‘Pain Factory’ fallout: Dr Faux confronts medical colleges over Medicare billing misinformation

More than a year after the ABC’s explosive Four Corners investigation Pain Factory aired in April 2024, deep divisions in the healthcare sector are still reverberating – particularly around Medicare billing practices.

Australians spend more than $3 billion a year to treat chronic back pain, with almost 90% of spinal cord stimulator procedures and 70% of spinal fusion surgeries performed in private hospitals. The contentious landscape of spinal fusion surgery and spinal cord stimulators for chronic back pain was thrust into the limelight, revealing deeply conflicted and divided perspectives across the healthcare sector.

Dr Margaret Faux, lawyer and founder of Synapse and Kirontech, has launched a scathing critique of five peak medical colleges, accusing them of spreading misinformation and overstepping their expertise in the wake of the program.

In formal letters addressed to the Australian Society of Anaesthetists (ASA), Australian and New Zealand College of Anaesthetists (ANZCA), Royal Australasian College of Surgeons (RACS), Australian Society of Medical Imaging and Radiation Therapy (ASMIRT), and The Royal Australian & New Zealand College of Radiologists (RANZCR), Dr Faux called out their conduct, accusing individuals of contributing to public confusion and flawed conclusions.

Dr Faux was particularly critical of post-Pain Factory commentary on fluoroscopy billing and intensive care billing, which she claims was rife with inaccuracies.

She alleged: “Inaccurate public statements about billing items they do not bill and do not understand… led to flawed findings by the ABC Ombudsman, which have now been retracted and revised. The Department of Health and Aged Care has also conceded that its original advice was wrong.”

While RANZCR remained silent after the program aired, Dr Faux warned that the College risks “being sidelined in future policy decisions if they do not actively advocate for item descriptors they know are clinically and administratively sound.”

According to Dr Faux, her letters aim to reset the public record and refocus the discussion around Medicare billing on fact, not professional ego or political influence. She urged the medical colleges to “engage only within their scope – grounded in fact, not influence.”

“Commenting authoritatively on items outside the scope of your members’ practice, especially when those comments are inaccurate, has contributed to misinformation and confusion within both the medical profession and the broader public,” she wrote.

She warned the medical colleges that the “current climate demands rigour, integrity, and transparency in public commentary about Medicare billing.”

She implored the colleges to reflect carefully on their “recent involvement in these matters and to ensure that future statements are confined to areas within the Society’s direct scope and supported by legal and clinical evidence. The public deserves better. So does the system.”