Legal Challenges to the Two-Tier System

In 2006 the Australian Government implemented health reforms that saw psychological services included in Australia's Medicare system under the Better Access Scheme. The Medicare items for psychologists under Better Access were separated into two categories: clinical psychology services and general psychology services. This became the two-tiered model that provides higher rebates (approximately 40% higher) for services provided by endorsed clinical psychologists and a lower rebate for the clients of all ‘other’ registered psychologists.

This has caused far reaching consequences well beyond Medicare rebates. Other schemes, such as DVA and Open Arms, have appropriated the two-tier system, preferencing clinical psychologists over psychologists without clinical endorsement. This has significantly limited the scope of practice of psychologists without a clinical endorsement, as well as job choices, particularly in the public sector.

The two-tier system has created significant discord within the psychology profession and caused financial and emotional harm to many psychologists, and significantly diminished career opportunities.

AAPi is gathering further information and data to inform future responses arguing against the two-tier system, and potential legal challenges to the two-tier system.

Please complete this form if you are a psychologist who considers you have, or may have suffered damage as a result of the two-tier system.

Substantial Equivalence Applications

AAPi and our legal team have been keeping a close eye on the treatment of applications made by psychologists for area of practice endorsements based on ‘substantial equivalence’ of training, in all jurisdictions throughout Australia.
AAPi is seeking to identify suitable candidates to support in making an application for endorsement on the grounds of ‘substantial equivalence’ (and potentially challenging a refusal by the Psychology Board). AAPi is of the view that the Psychology Board is not considering such applications on their merit. AAPi is eager to support suitable candidates to make their application for substantial equivalence, to challenge and expand the definition of ‘substantially equivalent’.

If you consent to being contacted by AAPi's lawyers to discuss your responses and inclusion in legal action, you will be provided with further information and given time to consider your future involvement. You can decline to participate further at any stage.