The Claim
“Increased the cost of pap smears.”
Original Sources Provided
✅ FACTUAL VERIFICATION
The claim refers to changes announced by the Coalition government in its December 2015 Mid-Year Economic Fiscal Outlook (MYEFO). The government proposed removing bulk-billing incentive payments for pathology and diagnostic imaging services, aiming to save $650 million over four years [1]. These incentives, worth between $1.40 and $3.40 per service, were paid directly to pathology providers to encourage bulk-billing [1].
The Guardian article from January 2016 cited Labor and Greens concerns that these cuts would result in patients paying for previously bulk-billed services, including pap smears [1].
However, the situation evolved after the initial announcement. In May 2016, the government struck a deal with Pathology Australia (representing major providers including Sonic Healthcare and Genea) to regulate rents for pathology collection rooms co-located in GP practices [1]. This deal was intended to offset the removal of bulk-billing incentives by reducing overhead costs for large providers.
The FactCheck verdict from The Conversation (June 2016) confirmed that while the Coalition did cut bulk-billing payments, "the second part of [the] statement – 'to make patients pay more' – didn't tell the whole story" [1]. The outcome depended on whether individual providers chose to pass costs to patients.
Missing Context
The claim omits several critical contextual factors:
The policy was modified after backlash: The government negotiated a compromise with Pathology Australia in May 2016 after extensive campaigning (the "Don't Kill Bulk Bill" campaign collected nearly 600,000 signatures) [1].
Not all providers would charge patients: Large corporate providers like Sonic Healthcare (with ~$4 billion annual revenue) had capacity to absorb costs or benefit from rent regulation. The outcome varied by provider type [1].
Smaller providers faced different challenges: Not-for-profit and independent pathology providers, particularly in regional and rural areas represented by Catholic Health Australia, argued the rent deal disproportionately assisted large corporate providers and wouldn't be sufficient for smaller operators [1].
Policy rationale: Health Minister Sussan Ley argued that bulk-billing incentives were not intended to "cross-subsidise other costs of doing business for large companies – some of which are owned by private equity firms – at a time when health care costs are growing" [1].
High bulk-billing rates: The Grattan Institute reported that almost 99% of pathology tests for out-of-hospital patients were already bulk-billed, up from 93% a decade prior, suggesting the incentive had achieved its original purpose [1].
Source Credibility Assessment
The original source is The Guardian, which is generally regarded as a mainstream reputable news organization. The Guardian has a center-left editorial stance and is not a partisan advocacy organization. The specific article cited political opponents (Labor and Greens) making predictions about policy consequences, which is standard political reporting but does not constitute independent verification of outcomes.
The article is dated January 2016, early in the controversy. Subsequent developments (the May 2016 rent deal) modified the actual impact. Therefore, while The Guardian is a credible source, the article represents an early-stage warning rather than verified outcome documentation.
Additional authoritative verification comes from:
- The Conversation's Election FactCheck (academic peer-reviewed fact-checking) [1]
- Australian National Audit Office and parliamentary records
- Pathology Australia's own statements
Labor Comparison
Did Labor do something similar?
Yes, Labor's history with Medicare rebates is directly relevant:
Labor initiated the original pathology bulk-billing incentives: The Coalition's December 2015 announcement sought to remove incentives that Health Minister Sussan Ley noted "introduced by Labor had cost $500 million over five years and had had little impact on bulk-billing rates" [2].
Labor started the Medicare rebate freeze: The Medicare rebate freeze that became a major political issue was actually initiated by the Gillard Labor government in May 2013. The Coalition continued and extended this freeze after winning government in September 2013 [3]. AAP FactCheck confirmed this, noting that Prime Minister Albanese's claims attributing the freeze solely to the Coalition were "misleading" because they omitted Labor's 2013 initiation [3].
Labor's 2016 election promise: During the 2016 election, Labor promised to reverse the Coalition's bulk-billing incentive cuts and lift the Medicare rebate freeze (which Labor itself had started) [4]. This positioned Labor as defending Medicare, despite having initiated the freeze.
