Table 7. Most common client conditions / issues
CONDITIONS / ISSUES FREQUENCY %( N)
Women’ s health / fertility / hormone balancing |
16.3( 98) |
Gut health / digestion |
14.8( 89) |
Mental health / stress / anxiety / depression |
14.3( 86) |
Musculoskeletal health / muscle and joint pain / mobility |
8.3( 50) |
Pain |
6.8( 41) |
Fatigue |
6.3( 38) |
Immune health and autoimmune conditions |
5.3( 32) |
Health maintenance / promotion / preventative health care |
4.2( 25) |
Weight management |
4.2( 25) |
Chronic health conditions |
3.5( 21) |
Sleep health |
3.3( 20) |
Paediatric health |
1.7( 10) |
Healthy ageing, including cognitive health |
1.3( 8) |
Skin health |
1.2( 7) |
Inflammation |
1.2( 7) |
Cardiovascular health |
1.2( 7) |
Allergies / food sensitivities |
1.0( 6) |
Thyroid |
0.8( 5) |
Pregnancy / childbirth / post-partum health |
0.7( 4) |
Endocrine health |
0.7( 4) |
Migraine / headache |
0.5( 3) |
Lymphoedema |
0.5( 3) |
Acute conditions |
0.3( 2) |
Cancer-related |
0.3( 2) |
Circulation |
0.3( 2) |
Metaphysical / energetic |
0.3( 2) |
Asthma |
0.2( 1) |
Infection |
0.2( 1) |
Disability |
0.2( 1) |
TOTAL |
100( 600) |
Respondents were asked if they would support dedicated item codes for specific conditions. A total of 20.6 %( n = 44) would support a dedicated item code for preventative health care, 18.7 %( n = 40) for chronic condition management, 17.8 %( n = 38) for women’ s health and 6.1 %( n = 13) for mental health conditions. Of the 79 comments provided, 28 thought that the dedicating item codes for specific conditions would add complexity or commented that they frequently treated clients with comorbidities(‘ overlapping conditions’) and dedicated item codes for specific conditions might not apply.
A total of 122 respondents made further comments: 33 of these reinforced the importance of maintaining simplicity and flexibility in item codes; 10 raised concerns about the inclusion of their qualifications in eligibility criteria for health fund rebates. Nine respondents reiterated that they preferred item codes by appointment type and time and six wanted more accessible claiming for clients and to minimise the administrative burden on practitioners. Five respondents requested item codes that differentiated between service and product. Four advocated for item codes for client wellbeing and preventative health care. Four reinforced the complexity of naturopathic consultations and that treatments often involved treating co-morbidities.
Discussion
The practitioner profile of respondents in this survey is dominated by naturopaths, herbal medicine practitioners and nutritionists, the group of ATMS’ Accredited Members and Fellows most directly affected by the removal of health fund rebates for 16 natural medicine practices in 2019.( 4) A previous survey of ATMS and other Australian professional association members in 2022( 5) also found that the primary practice setting of respondents was solo private practice and that most practised in metropolitan settings. Duration of consultations was