Introduction

1. Medicare is Australia’s universal healthcare system designed to provide Australians and other eligible persons¹ with access to free or subsidised health and hospital care.

2. Medicare is the fourth largest expenditure item in the Federal Budget. In 2012–13 payments totalled $18.6 billion, accounting for approximately five per cent of total government expenses. Expenditure under Medicare is expected to continue to grow, with payments estimated to reach $23.7 billion by 2016–17. Future Medicare spending is expected to be influenced by higher demand for increasingly expensive health services, driven by growth in Australia’s total population, an ageing population profile and new health technologies.

3. The Department of Human Services (Human Services) is responsible for administering Medicare, in accordance with policies developed by the Department of Health (DoH).² The department’s policy role includes defining the type of health services, and their corresponding payments, that can be claimed by health professionals under Medicare. The eligible health services claimable are listed on the Medicare Benefits Schedule (MBS), which includes over 6000 items.³

Medicare Compliance

4. In 2012–13, 344 million Medicare services were provided for the $18.6 billion in payments processed by Human Services. The integrity of these payments relies in large part on health professionals correctly determining and claiming (billing) against the MBS item/s that correspond with the services provided.⁴ Given the large volume of transactions involved, Human Services, as part of its broader Compliance Program⁵, adopts a number of strategies to treat risks to Medicare and maintain the integrity of Medicare payments, including a risk based approach to checking health professionals’ compliance with Medicare requirements. Specifically, Human Services’ compliance activities range from preventive/education activities—including distributing ‘targeted feedback letters’ to defined groups of health professionals⁶—to review activities such as investigations into suspected fraud or criminal behavior and practitioner reviews (conducted under the Practitioner Review Program)⁷, as well as a rolling program of compliance ‘audits’.⁸

5. Compliance audits are used to verify the details of services provided by health professionals, where Human Services has identified a risk that Medicare payments and benefits may have been claimed incorrectly.⁹ Generally, Medicare compliance audits are identified and completed as part of an individual compliance ‘project’¹⁰, which targets those health professionals whose claiming and billing patterns or practices are considered high risk for a particular service/s. Unlike ‘targeted feedback letters’, compliance audits involve a series of defined steps conducted by a dedicated compliance officer¹¹ and an audit can often involve the assessment of multiple claims made by one health professional.¹² The main stages in the department’s compliance audit process are:

• identifying a compliance risk, by monitoring MBS claim trends, following‑up tip‑offs and assessing input from stakeholders (such as DoH and peak health bodies);
• collecting evidence to verify whether services claimed have met the MBS requirements; and
• determining compliance. For audits where non‑compliance is identified, the total debt for incorrect claiming is calculated and pursued for recovery.

6. In administering the Medicare compliance program, Human Services regularly engages with DoH and stakeholders such as the Australian Medical Association and Royal Australian College of General Practitioners to consult and exchange views on program issues, compliance risks and associated mitigation strategies.

Increased Medicare compliance audits and expanded audit powers

7. The 2008–09 Federal Budget’s Increased Medicare Compliance Audits initiative (IMCA initiative)¹³ enhanced Human Services’ capacity to deliver Medicare compliance audits by: providing funding to increase the number of completed audits targeting health professionals each year from 500 to 2500 (an increase of 8000 over four years); and expanding the department’s audit powers under the Health Insurance Act 1973¹⁴, effective from April 2011.¹⁵ The legislative changes enabled Human Services to:

• issue a written notice (‘notice to produce’) requiring a health professional to produce documents, if there is a reasonable concern that a Medicare benefit has been overpaid;
• impose administrative penalties where a health professional is unable to substantiate a Medicare claim¹⁶; and
• introduce a formal process for health professionals to voluntarily acknowledge incorrectly claimed benefits.

8. In the context of Human Services’ enhanced audit powers and increased compliance audit program, the IMCA initiative was expected to deliver the following financial outcome:

This measure will provide savings of $147.2 million over four years and will cost $76.9 million to administer, leading to net savings of $70.3 million over four years.¹⁷

9. The initiative was delivered in an environment of ongoing change within the Human Services portfolio related to service delivery reforms from 1 July 2011.¹⁸ To support implementation of the IMCA initiative, Human Services developed procedures to guide the use of its new legislative powers, and prior to a full transition to the new procedures, the department trialled the initiative during 2012.¹⁹

Audit objective, criteria and scope

10. The objective of the audit was to assess the effectiveness of the Department of Human Services’ management of Medicare compliance audits.

