The way national health practitioner registration fees are charged can deliver unfair financial outcomes for clinicians who register outside their profession’s standard renewal cycle, an investigation by the National Health Practitioner Ombudsman has found.
Published on 27 November by Ombudsman Ms Richelle McCausland, the report follows complaints from three registered practitioners who were required to pay fees to the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (Ahpra) twice within just three months.
The findings show that the rigidity of set annual renewal dates – a requirement under the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law – can leave some clinicians paying thousands in rapid succession.
In one example examined by the investigation, a medical practitioner who paid application and registration fees in July was required to pay their renewal fee again by 30 September of the same year. The combined fees in that case totalled around $3,600, within a 12-week period.
The investigation identified that clinicians taking or returning from parental leave, first-time registrants, and those changing their registration type were more likely to be financially disadvantaged by the current fee approach.
It also uncovered errors and inconsistencies in publicly available information. The Ombudsman acknowledged Ahpra’s removal of previously published material during the investigation which had incorrectly stated that the national law does not allow fees to be pro-rated or partially refunded.
Not all the developments were negative. The Ombudsman pointed to improvements announced by Ahpra during the inquiry, including the start of a 30 per cent rebate on annual fees for practitioners taking parental leave or other protected leave from 1 July 2025, along with the commencement of a broader review into its pro-rata fees strategy. Ahpra has formally accepted the Ombudsman’s suggestions for improvement, and its written response is now attached to the published report.
The Health Chief Executives Forum has noted the findings.
“Health practitioners are facing financial and cost-of-living pressures like many community members, and they need to have confidence that the registration fees they are charged are fair and reasonable,” Ms McCausland said.
“It is necessary for Ahpra and the national boards to charge registration fees and this is enabled by the relevant law. But the way fees are charged must be fair,” she said, welcoming both the removal of inaccurate public information and the agency’s acceptance of further reform suggestions.
The Ombudsman’s first recommendation asks that the Pro Rata Fee Review factor in the investigation’s findings, including transparency, consistency, cost-recovery evidence, and fee waiver or reimbursement pathways where appropriate. The second recommendation calls for a comprehensive update of all public-facing information on fee charging models to ensure accuracy across professions and registration categories.
