COVID forced Australian healthcare to go digital overnight. GPs started bulk-billing phone consultations. Specialists offered video appointments. Scripts got sent electronically. Mental health services went online.

Five years later, what’s actually stuck? And is telehealth living up to the promise or just adding digital friction to healthcare?

What Changed During COVID

Pre-2020, telehealth existed but was niche. Medicare rebates for phone or video consultations were limited. Most GPs didn’t offer it. Patients expected in-person appointments.

COVID emergency measures changed everything. Medicare temporarily expanded telehealth rebates. GPs adopted phone and video consultations en masse. Prescriptions could be sent electronically. Regulatory barriers dropped.

Patients who’d never done a video call were suddenly consulting their GP via Zoom.

What Stayed Post-Pandemic

The emergency measures are gone, but telehealth didn’t disappear. According to Australian Institute of Health and Welfare data, telehealth consultations remain significantly higher than pre-COVID levels, though down from pandemic peaks.

What’s stuck:

• Mental health services: Psychologists and psychiatrists widely offer video sessions
• Repeat prescriptions and minor issues: GPs happy to handle these via phone
• Specialist follow-ups: Many specialists offer video for check-ins and results discussions
• Rural access: Patients in regional areas using telehealth for specialist access

What’s faded:

• Initial GP consultations: Most doctors prefer in-person for new patients
• Complex diagnosis: Anything requiring physical examination is back to in-person
• Emergency care: Obviously, you can’t telehealth your way through a heart attack

The Medicare Rebate Reality

Telehealth rebates still exist but are more restricted than during COVID. You can’t just call your GP and expect Medicare to cover it for any issue.

Current rules limit bulk-billed telehealth to specific situations: ongoing patient relationships, mental health, certain chronic conditions, rural patients.

This creates a two-tier system. Patients with established GP relationships get convenient telehealth access. New patients or those without a regular GP often can’t access telehealth without paying out-of-pocket.

The GP Perspective

GPs are mixed on telehealth. Some love the efficiency—handle simple issues quickly without patient travel. Others hate it—harder to diagnose properly, more medico-legal risk, feels less personal.

Phone consultations are particularly divisive. You lose visual cues that help with diagnosis. Harder to build rapport. Patients might minimise symptoms because they’re at work or distracted.

Video is better but still limited. You can see the patient but can’t examine them, check blood pressure, listen to breathing, or pick up subtle physical signs.

Many GPs now use a hybrid model: telehealth for appropriate cases, in-person when needed, with discretion about which is which.

The Patient Experience

For patients, telehealth is wildly convenient when it works. No travel, no waiting room, no taking time off work for a 10-minute consultation about test results.

But the experience varies. Some practices have slick systems—easy booking, reliable video tech, electronic prescriptions sent directly to your pharmacy. Others are chaotic—unclear booking processes, dropped calls, emailed prescriptions that you need to print.

Patients also report feeling rushed on telehealth consults. A 15-minute in-person appointment feels less hurried than a 15-minute phone call, even though they’re the same length.

The Mental Health Win

Telehealth has been unambiguously good for mental health services. Barriers to accessing psychologists—travel, waiting rooms, stigma—drop dramatically with video sessions.

People in regional areas who had no local access to psychologists can now see specialists in capital cities. People with social anxiety who struggle to leave home can access care. Parents juggling childcare can fit appointments into their day.

Suicide prevention services, crisis counselling, and ongoing therapy all work well via video. The personal connection is maintained better than you’d expect.

The Rural Access Story

For regional and remote Australia, telehealth is transformative. Previously, seeing a specialist meant traveling hours to a capital city, taking time off work, arranging accommodation.

Now, many specialist consultations happen via video. Dermatology, endocrinology, cardiology—initial assessments and follow-ups often work via telehealth.

This doesn’t eliminate all travel. Some situations still require in-person care. But it dramatically reduces the burden on rural patients.

The remaining challenge is internet connectivity. Regional areas with poor broadband struggle with video quality, which limits telehealth effectiveness.

The Platform Fragmentation Problem

There’s no standard telehealth platform. Some doctors use specialised medical platforms. Others use Zoom. Some just use regular phone calls.

For patients juggling multiple specialists, this means learning different systems, creating different accounts, and navigating inconsistent experiences.

A standardised approach would help, but healthcare moves slowly on tech standards.

The Prescription Issue

Electronic prescriptions work but aren’t universal. Some doctors send prescriptions electronically via SMS or email. Others still require you to collect paper scripts.

Some pharmacies accept electronic scripts seamlessly. Others have clunky processes.

When it works, it’s great—consult your GP via phone, get a script sent to your phone, pick up medication at any pharmacy. When it doesn’t, you’re making extra trips to collect paper prescriptions.

The Diagnostic Limitations

Some things genuinely need in-person examination. Chest infections, skin conditions, abdominal pain—these benefit from physical assessment that telehealth can’t provide.

Doctors are cautious about over-relying on telehealth for these situations. The medico-legal risk of missing something because you couldn’t physically examine a patient is real.

This means telehealth works great for known conditions, follow-ups, mental health, and simple issues. It’s poor for anything requiring diagnostic investigation or physical examination.

The Business Model Challenge

Telehealth consults are often shorter than in-person appointments, but reimbursement rates are similar. This creates a perverse incentive—churn through quick telehealth consultations rather than spending time on complex in-person care.

Some practices handle this well, maintaining quality standards. Others have adopted an assembly-line approach that patients find frustrating.

Medicare’s pricing structure hasn’t fully adapted to telehealth realities, creating odd incentives.

The Technology Reliability

When telehealth works, it’s smooth. When it doesn’t, it’s frustrating.

Dropped calls, poor video quality, audio lag, platforms that don’t work on certain devices—these problems persist. Older patients often struggle with the technology, creating access barriers.

Some practices provide tech support. Most don’t, leaving patients to figure it out themselves.

The Privacy Concerns

Video consultations from home raise privacy questions. Patients might not have private spaces for sensitive health discussions. Background noise, family members in earshot, shared devices—these complicate telehealth privacy.

Data security is another concern. Not all platforms used for telehealth meet medical privacy standards. Some GPs using consumer video tools (Zoom, FaceTime) create potential privacy vulnerabilities.

What’s Coming Next

Telehealth will keep growing but level off. It’s proven useful for specific use cases and will remain part of Australian healthcare.

Improvements coming:

• Better platform integration
• More consistent Medicare coverage
• Improved technology reliability
• Hybrid models (some in-person, some remote)

We’re unlikely to see telehealth completely replace in-person care. Rather, it’ll become a standard option alongside traditional consultations, used where appropriate.

The Honest Assessment

Telehealth has improved Australian healthcare access, particularly for mental health and rural patients. It’s made routine care more convenient and reduced unnecessary travel.

But it’s not suitable for everything. Physical examination still matters. Technology barriers remain. The patient-doctor relationship feels different via video than in person.

The future is hybrid—telehealth for what it does well, in-person for what requires it, with patients and doctors choosing based on the situation.

That’s sensible. We shouldn’t force everything online just because we can, but we also shouldn’t reject telehealth because it’s different from traditional care.

Australian healthcare is better with telehealth as an option. It’s not perfect, but it’s a meaningful improvement over the pre-COVID status quo.