11. To form an opinion against the audit objective, the ANAO examined the design and operation of departmental processes against the following high‑level criteria:

• Human Services effectively identifies, selects and prioritises potential cases of non‑compliance for compliance audits.
• Compliance audits are conducted in accordance with legislative and operational requirements.
• Non‑compliance actions are managed and the information is used to inform future compliance activities.

12. The ANAO interviewed Human Services staff involved in the conduct of Medicare compliance audits and key stakeholders, and reviewed key guidance materials and documents, including departmental reports that capture Medicare compliance performance information. The ANAO also reviewed a sample of Medicare compliance audits.

Overall conclusion

13. Medicare is a long‑standing publicly funded program which aims to make affordable health care accessible for Australians and other eligible persons. The integrity and sustainability of the Medicare program, which features a high volume of transactions, is supported by Human Services’ ongoing monitoring of claims by health professionals against the Medicare Benefits Schedule (MBS) and a program of compliance activities, including audits of billing by health professionals. The 2008–09 Budget measure—Increased Medicare Compliance Audits initiative (IMCA initiative)—provided Human Services with enhanced legislative powers and substantial additional funding to support an expanded program of Medicare compliance audits.²⁰

14. Overall, the effectiveness of Human Services’ management of Medicare compliance audits has been mixed. Human Services has delivered a program of compliance audits and related compliance activities, which has helped reinforce health professionals’ awareness of their compliance obligations. However, the department’s administration of Medicare compliance audits and its implementation of the Budget measure, the IMCA initiative, demonstrated a range of shortcomings that detracted from the department’s performance in delivering these elements of its broader Compliance Program.

15. Human Services largely determines its program of Medicare compliance audits in response to compliance risks identified through a mix of environmental scans (such as monitoring MBS claiming patterns), tip‑offs and stakeholder input. The ANAO’s review of a targeted sample of Medicare compliance audits indicated that for the most part, key compliance audit processes were followed, and audit outcomes, such as the number of health professionals assessed as non‑compliant and the total amount of debts raised, are appropriately documented. The department has also captured operational lessons learned and identified recommendations for action that have the potential to contribute to the conduct and improvement of future compliance activities.

16. However, there remain a number of areas where Human Services can improve its administration of Medicare compliance audits, to the benefit of the broader Compliance Program. While the department has processes in place to identify risks to the Medicare program²¹, historically it has not routinely undertaken preliminary analysis of emerging risks in a timely way. Consequently, a large number of identified risks have not been substantively analysed to determine whether their treatment should be given priority and factored into Human Services’ compliance planning. The department has very recently taken some steps to consider such a process. The ANAO’s review of a sample of Medicare compliance audits also identified inconsistent approaches within Human Services to calculating debts²², with variability in the standards of proof accepted by different compliance officers in calculating debts. There would be merit in Human Services finalising and implementing a debt calculation policy, to address inconsistencies and strengthen the department’s overall management of non‑compliance.

17. Since 2008–09, the department has administered an expanded program of Medicare compliance audits funded through the IMCA initiative. The initiative, which was a measure funded by the Budget, provided $76.9 million to Human Services to conduct an additional 8000 Medicare compliance audits over four years and return an estimated $147.2 million in savings, thus anticipating net savings of $70.3 million. However, between 2008–09 and 2012–13, Human Services only raised a total of $49.2 million in debts and recovered $18.9 million from Medicare compliance audits.²³ The available Human Services’ data shows that there was a $128.3 million shortfall in the savings achieved by the department, in the form of monies actually recovered²⁴, against the target set by the budget initiative—some 87 per cent less than the $147.2 million in expected savings.²⁵ From the performance information available, the ANAO’s analysis indicates that since the introduction of the budget measure, the compliance audits performed by the department, including those performed under the department’s enhanced legislative powers, were delivered at a net cost to government.

18. The responsible Minister (the then Minister for Human Services) and the policy Minister (the then Minister for Health and Ageing) had been asked by the Expenditure Review Committee (ERC) of Cabinet in 2008 to report back to government on achievements against the IMCA Budget measure in 2011–12. In this context, Human Services did not develop or implement its proposal to monitor and report on savings to support this reporting requirement²⁶; an opportunity missed, given ministerial expectations of a significant return on the government’s investment.

