( n = 19) used mixtures of the above billing approaches, sometimes depending on modality( e. g. naturopathy or massage therapy). A total of 235 valid responses were received. See Figure 2.
The average initial consultation time was reported as 62 minutes and the average subsequent consultation time was 38 minutes.
Respondents described a broad range of services they provided as part of their clinical practices: 76.1 %( n = 169) reported providing in-person clinic care, 63 %( n = 140) reported providing telehealth, and 58.1 %( n = 129) reported dispensing natural products or medicaments. Just over a quarter( 27.9 %, n = 62) provided structured wellness or treatment programs. A similar number( 25.2 %, n = 56) reported providing home-based visits and 14.4 %( n = 32) reported providing group classes, including education and rehabilitation)( see Table 5).
Table 5. Service delivery
SERVICES PROVIDED FREQUENCY %( N)
In-person clinic care 76.1( 169)
Telehealth 63.1( 140) Home-based visits 25.2( 56)
Group classes( e. g. education, stretching, rehabilitation)
Dispensing natural products or medicaments
Structured wellness or treatment programs
14.4( 32)
58.1( 129)
27.9( 62) TOTAL 100( 222)
Only 19.9 %( n = 47) of respondents reported using electronic claiming systems( e. g. HICAPS or HealthPoint) and 23.7 %( n = 56) reported their willingness to adopt one. A total of 236 respondents answered this question.
The most commonly reported basis for price setting was qualifications and experience, reported by 60.4 %( n = 142) respondents. This was followed by session duration and complexity( 47.2 %, n = 111)
Figure 2. Billing habits
and setting own rates( 44.3 %, n = 104). Location and client demographics were also factors for 37.5 %( n = 88). Modality standards( 23.4 %, n = 55) and business overheads were reported by 23 %( n = 54)( see Table 6)
Table 6. Basis for price setting
BASIS FOR PRICE SETTING
Qualifications and Experience
Location and Client Demographics
Session Duration and Complexity
FREQUENCY %( N)
60.4( 142)
37.5( 88)
47.2( 111)
Modality Standards 23.4( 55) Business Overheads 23.0( 54)
Benchmarking and Fee Research
10.6( 25)
Value-Add Services 6.4( 15) Discounts or Packages 12.8( 30)
Set own rates 44.3( 104) TOTAL 100( 235)
Health fund item code schedules
Respondents were asked how they would prefer to have their health fund items to be structured. A total of 42.6 %( n = 100) preferred a structure based on appointment type; 22.1 %( n = 52) preferred a structure based on type of service, 20.4 %( n = 48) preferred timebased item codes and 14.9 %( n = 35) were unsure. The total number of respondents was 235.
Most respondents( 72.1 %, n = 168) wanted item codes to be simple and flexible. Only 6.4 %( n = 15) wanted them to be detailed and specific and 21.5 %( n = 50) wanted a mix of simple and flexible and detailed and specific item codes.
Respondents were asked whether GP referrals should be required for clients to claim rebates. A total of 86.4 %( n = 203) did not think they should be required. Reasons cited included: GPs may not be willing to refer to natural medicine practitioners, the waste of time for time-poor GPs, the inconvenience and expense for clients, and the potential disempowerment of both clients and natural medicine practitioners. Only 3 %( n = 7) thought GP referrals should be required, and 10.6 %( n = 25) said it depended on circumstances. For example, one respondent spoke of NDIS support for her clients with Alzheimer’ s disease. They thought that a GP referral might facilitate this support. Another thought that GP referral would enhance the status of natural medicine practitioners and promote integrated health care.
Respondents were asked to name the three top conditions or issues that their clients sought their help with. Three conditions dominated making up 45.4 % of responses: women’ s health / fertility / hormone balancing( 16.3 %, n = 98), gut health / digestion( 14.8 %, n = 89) and mental health, stress, anxiety, depression( 14.3 %, n = 86). A full list of the top conditions reported is presented in Table 7.
132 | vol31 | no3 | JATMS