioner did not appear to take a patient history, record patient measurements or implement a management plan as required.

The practitioner acknowledged having engaged in inappropriate practice in connection with rendering MBS item 699, 705, 715, 721, 723, 732, 2715 and 30192 services. The practitioner agreed to:

repay $240,000 to the Commonwealth
be disqualified from providing MBS item 699, 705, 965, 967, 92029, 92030 services for 12 months
be disqualified from providing MBS item 30192 services for 6 months.

General practitioner

During the review period, the practitioner rendered services billed as the following MBS items in excess of 99% of their peers:

36
44
715
721
723
732
2717

An Associate Director reviewed this practitioner’s rendering of MBS item 36, 44, 715, 721, 723, 732 and 2717 services, and rendering of a prescribed pattern of services (rendering of 80 or more relevant professional attendance services on each of 20 or more days in a 12-month period).

The Associate Director was satisfied that there were sufficient days where exceptional circumstances applied which affected the provisions of services that comprised the rendering of a prescribed pattern of services, but had persisting concerns that:

the practitioner’s record keeping was inadequate across most of the reviewed services, namely that the practitioner relied heavily on templates which were either blank or lacked sufficient individualisation for the patient, and across several services notes appear to have been copied and pasted
in relation to MBS item 36, 44 and 2717 services, the minimum time requirements were not met
for MBS item 2717 and 715 services, it did not appear that the practitioner undertook the required clinical tasks and assessments
the practitioner did not develop comprehensive GPMPs for MBS item 721 services
the MBS item 723 services did not contain two-way communication between the practitioner and two other health care providers as required for a TCA
in some CDM services, the only record of the service was made by the practice nurse.

The practitioner acknowledged having engaged in inappropriate practice in connection with rendering MBS items 36, 44, 715, 721, 723, 732 and 2717. The practitioner agreed to:

repay $700,000 to the Commonwealth
be reprimanded by the Associate Director
be counselled by the Associate Director
be disqualified from providing MBS item 2717 and 92117 services for 12 months
be disqualified from providing MBS item 44, 965, 967, 91802, 92029 and 92030 services for 6 months.

General practitioner

During the review period, the practitioner rendered services billed as the following MBS items in excess of 99% of their peers:

36
721
723
5040

An Associate Director reviewed this practitioner’s rendering of MBS item 23, 36, 721, 723, 5020, 5040 and 91891 services, and had no persisting concerns in relation to MBS item 91891 services. The Associate Director had persisting concerns that:

the MBS requirements were not always met for professional attendance items, including that it did not always appear that the practitioner had attended the patient and the minimum time requirements were not met
for MBS item 23, 36, 5020 and 5040 services, it was not always clear what clinical input was provided by the practitioner as opposed to the onsite nurse, or what the clinical indication for the service was
the practitioner’s GPMPs were often templated, lacked sufficient individualisation and sometimes contained incorrect information for the relevant patient, and the practitioner did not always collaborate with at least 2 other health care providers when developing TCAs
the practitioner’s record keeping was inadequate, with entries lacking important clinical information making it difficult for another practitioner to assume care of the patient in reliance on the record.

The practitioner acknowledged having engaged in inappropriate practice in connection with rendering MBS item 23, 36, 721, 723, 5020 and 5040 services. The practitioner agreed to repay $290,000 to the Commonwealth, and to be disqualified from providing MBS item 965, 967, 92029, 92030 services for 6 months.

General practitioner

During the review period, the practitioner rendered services billed as the following MBS items in excess of 99% of their peers:

699
732
900 (domiciliary medication management review (DMMR))

The Director reviewed this practitioner’s rendering of MBS item 699, 707, 721, 723, 732 and 900 services. The Director had persisting concerns that:

the MBS requirements were not always met for MBS item 699 and 707 services, including the minimum time requirements were not met, that the services were adequately explained to the patient, or that a comprehensive assessment occurred
for CDM services, the practitioner did not always develop comprehensive care plans as many plans were made up of templated text which was inadequately personalised to the patient
in relation to MBS item 723, it was often unclear whether the practitioner had engaged in two-way communication with 2 other health care providers
for MBS item 900 services, the records did not support that patient consent had been obtained for DMMR services, the clinical notes and correspondence with pharmacists were routinely generic and lacked personalisation, and it was not always clear that the practitioner had discussed, made changes, or engaged with DMMR recommendations made.

The practitioner acknowledged having engaged in inappropriate practice in connection with rendering MBS items 699, 707, 721, 723, 732 and 900. The practitioner agreed to:

repay $178,000 to the Commonwealth
be counselled by the Director
be disqualified from providing MBS item 965, 967, 92029, 92030 services for 9 months.