19. As mentioned above, the IMCA initiative funded Human Services to deliver a substantially increased audit program. The department only met its key performance indicator—2500 completed Medicare audit and review cases per year²⁷—once in 2011–12, when it reported completing 2549 Medicare audits and reviews.²⁸ While the annual target had been agreed by Ministers in the 2008–09 Budget context, during 2012–13 Human Services altered the mix of compliance activities it counted towards the target, by including 500 less onerous ‘targeted feedback letters’, as well as compliance activities directed towards members of the public rather than health professionals. The department subsequently reported completing a total of 2819 Medicare compliance cases in 2012–13, against the revised activity mix. If the additional compliance activities were excluded, the number of Medicare compliance audits and reviews completed in 2012–13 (against the Ministerially agreed target) was 2073. While acknowledging the department’s advice that targeted feedback letters were a valid compliance treatment intended to encourage voluntary compliance, their inclusion resulted in inaccurate performance reporting for the budget measure, as well as inaccurate and inflated internal reporting of its compliance coverage rate. There would have been merit in Human Services informing their Minister of the proposal to change the compliance activities to be conducted and reported against publicly.

20. The audit highlights the need for agencies to meet government expectations and effectively monitor and report on the delivery of intended outcomes, including the realisation of expected savings. The department’s failure to implement its proposed monitoring and reporting arrangements for the IMCA initiative restricted its capacity to demonstrate whether it had delivered the expected return on the Government’s significant investment in an expanded program of Medicare compliance audits. The ANAO has made two recommendations to strengthen Human Services’ management of its Compliance Program for Medicare. The recommendations focus on strengthening the department’s assessment of Medicare compliance risks and its capacity to effectively target resources by better capturing and reporting on the benefits realised from Medicare compliance audits, in the context of the broader Compliance Program.

Key findings by chapter

Identifying the need for Medicare compliance audits (Chapter 2)

21. The careful selection of compliance activities can contribute to the effective treatment and mitigation of risks and forms part of a structured approach to risk management. Human Services’ approach to identifying compliance risks to Medicare relies on a mix of environmental scans (such as monitoring MBS claiming patterns), tip‑offs and stakeholder input. The department delivers a program of targeted Medicare compliance audits as part of its response to program risks and within the resourcing levels directed to its overall Compliance Program.

22. Until recently, the department did not have a routine process to perform a preliminary analysis of risks as they were identified, limiting the department’s ability to determine whether these risks required further compliance activity. This approach has meant that a large number of identified risks have not been substantively analysed and as a consequence have not actively informed the development of Human Services’ planned compliance activities.

23. In the course of this audit, Human Services introduced a number of enhancements to its risk prioritisation process, including a risk working group which is intended to strengthen governance arrangements and establish a more explicit framework for selecting and prioritising risks to be addressed through compliance activity. While the risk working group and other initiatives are still in their infancy, they have potential to assist the department to establish a more effective framework for managing Medicare risks by analysing emerging and known risks (that are yet to be assessed), in a more timely manner, and targeting significant compliance risks as a priority.

24. The alignment of risks with appropriate and proportionate treatments can contribute to the cost‑effective management of non‑compliance. While Human Services has a suite of compliance activities available to treat risks, unwritten ‘common knowledge’ has to date largely guided staff in selecting treatment options for particular risks. The department has indicated that it plans to develop formal guidance to support staff in the treatment selection phase. Human Services’ guidance should have regard to any evidence gathered on the relative effectiveness of the different treatment types (including consideration of their comparative cost of administration) in influencing health professionals’ compliance with the MBS requirements. Further, the effective recording and dissemination of this guidance would promote consistency and strengthen Human Services’ overall management of risks to the incorrect billing of Medicare by health professionals.

25. In 2012, the department designed and trialled a scoring system to assist in prioritising compliance audit activity—an initiative with potential to achieve efficiencies and better target limited resources. However, after several trials which showed that further refinements were warranted to be confident of its reliability, Human Services is yet to finalise its ‘priority scoring system’.

Conducting Medicare compliance audits (Chapter 3)

26. MBS billing arrangements can be complex and may vary significantly by MBS item. As a consequence, Medicare compliance audits can vary in their complexity, and there can be challenges in accurately calculating debts to be recovered from health professionals. The ANAO’s review of a targeted sample²⁹ of Medicare compliance audits indicated that for the most part, key compliance audit processes were followed. However, in the sample of Cryotherapy compliance audits reviewed, different approaches were identified to calculating debts for claimants whose billing was assessed as non‑compliant. In some audit cases compliance officers made decisions with supporting evidence from health professionals, while others made decisions without documented evidence. In this context, there is a risk that some debts in the wider population of Medicare compliance activities are also calculated inconsistently and, therefore, inaccurately, highlighting room for improvement in the operational guidance and debt calculation tools provided to staff.

