Pulse ·

The government quietly lowered its GP access benchmark

By Dr HB Lo, FACRRM 4 min read
Verdict Maybe — watch this

The Department of Health, Disability and Ageing has lowered its 2026–27 annual GP attendance target from 85% to 80% of Australians, citing "expected reduction in demand" as patients shift toward pharmacies, private online clinics, and other providers. Actual GP attendance in 2025–26 was 83.6% — already below the previous benchmark.

The RACGP has raised concern about quality and safety accountability for care delivered outside the Medicare system. For patients, the question is whether alternative access points provide equivalent continuity — and whether that matters for their particular health situation.

What just happened

The Australian government’s 2026–27 corporate plan contains a quiet policy shift: the Department of Health, Disability and Ageing has reduced its benchmark for annual GP attendance from 85% to 80% of Australians.

The previous target — set for 2025–26 — aimed for 85% of Australians to visit a Medicare-subsidised GP at least once annually. The new target for 2026–27 is 80%. The “significant deviation” trigger — the point at which falling short becomes an official concern — has also shifted, dropping from 82% to 78%.

The department’s stated rationale, reported by newsGP, is an “expected reduction in demand” as patients access care through pharmacies, private online clinics not billing Medicare, and Department of Veterans’ Affairs programs. For context: actual 2025–26 GP attendance came in at 83.6% — already below the previous 85% benchmark. Total MBS-subsidised GP services fell by more than two million from the year before, even as 165.7 million non-referred GP attendances generated $10 billion in Medicare benefits.

This is not a dramatic announcement. It landed inside a corporate plan document. But what it signals about where the government expects healthcare to be delivered is worth examining.

The both-and

The argument for adapting the target

The department’s position is not irrational. Healthcare delivery is changing, and the benchmark from a previous era of care may not accurately reflect what good access looks like now.

Pharmacists now administer vaccinations, manage contraception, treat minor infections, and — in some jurisdictions — prescribe for a widening range of conditions. Telehealth and digital health companies offer rapid consultations for acute concerns at competitive price points. Patients who once had no realistic alternative to a GP now have options that work for many presentations.

If a meaningful proportion of Australians are having their primary healthcare needs met through these alternatives, adjusting the target to reflect how care is actually being delivered is, on one reading, simply honest accounting. The bulk-billing target for 2026–27 is set at 80.8% — a figure that acknowledges persistent pressure on out-of-pocket costs even as alternatives expand.

Holding the government to a GP-attendance benchmark designed for an earlier healthcare landscape risks measuring something that no longer fully captures access.

The accountability gap at the centre of this

The RACGP’s concern is different in character. RACGP President Dr Michael Wright was direct: “GPs and practices are held totally accountable for quality and safety. Other providers potentially aren’t.”

This is the sharper question. A patient who attends an online clinic for a urinary tract infection, a pharmacist for a skin condition, or a nurse prescriber for a repeat script exists outside the accountability and continuity architecture of general practice. When something is missed — a flag that only appears when you look at the pattern across three visits, a drug interaction that needed medication reconciliation, a result that changed what the symptom meant — there is often no thread to pull.

General practice, at its best, is longitudinal medicine. The value is not the single consultation but the accumulated understanding of a person over time: their family history, their previous results, the context that changes what a new symptom means. A GP who has cared for someone through different life stages reads a presentation differently from an algorithm serving a first contact.

The question the government’s revised target does not answer is: what happens to patients whose needs require that longitudinal relationship, but who are now being routed into a fragmented system that does not provide it?

The access reality the numbers don’t surface

There is a third layer worth naming. For many Australians — particularly in rural and regional areas — the debate between GP and alternative providers is largely theoretical, because a GP is simply not available within reasonable distance or reasonable waiting time. Extended wait lists and shrinking bulk-billing slots in outer-suburban areas compound this.

If people are using pharmacies and online clinics because those are the services that exist and are accessible, that is meaningfully different from people choosing them out of informed preference. A lower attendance target that treats both groups identically papers over a distinction that matters for understanding whether the system is working.

One is adaptation; the other is rationing that doesn’t show up in the data as a problem.

My two cents

If you have a regular GP and reasonable access, this does not change anything for you in the near term. The policy shift does not affect the services currently available to you.

Where it matters is what comes next. When a government lowers its own benchmark for a core health service and frames the reduction as adaptation rather than shortfall, it creates permission for continued drift. The regulators who scrutinise quality and safety in general practice — AHPRA, the RACGP, the Medical Board — have limited jurisdiction over many of the alternative providers now expected to carry more of the load.

The question of what accountability looks like for non-Medicare providers is going to become harder to defer. If you have complex, ongoing health needs — chronic conditions, mental health, women’s health across the midlife years — maintaining a continuous relationship with a regular GP who knows your history remains the most practical hedge against things being missed as the system becomes more fragmented.

Verdict: maybe — worth watching, not yet alarming.

Sources cited

  1. “DoHDA scales back own GP attendance targets” — newsGP, August 2026. https://www1.racgp.org.au/newsgp/professional/dohda-scales-back-own-gp-attendance-targets
  2. Department of Health, Disability and Ageing 2026–27 Corporate Plan. https://www.health.gov.au/resources/publications/department-of-health-disability-and-ageing-2026-27-corporate-plan?language=en

Frequently asked questions

  • Should I be worried if I've been seeing an online clinic instead of my regular GP?

    For acute, single-issue concerns it may be adequate. For ongoing conditions — chronic disease management, mental health, women's health, complex medication reviews — continuity with a regular GP who knows your history matters significantly. Ask whether your online clinic can coordinate specialist care, generate a care plan, and manage your results over time. If not, maintaining a regular GP relationship for complex needs is worth the effort.

  • What does the GP attendance target actually measure?

    The target measures the proportion of Australians who visit a Medicare-subsidised GP at least once per year. It does not measure quality, continuity, or whether the right patients saw a GP for the right reasons. A lower benchmark does not directly reduce your access to care — it reflects the government's shifting expectations of where primary healthcare will be delivered.