Wow, this guy doesn't even understand the Medicare rules. Sure 92% of pathology tests are bulk-billed, but not all of these tests attract the bulk-billing incentive items. These only apply when the tests are done on kids under 16 or on Commonwealth concession card holders. The payments are lower when done in urban areas and higher when done in outer metro/rural/regional areas. So the impacts are potentially worse for these types of people who live in these areas if pathology providers try and recoup this cost.
He also doesn't seem to understand what co-pays are, there is no such thing allowed under the Medicare rules, this idea was abolished only recently. He is using the wrong term. There is a big difference between a co-pay and paying the full cost upfront and the patient getting a refund from Medicare resulting in a gap payment. In one instance th patient may pay $10 upfront, in the other $100 upfront.
Anyway given the market leading position SHL has in pathology, they maybe able to charge patients higher amounts and push revenue and margins above expectations.
He is right on one thing though, that further industry consolidation may occur, and again this is likely to benefit the larger pathology operators where there are no ACCC issues. Alternatively non-viable practices, particularly those in outer metro/rural/regional areas will just close shop and walk away (a bit like what HSO did in QLD, allowing PRY to walk in and take the business tbere).
(20min delay)