27. Human Services has been aware of inconsistent approaches to debt calculation for Medicare compliance since 2012 and an interim staffing instruction is in place while outstanding technical and legal matters are resolved. There would be merit in Human Services finalising and implementing a debt calculation policy to address inconsistencies. A more consistent approach would improve the accuracy of debt calculations and strengthen the department’s overall management of non‑compliance, providing assurance to stakeholders that the operational approach to calculating debts is equitable.

28. One of the cornerstones of a reliable program information system is the quality of data used to track performance against key outcomes. Data quality depends in part on the adequacy of system controls and review activity. In a subset of Medicare compliance audit data reviewed by the ANAO (Medicare audits completed between March 2013 and 30 June 2013), various data anomalies were identified which resulted in the inaccurate reporting of the MBS non‑compliance rate; a measure which is provided internally to management and to key stakeholders such as DoH. Of the 359 completed Medicare audits, 33 (nine per cent) contained data inaccuracies that resulted in compliant claims being incorrectly recorded and reported as non‑compliant. To improve the accuracy of its Compliance Program reporting, there would be benefit in Human Services strengthening its system based controls to improve data quality.

29. Legislation governs the use of clinical and other sensitive information collected for Medicare compliance purposes. While Human Services has developed guidance to support the management of sensitive information during Medicare compliance audits, the compliance officers interviewed indicated different understandings and adopted differing practices regarding the storage of sensitive information, including documents of a clinical nature. There is scope, in the context of an evolving framework under the Privacy Act 1988³⁰, for Human Services to review existing policies and, as necessary, tailor its guidance to promote greater consistency in its management of sensitive information for Medicare compliance activities.

Measuring and reporting on Medicare compliance outcomes (Chapter 4)

30. Effective monitoring of performance enables an agency to advise and report to government and stakeholders on delivery against anticipated benefits. To monitor the implementation of the IMCA initiative and assess progress against the Budget measure’s success, the ERC requested (in the context of the 2008–09 budget process) that the responsible Minister, the then Minister for Human Services and the then Minister for Health and Ageing agree on performance information for monitoring the measure’s success and report back on expected outcomes in the context of the 2011–12 Budget. However, the department was unable to capture and report definitive results to the Australian Government on the outcomes achieved from IMCA. In particular, Human Services was unable to demonstrate the level of savings achieved through its management of the IMCA initiative as the department did not implement a savings methodology to monitor and a report on savings realised. Further, there was no follow‑up by Human Services to the ERC’s request that Ministers report back to government in 2011–12.

31. It is expected that departments will implement suitable monitoring and reporting arrangements to gauge the effectiveness of the implementation of new policy measures. Such arrangements operate most effectively when embedded within agencies’ business‑as‑usual processes. In the absence of specific monitoring and reporting arrangements for the IMCA initiative, the department undertook some analysis during the course of the audit and provided the ANAO with data for the value of debts raised and recovered as a consequence of Medicare compliance audits performed on health professionals.³¹ Between 2008–09 and 2012–13, Human Services raised a total of $49.2 million in debts from Medicare compliance activities and recovered $18.9 million.³² The available Human Services data shows that overall there was a shortfall of $128.3 million in savings (monies recovered) against the Budget initiative’s savings target—some 87 per cent less than the $147.2 million in expected savings. Even if all the debts raised ($49.2 million) were recovered, the result would be a shortfall of $98 million or 66 per cent less than the expected IMCA savings.

32. The data indicates that the audits completed since the introduction of the measure, including those performed under the department’s enhanced legislative powers, were delivered at a net cost to government and do not represent a positive financial return on its investment. While acknowledging the department’s Compliance Program has a range of objectives in addition to achieving savings—including reinforcing health professionals’ awareness of their compliance obligations—the department’s experience in managing the IMCA initiative shows that Human Services should improve reporting on outcomes by better capturing the benefits realised from administering Medicare compliance audits so that departmental resources are properly targeted.