General practitioner

During the review period, the practitioner was nationally ranked 27th for MBS item 5020 services, and seventh for MBS item 92210 (telehealth attendance on not more than one patient on one occasion). An Associate Director reviewed this practitioner’s rendering of MBS item 23, 5020 and 92210 services. The Associate Director had persisting concerns that:

the practitioner did not always meet the minimum time requirement of 6 minutes for MBS item 23 and 5020 services
the practitioner did not always undertake clinically relevant tasks such taking a patient history or performing an examination for MBS item 23 and 5020 services
in relation to MBS item 92210 services, the patient’s presenting condition did not require urgent assessment
the practitioner’s record keeping was inadequate, namely that the records were very brief with many notes only containing one or 2 words and would not enable another practitioner to take over care of the patient.

The practitioner acknowledged having engaged in inappropriate practice in connection with rendering MBS items 23, 5020 and 92210. The practitioner agreed to repay $225,000 to the Commonwealth.

General practitioner

During the review period, the practitioner rendered MBS item 91891 services and prescribed PBS item 8254K in excess of 99% of their peers. An Associate Director reviewed this practitioner’s rendering of MBS item 91891 services and a prescribed pattern of services (rendering of 30 or more relevant phone services on 20 or more days in a 12‑month period), and their prescribing of PBS item 8254K.

The Associate Director had no concerns in relation to PBS items 8254K, but had persisting concerns that:

the practitioner rendered 30 or more relevant phone services on each of 22 days during the review period, and exceptional circumstances did not exist that affected the rendering of services on those days
the MBS requirements for MBS item 91891 services were not met, including where it was not clear that the practitioner rendered a phone service or attended the patient on the date of service
the practitioner did not provide adequate levels of clinical input when deciding to prescribe PBS item 8254K and did not accurately determine the clinical need for an antibiotic during these services.

The practitioner acknowledged having engaged in inappropriate practice in connection with rendering MBS item 91891 and in providing services that constituted a prescribed pattern of services. The practitioner agreed to repay $180,000 to the Commonwealth and be counselled by the Associate Director.

General practitioner

During the review period, the practitioner rendered services billed as MBS item 92210 in excess of 99% of their peers. An Associate Director reviewed this practitioner’s rendering of MBS item 36, 91891 and 92210 services. The Associate Director had persisting concerns that:

for MBS item 36 and 91891 services, the minimum time requirements were not always met, and it appeared that some consultations were standard or straightforward consultations
MBS item 92210 services were claimed in circumstances where the patient’s medical condition did not require an urgent assessment during unsociable hours and the request for services had not occurred in the same unbroken after‑hours period
some MBS item 36 services were co‑billed with therapeutic procedures in circumstances where it was not appropriate to co-claim a professional attendance
the practitioner’s record keeping was inadequate as the clinical notes did not always contain sufficient input to justify the services claimed.

The practitioner acknowledged having engaged in inappropriate practice in connection with rendering MBS items 36, 91891 and 92210. The practitioner agreed to:

repay $340,000 to the Commonwealth
be reprimanded by the Associate Director
be disqualified from providing MBS item 92210 services for 12 months.

General practitioner

During the review period, the practitioner rendered MBS item 91891 services in excess of 99% of their peers. The Director reviewed this practitioner’s rendering of MBS items 44 and 91891 and of a prescribed pattern of services (rendering of 30 or more relevant phone services on 20 or more days in a 12‑month period).

The Director had persisting concerns that:

the practitioner rendered 30 or more relevant phone services on each of 22 days during the review period, and exceptional circumstances did not exist that affected the rendering of services on those days
the MBS requirements were not always met, including that the minimum time requirements were not met and the practitioner did not undertake all clinically relevant tasks such as taking an extensive history and formulating a management plan
the practitioner’s record keeping was inadequate as the practitioner did not always include accurate details to reflect what occurred during the consultation.

The practitioner acknowledged having engaged in inappropriate practice in connection with rendering MBS items 44 and 91891, and in providing services that constituted a prescribed pattern of services. The practitioner agreed to repay $23,000 to the Commonwealth and be counselled by the Director.

B. No further action decisions

Cardiologist

During the review period, the practitioner rendered MBS item 11704 and 11705 services in excess of 99% of their peers.

The Director reviewed a random sample of services rendered as MBS items 11704 and 11705. After reviewing the practitioner’s records, the Director formed the view that no further action was required as there were insufficient grounds on which a Committee could reasonably find that the practitioner engaged in inappropriate practice during the review period.

C. PSR Committee final determinations

There were no final determinations that took effect in March 2026.

D. Federal Court

There were no Federal Court decisions handed down in March 2026.

E. Referrals to the major non-compliance (fraud) division (89A & 106N)

Zero matters were referred to the major non-compliance (fraud) division in March 2026.

F. Referrals to Ahpra (106XA/B)

One matter was referred to Ahpra in March 2026.