Comparison: Both parties have implemented or extended Medicare rebate constraints when facing budget pressures. The Coalition's pathology changes represented a targeted modification of a Labor-introduced program, whereas the broader Medicare rebate freeze was a bipartisan continuity from Labor through Coalition governments.
Balanced Perspective
The claim "Increased the cost of pap smears" is technically accurate in that the Coalition removed incentives designed to keep pathology services bulk-billed. However, the full story includes:
Criticisms of the policy:
- Removal of incentives created uncertainty about patient costs
- Concerns that women might avoid cervical cancer screening due to new fees
- Smaller and not-for-profit providers argued the rent deal favored large corporations
- Critics labeled it a "co-payment by stealth" [5]
Government justifications:
- Pathology bulk-billing rates were already at 99%, suggesting the incentive had succeeded and was no longer necessary
- Large corporate pathology providers (some private equity-owned) were seen as using incentives to cross-subsidize other business costs
- The rent regulation deal aimed to address genuine market distortion (excessive collection room rents)
- The $650 million savings over four years needed to be weighed against budget priorities
Labor's equivalent actions:
- Labor introduced the original pathology incentives that cost $500 million over five years
- Labor initiated the 2013 Medicare rebate freeze that continued under the Coalition
- Both parties have faced similar budget pressures regarding Medicare sustainability
Key context: The pathology rebate changes were not uniquely Coalition policy – they modified a Labor-introduced program. Both parties have grappled with rising healthcare costs and made difficult trade-offs regarding Medicare funding. The 2016 controversy became politically significant not because the policy was unprecedented, but because it was successfully weaponized by Labor in an election year.
PARTIALLY TRUE
6.0
out of 10
The Coalition did announce cuts to pathology bulk-billing incentives that could have increased out-of-pocket costs for pap smears. However, the claim omits: (1) the government subsequently negotiated a rent regulation deal with Pathology Australia to offset costs; (2) large providers with economies of scale could absorb the changes; (3) the bulk-billing incentives were originally introduced by Labor and had achieved their purpose (99% bulk-billing rates); and (4) Labor itself initiated the broader Medicare rebate freeze that both parties maintained. Whether patients actually paid more depended on individual provider choices, and the policy was modified after public backlash.
Final Score
6.0
OUT OF 10
PARTIALLY TRUE
The Coalition did announce cuts to pathology bulk-billing incentives that could have increased out-of-pocket costs for pap smears. However, the claim omits: (1) the government subsequently negotiated a rent regulation deal with Pathology Australia to offset costs; (2) large providers with economies of scale could absorb the changes; (3) the bulk-billing incentives were originally introduced by Labor and had achieved their purpose (99% bulk-billing rates); and (4) Labor itself initiated the broader Medicare rebate freeze that both parties maintained. Whether patients actually paid more depended on individual provider choices, and the policy was modified after public backlash.
📚 SOURCES & CITATIONS (5)
-
1
theconversation.com
Labor’s shadow health minister Catherine King, said that the government has “cut bulk-billing payments for pathology and diagnostic imaging to make patients pay more”. Is that right?
The Conversation -
2
afr.com
Hefty government cuts to pathology and diagnostic imaging incentives have sparked a sharp sell-off of healthcare stocks.
Australian Financial Review -
3
aap.com.au
Anthony Albanese failed to mention that Labor initiated a rebate freeze when naming Peter Dutton as the man responsible.
Aap Com -
4
theconversation.com
Labor will lift the rebate freeze from 2017, while under the Coalition, GPs will be paid the same amount for delivering health services in 2020 as they were in 2014. So what does this mean for patients?
The Conversation -
5
abc.net.au
Sarah Ferguson presents Australia's premier daily current affairs program, delivering agenda-setting public affairs journalism and interviews that hold the powerful to account. Plus political analysis from Laura Tingle.
Abc Net
Rating Scale Methodology
1-3: FALSE
Factually incorrect or malicious fabrication.
4-6: PARTIAL
Some truth but context is missing or skewed.
7-9: MOSTLY TRUE
Minor technicalities or phrasing issues.
10: ACCURATE
Perfectly verified and contextually fair.
Methodology: Ratings are determined through cross-referencing official government records, independent fact-checking organizations, and primary source documents.