33. Under the IMCA initiative, Human Services committed to completing an additional 2000 Medicare audits each year on health professionals, in addition to the 500 Medicare compliance audits it normally completed each year; a revised target of 2500 completed Medicare audits per annum. The department has met this target only once, in 2011–12, where it reported completing 2549 Medicare audits and reviews.³³ In 2012–13, Human Services expanded the types of activities included in its reporting against the target, by including both ‘targeted feedback letters’ and compliance activities directed towards members of the public. However, both these activities were outside the scope of the IMCA initiative’s key performance measure agreed to by government—to increase Medicare compliance audits of health professionals. In this context, the department reported a total of 2819 completed Medicare compliance cases in 2012–13; however, if the recently added compliance activities are excluded, the department completed only 2073 Medicare compliance audits and reviews in 2012–13, falling short of the 2500 target. While ‘targeted feedback letters’ and compliance activities directed towards members of the public are valid compliance activities, their inclusion in a measure that increased the number of compliance audits to be conducted on health professionals has resulted in inaccurate reporting by Human Services against the IMCA initiative’s key performance indicator as well as inflating its reported compliance coverage rate.

34. More broadly, the department reports on the results of compliance activities performed to protect the integrity of Medicare through a number of internal and external avenues. The department’s operational reporting can help identify improvements to its internal processes and can potentially inform its future compliance activities. However, there are limitations to the reliability and validity of some of the information captured and tracked in these reports (such as the financial data externally reported to government, as well as internal performance measures such as the MBS non‑compliance rate and the compliance coverage rate). These limitations, combined with the other monitoring and reporting issues raised in this audit, restrict the department’s capacity to demonstrate the overall effectiveness of its Medicare compliance activities.

Agency response

35. Human Services’ letter in response to the proposed audit report is reproduced at Appendix 1. Human Services’ response to the proposed audit report is set out below:

The Department of Human Services welcomes this report, and considers that implementation of its recommendations will build on work already undertaken and will enhance the department’s approach to management of Medicare compliance audits.

The Department of Human Services agrees with the ANAO’s recommendations. The department is pleased to note the ANAO’s acknowledgement of improvements already undertaken by the department, particularly relating to risk prioritisation.

While risk management, the completion of audit work and achievement of savings is key to the department’s compliance activities, the department is also pleased that the ANAO has noted the additional objectives of the Compliance Program, including education and reinforcing health professionals’ awareness of compliance obligations. Prevention and positive behaviour change are a very important part of the department’s Compliance Program.

Recommendations

Footnotes

[1] Persons eligible for Medicare benefits include people who reside in Australia and either: hold Australian citizenship; hold a permanent visa; hold New Zealand citizenship; or have applied for a permanent visa. Additionally, the Australian Government has signed Reciprocal Health Care Agreements with some countries and, subject to the agreements, residents of these countries are entitled to restricted access to health cover while visiting Australia, available from the Department of Human Services website, <http://www.medicareaustralia.gov.au/provider/medicare/> [accessed 4 September 2013].

[2] The former Department of Health and Ageing was renamed the Department of Health (DoH) under the Administrative Arrangements Order, 18 September 2013. Throughout the report the department will be referred to as DoH.

[3] For the Medicare Benefits Schedule see <http://www.health.gov.au/internet/mbsonline/publishing.ns f/Content/Medicare‑Benefits‑Schedule‑MBS‑1> [accessed 4 September 2013].

[4] Medicare Australia, Submission for the Senate Community Affairs Committee: Inquiry into Compliance Audits on Medicare Benefits [Internet], June 2009, available from <http://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/ wopapub/senate/committee/clac_ctte/completed_inquiries/2008_10/medicare_benefits_compliance_audits/submissions/sub16_pdf.ashx> p. 3 [accessed 27 August 2013].

[5] Department of Human Services, Compliance Program 2013–15,August 2013, available from <http://www.humanservices.gov.au/corporate/publications‑and‑resources/compliance‑program> [accessed 27 August 2013].

[6] Targeted feedback letters are developed using a template enabling Human Services to distribute these letters across a large population of health professionals where a risk appears to be widespread. The letters provide the opportunity for health professionals to voluntarily acknowledge incorrect claiming.

[7] Human Services administers the Practitioner Review Program to examine practitioners whose provision of services under the MBS (and/or Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme) suggests they may be engaged in ‘inappropriate practice’, such as providing services that are not clinically necessary.

[8] While the department refers to this compliance activity as an audit, these audits do not represent conventional external or internal audit activity undertaken against auditing standards.

[9] Department of Human Services, Compliance Program 2013–15, op. cit.

[10] A project will typically involve a number of compliance audits and can take up to 12 months to complete from the time a project is approved through to the completion of the project’s audits and any related internal reporting.

[11] Refer Chapter 1, Figure 1.1 for an outline of the compliance audit process.

