The doctor-patient relationship is the cornerstone of quality medical care.

We act on critical issues impacting the doctor-patient relationship to ensure Australians have freedom of choice in healthcare and a balanced mix of well-resourced public and private healthcare sectors.

Professional Independence
Policies for the benefit of all
Freedom of Choice in Healthcare

We will always advocate for the ability to deliver high standards of medical care.

The Australian Doctors Federation supports all actions that strengthen and enhance the doctor-patient relationship across Australia, including choice of doctor, the legal accountability of doctors to their patients, high standards of medical training and medical standards as set by the medical profession.

Representing Doctors

The ADF has been involved in all major issues impacting the doctor-patient relationship since its establishment in 1989.

Compared to our forebears, Australians now enjoy one of the world’s highest standards of medical care, but we cannot take this for granted. There will always be those who advocate for a UK-style ‘big government’ command and control model of healthcare or a US style ‘managed care’ system, where doctors are contracted to health corporations who then control what the doctors can do for patients in line with their profit-based corporate objectives.

In an environment where the medical profession is evolving and undergoing continual change, we need to ensure that doctors do not become marginalised in issues that directly impact patients. 

ADF Doctor Patient Relationship

Current Campaigns

Professional independence

Australian medicine must remain independent of control and ownership by big government or health corporations. Doctors must be the patient’s advocate, not the servant of third-party payers.

Doctors not clerks

Government departments and commercial organisations increasingly require doctors to fill in forms on paper and electronically in order for patients to be eligible for benefits. Not only does this cut into patient consultation time, it is blatant cost-shifting. Nominate a form.

No to medicine without doctors

Decisions by government that de-medicalise medical boards and committees that regulate and impact medical practice are a danger to the public and erode the confidence of doctors in the independence of the regulator. The ADF maintains that medical boards must be chaired by qualified medical practitioners.

Supporting senior active doctors

The ADF appreciates the value and contributions of senior doctors and has proposed a registration category for senior active doctors that will promote public safety and maintain the valuable involvement and mentoring role of Australia’s senior doctors.

Join us today!

Join today, and let’s work together to strengthen the doctor-patient relationship here in Australia.

Sign me up

ADF Supports

  • The right of patients to decide what, if any, access third party users may have to their health information, and whether such information may be sold or transferred by government or commercial entities.
  • Ethical advertising in line with guidelines set out by AHPRA and AMA Codes of Ethics and Conduct.
  • Doctors and health professionals being held legally accountable to their patients in cases of proven negligence.
  • An affordable National Medical Register, State Medical Boards with medically qualified leadership and representation, and a complaints process accountable to a single jurisdiction. A National Medical Board consisting of the Presidents of all State Medical Boards.
  • Strong medical leadership on medical issues.
  • Doctor-preferred electronic medical record systems designed to strengthen treatment pathways and facilitate clinical decision making.
  • Profession-led and supported quality assurance and professional development programs which facilitate the continuous improvement of the medical profession.
  • Practical and sensible medical regulation that supports high standards of medical practice.
  • A private health insurance system that pays the same rebate to policy holders regardless of their choice of hospital or doctor.
  • A steady and sustainable increase in the medical workforce in line with the availability of quality training and career development pathways from Australia and overseas.
  • Medical-led accreditation of medical practitioners by the Australian Medical Council.
  • Strong private and public hospital sectors, maximising their organisational strengths and capabilities.
  • The vital role of the general practitioner in preliminary diagnosis, referral and independent advice.
  • Ethical claiming behaviour by doctors and patients in regard to the rebates paid by third party funders, including the ethical use of the MBS and PBS.
  • Patient choice of doctor and the right to a second opinion.
  • The right of all doctors to independently value their own services and the requirement to provide informed financial consent.

ADF Opposes

  • Data mining of patient information for the commercial benefit of third parties without the approval of the patient. Any compulsion by third parties for doctors to collect patient information for purposes unrelated to the direct treatment of the patient.
  • Unsubstantiated claims by doctors or any person involved in healthcare delivery that do not meet the requirements of ethical advertising.
  • No fault schemes which do not provide patients or doctors with due process in cases of alleged negligence.
  • An AHPRA bureaucracy with no accountability to any single jurisdiction.
  • Using the voice of the medical profession to advance political agendas of the left or right.
  • Imposed bureaucratically designed top-down healthcare record systems and mandatory enrolment in same.
  • The imposition of bureaucratic or third party promoted control mechanisms, fads and marketing schemes disguised as quality control programs.
  • Make work schemes and naïve interventions designed to meet political agendas, not professional standards.
  • Differential rebates whereby patients are paid a lower rebate when they choose a doctor who has decided to be independent of health fund networks.
  • The over production of Australian medical graduates and over-reliance on overseas trained doctors.
  • Government agencies and appointed boards replacing the Australian Medical Council in its role of accrediting medical education and training.
  • Policies that distort the role of the public or private hospital sector for ideological reasons.
  • Budget holding, capitation, bundled payments, enforced role substitution and schemes designed to bypass the central role of the general practitioner.
  • Opportunistic and unethical claiming behaviour by doctors and patients, in particular in regard to the MBS and PBS.
  • Forced patient registration, and health fund ‘preferred provider’ networks that direct or influence referrals to health fund contracted doctors through incentives or penalties.