The proportion of Australian general practitioner (GP) clinics participating in bulk billing has significantly increased following new incentives introduced by the federal government in November 2025. According to an analysis by the online health directory Cleanbill, the rate of fully bulk-billing clinics has risen to 40.2%, nearly doubling from 20.7% the previous year.
The Albanese government implemented an additional 12.5% payment on Medicare benefits for clinics that bulk bill all eligible patients for all eligible services. Previously, only children under 16 and Commonwealth concession card holders qualified for most incentives. This substantial change aims to encourage greater participation in bulk billing, which minimizes out-of-pocket costs for patients.
Between November 1 and December 15, 2025, Cleanbill contacted 6,877 clinics, discovering that 1,007 had transitioned from private or mixed billing to full bulk billing since the beginning of the year. However, the analysis also highlights significant geographical disparities in bulk billing rates across Australia.
In the Australian Capital Territory (ACT), 96% of GP clinics reported accepting new patients, a criterion for inclusion in the survey. Yet, only about 12 of the 101 clinics that responded indicated they were fully bulk billing. In contrast, Western Australia saw 95% of clinics stating they accepted new patients, but only 19.8% of 657 contacted clinics reported fully bulk billing.
The situation varied in other states as well, with 51.9% of the 2,342 clinics in New South Wales fully bulk billing, compared to 43.6% in Victoria. While the data reveals a rise in bulk billing, it also indicates a 13.5% increase in out-of-pocket costs for patients who are not covered by bulk billing. The average total cost of a standard GP consultation now exceeds $100 in the ACT and Tasmania, resulting in out-of-pocket expenses averaging $58 and $61 respectively.
Federal Health Minister Mark Butler expressed skepticism regarding some of the findings from the Cleanbill analysis. He stated, “specific data contained in the Cleanbill analysis cannot be relied upon and should not be reported as accurate.” Butler pointed out that the government’s own data revealed that since November, over 3,200 practices had transitioned to fully bulk billing, with almost 1,200 of these being previously mixed billing practices.
In addition to incentivizing bulk billing, the government is pursuing other measures to enhance access to healthcare, such as the establishment of Medicare urgent care clinics and the launch of 1800Medicare, a free nationwide health advice line available 24/7.
Despite the positive trends in bulk billing, Peter Breadon, the health program director at the Grattan Institute, noted that the incentives do not resolve deeper structural issues within general practice. He emphasized that access to care continues to vary significantly by location, often leaving the most vulnerable patients underserved. “This doesn’t really deal with the supply and distribution of care,” Breadon commented, suggesting that a different funding model is necessary to support clinics catering to disadvantaged and low-income patients.
He further criticized the shift in the bulk billing incentive, which now applies to all patients rather than prioritizing those in greatest need. “It used to be that the bulk-billing incentive was tied to looking after concession card holders or children. That was one of the only mainstream parts of the GP funding system that explicitly prioritised disadvantaged patients,” Breadon explained. He argued that while Australia offers greater bulk-billing incentives to rural areas, the recent changes represent a backward step in aligning funding with patient need.
Breadon also highlighted that the data from Cleanbill is based on clinic responses at a specific time, and more comprehensive Medicare data from the health department would provide a clearer picture over time. He emphasized the need for a fundamental shift in GP funding, including voluntary models that offer clinics flexible patient budgets that increase for seeing sicker and poorer patients. “Funding should follow need,” he asserted. “If anything, the recent changes move us away from that.”