[12] For example, for a sample of the ten Cryotherapy 2011–12 audits reviewed by the ANAO, health professionals were audited for between 26 and 108 separate claims with an average of 44 services for each.

[13] Australian Government, Budget Measures, Budget Paper No. 2 2008–09, ‘Responsible Economic Management—Medicare Benefits Schedule—increase compliance audits’, p. 404.

[14] Changes to the legislation were considered in the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee’s Inquiry into Compliance Audits on Medicare Benefits [Internet], June 2009, available from <http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Community_Affairs/Completed_inquiries/2008-10/medicare_benefits_compliance_audits/index> [accessed 27 August 2013].

[15] The Health Insurance Amendment (Compliance) Act 2011 gave effect to the new audit powers accessible to the department and became law on 9 April 2011.

[16] See Appendix 2 for a summary of the penalty system.

[17] Australian Government, ‘Responsible Economic Management—Medicare Benefits Schedule—increase compliance audits’, op. cit.

[18] While Medicare Australia was initially responsible for administering the budget measure, on 1 July 2011, Centrelink and Medicare Australia were integrated into the Department of Human Services. Human Services advised that service delivery reforms resulted in the department undertaking a review of governance, risk management and control arrangements to address, among other things, the different corporate cultures of the previously separate agencies. In parallel, major organisational restructuring, in‑sourcing and integration of the department’s ICT platforms were also being managed.

[19] Human Services used the Cryotherapy 2011–12 project to trial changes introduced by the IMCA initiative, noting that the scope of the trial did not include the ‘notice to produce’ component.

[20] See paragraphs 7 and 8.

[21] Including through tip‑offs, stakeholder consultations and monitoring MBS claiming patterns.

[22] Debts can be owed to the department following the department identifying non‑compliant billing (or claiming) by the audited health professional.

[23] The debt raised and recovered figures were provided by Human Services to the ANAO on 28 January 2014.

The department’s financial and case management systems do not provide for the production of disaggregated data that can be used to demonstrate the amount of debts raised and recovered as a result of compliance audits conducted on health professionals since commencement of the initiative in January 2009. The department advised that the data provided may include compliance activities other than Medicare compliance audits as well as activities that were not performed as a result of the IMCA initiative.

[24] The department advised that compliance work related to the Chronic Disease Dental Scheme (CDDS) has been a factor that has contributed to the shortfall in the monies recovered. The scope of the ANAO’s audit did not include the CDDS, which was closed in 2012.

[25] In the past, the ANAO has highlighted issues regarding the cost‑effectiveness of services delivered by Human Services when compared to the budgeted cost and reporting savings attributable to compliance action within the portfolio. See ANAO Audit Report No.47 2011–12 Small Business Superannuation Clearing House, paragraph 21, p. 18; and ANAO Audit Report No.19 2009–10 Child Support Reforms: Stage One of the Child Support Scheme Reforms and Improving Compliance, Recommendation No.6, p. 27.

[26] Human Services’ public reports on savings are limited to the number and value of debts raised across all Medicare compliance activities.

[27] The department’s revised target comprised the existing annual output of 500 Medicare audits and reviews plus an additional 2000 annual Medicare audits on health professionals; a total of 10 000 Medicare compliance audits over the four years of the IMCA initiative.

[28] The department reported delivering 2365 Medicare audits and reviews in 2009–10, 2179 in 2010–11 and 2073 in 2012–13.

[29] The sample comprised a targeted and random sample of ten cases from the IMCA Cryotherapy 2011–12 project (which included a targeted sample of two audits which involved a penalty as part of the audit outcome); a random sample of ten cases from the IMCA Telehealth June 2012 Validation project; and a random sample of five cases from a pre‑IMCA project, Interventional Radiology—Phase 1.

[30] On 12 March 2014, the Information Privacy Principles were replaced by the Australian Privacy Principles. See the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner’s website <http://www.oaic.gov.au/privacy/privacy‑act/australian‑privacy‑principles> [accessed 26 March 2014].

[31] See footnote 23.

[32] The department advised that in any given year there may be a difference between the total value of debts raised and recovered, due to the operation of repayment plans which may see debts repaid over time, including over different financial years. Further, during this period the department was managing debt recoveries for the CDDS, including the government decision to waive $12 million in debts in 2012–13 (refer Chapter 4, Table 4.3).

[33] The department delivered 2365 audits and reviews in 2009–10, while 2179 were completed in 2010–11 and 2073 in 2012–13.