"Medical Costs Finder" Website

The new Federal Government “Medical Costs Finder” Website has been launched without the promised feature to allow consumers to compare specialists’ fees.



Yet again it shows that the LNP are not committed to looking after consumers. If only those consumers, who also happen to be voters, were smart enough to realize this, and vote accordingly.


Years later my health fund reminded me of this site.

With the general secrecy about fees, costs, and so many other things in society a per specialist comparison could easily be an impossible dream. The current version provides the 10th, average, and 90th centile of costs for various specialist services by location.


Various but not all?

To hand a recent invoice for specialist services with schedule item numbers and the Medicare rebate also with the schedule item numbers.

The items exist in the real world but we’re not recognised by the “Finder web resource”. I tried searching be specialty with using the item numbers which brought up various services for the specialty, and item numbers. The services were absent from the lists.

The services delivered included several routinely and commonly provided for cardiology with many of the scheduled fees in the hundreds of dollars.
EG item 11714 for an electrocardiograph is one of the few low cost items.

I noted in the introductory notes:

It covers common services in and out of hospital. We will continue to add more services over time.

If anyone else has a recent record of services they might like to search for and share their success or otherwise. The consult item no 116 was the only item that was recognised from my searches.

Per the original post the effort is not exactly what was promised then, is better, but is still short.

I could be wrong, but maybe?

A guess: a number of services are not exclusive to specialists. I had ECGs at my GP (bulk billed!) and another at a Dorevich location (private pre-surgical, modest cost), neither by the specialists although referred by them.

That would explicitly be by ‘the specialist’, right?

Maybe that could be the why it is as it is?

:slightly_smiling_face: Yes. Passed with flying colours. More services than an ECG but no need to stress over what else was included.

Just noting that one can see a specialist as a public patient, or as a private patient. It doesn’t change the schedule number AFAIK.

The rabbit hole suggests there are 4 schedule item numbers (11704, 11705, 11707, 11714) for a 12 lead ECG depending on …… One of the 4 provides for any medical practitioner to deliver an ECG. Two provide for a third party and one for a specialist to deliver an ECG in conjunction with a clinical assessment.

I thought it might be the government site does not like Safari. However it finds none of the 4 listed item numbers, while happy to find the average cost of item number for the consult in my area.

On the flip side if one has drawn the short straw and needs a new knee schedule item 49518.
Waiting for public is one option. Going private the other depending on … The web site tool did suggest what that might cost: Medical Costs Finder | Australian Government Department of Health

Just to round out my observations of the website, it’s now 4 years since it was released to deliver:

Even if it was a maternity service for elephants it would be finished within 22 months. :wink:

1 Like


I could not imagine anyone expecting the glib information to be in any way a quote but who knows if or how a patient might try to use it as a bargaining tool. Perhaps the sentence was added by a self serving manager or ‘responsible pollie’ (no need to go there, it is a remark in endless search for an example) attempting to make it look more rigorous?

1 Like