AI in Healthcare: Managing Privacy, Legal & Compliance Risks

AI in Healthcare: Managing Privacy, Legal & Compliance Risks

Home » Corporate & Commercial

AI in Healthcare: Managing Privacy, Legal & Compliance Risks

Author: Craig Hong

}

3 min read

20 Aug 2026

Share:

  • r
    Key Takeaways
  • AI can improve efficiency and patient care, but healthcare professionals remain responsible for protecting patient information and meeting their legal and professional obligations.
  • Practices should understand how AI providers collect, store and use patient data, and ensure their privacy policies and patient consent processes reflect their use of AI.
  • AI should support, not replace, professional judgement, with appropriate governance, cybersecurity safeguards and oversight in place.

Stay Up-To-Date

Subscribe to receive updates specific to your preferences

Subscribe

"Artificial Intelligence is transforming healthcare, offering significant opportunities to improve efficiency and patient care. However, innovation must be supported by strong governance, robust privacy practices and sound clinical judgement. Understanding your legal obligations before implementing AI is essential to protecting your patients, your practice and your reputation."

Craig Hong - Director, Hillhouse Legal Partners

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is rapidly changing the way healthcare is delivered. From AI-powered clinical scribes and practice administration to diagnostic support and patient communications, AI is helping healthcare professionals improve efficiency, reduce administrative burden and enhance patient care.

However, these technologies also introduce important legal, privacy and compliance obligations. Healthcare professionals, practice owners and healthcare businesses remain responsible for protecting patient information, obtaining appropriate consent, complying with privacy legislation and ensuring AI supports, not replaces, professional judgement.

This fact sheet outlines the key legal considerations every healthcare professional should understand before implementing or expanding the use of AI.

How AI Is Being Used in Healthcare

AI is increasingly being integrated into both clinical and administrative functions, including:

Practice Administration

  • AI clinical scribes and consultation transcription
  • Appointment scheduling and workflow management
  • Billing and administrative support
  • Patient communications

Clinical Support

  • Diagnostic assistance
  • Clinical decision support
  • Identification of potential medication interactions
  • Medical imaging analysis

Research & Innovation

  • Clinical research
  • Drug discovery and development
  • Analysis of large health datasets

While AI can significantly improve efficiency, it also creates new legal, privacy and governance responsibilities for healthcare professionals and healthcare businesses.

Key Legal Considerations Before Introducing AI

Before implementing any AI platform, healthcare professionals and practices should carefully assess how the technology collects, stores and uses patient information.

Where Is Your Patient Data Stored?

Many AI providers process or store information using overseas servers. Before adopting an AI platform, healthcare professionals and practices should understand:

  • where patient information is stored;
  • whether information is transferred outside Australia;
  • whether overseas privacy protections are comparable to Australian standards; and
  • whether additional patient consent is required.

Does the AI Provider Use Your Data?

One of the most important questions to ask any AI supplier is whether uploaded information is used to train or improve its AI model.

Before engaging an AI provider, healthcare professionals and practices should understand:

  • whether patient information is retained;
  • whether information is anonymised;
  • whether data is used for ongoing AI development;
  • whether this can be contractually prevented; and
  • how information is permanently deleted when no longer required.

Healthcare professionals and practices should exercise particular caution when using free or consumer AI platforms, as patient information may be retained or used to improve the provider's AI model.

Review Your AI Supplier Agreement

Before purchasing or subscribing to an AI platform, carefully review the provider's terms and conditions. Key contractual issues include:

  • ownership of uploaded information;
  • confidentiality obligations;
  • cybersecurity standards;
  • data retention periods;
  • liability if the system fails;
  • termination rights; and
  • deletion of patient information when the agreement ends.

Understanding these contractual arrangements before implementation can help minimise legal, privacy and operational risks.

Privacy & Patient Consent

Patient health information is among the most sensitive forms of personal information protected under the Privacy Act.

If AI is used within your practice, patients should be informed: that AI is being used;

  • what information is collected;
  • how that information is used;
  • where it is stored;
  • whether information is disclosed overseas; and
  • whether any automated decision-making occurs.

Privacy policies and patient consent documentation should accurately reflect the use of AI within the practice.

Where appropriate, patients should also have the opportunity to ask questions and opt out of AI-assisted processes.

From 10 December 2026, organisations subject to the Privacy Act will also be required to disclose the use of automated decision-making processes involving personal information in their privacy policies.

AI Does Not Replace Professional Responsibility

AI is designed to support healthcare professionals, not replace them. Healthcare professionals remain responsible for:

  • exercising independent clinical judgement;
  • reviewing AI-generated information;
  • ensuring clinical decisions remain appropriate;
  • maintaining accurate patient records; and
  • meeting all professional and ethical obligations.

AI is a tool to support clinical decision-making, not replace it. Healthcare professionals remain legally responsible for patient care.

Medicare & Billing Considerations

Healthcare professionals and practice owners should also consider the Medicare implications of AI-assisted healthcare.

While AI may assist with documentation or clinical support, healthcare professionals remain responsible for ensuring Medicare billing requirements are satisfied.

Healthcare professionals should not assume services generated primarily through AI will qualify for Medicare benefits without appropriate clinical involvement.

Cybersecurity & AI

AI increases cybersecurity risks, making it essential that healthcare professionals and practices ensure AI providers meet appropriate security standards and patient information remains protected.

This includes:

  • multi-factor authentication;
  • secure user access controls;
  • encryption of patient information;
  • regular software updates;
  • incident response planning; and
  • ongoing staff training.

Healthcare continues to be one of Australia's most targeted industries for cyber incidents, making robust cybersecurity practices essential.

AI Governance Is Essential

As AI becomes more widely used across healthcare, practices should establish clear governance around its implementation, while healthcare professionals should understand their professional responsibilities when using AI to support patient care.

This may include:

  • an approved AI usage policy;
  • staff education and training;
  • documented approval processes for new AI tools;
  • regular review of AI outputs;
  • periodic supplier reviews; and
  • ongoing monitoring of legislative and regulatory developments.

Good governance helps ensure AI is used safely, ethically and in compliance with legal and regulatory obligations.

What Healthcare Professionals Should Do Now

To minimise risk and support compliance, we recommend:

  • understanding how AI is currently being used within your practice;
  • reviewing AI supplier agreements and licence terms;
  • confirming where patient information is stored and processed;
  • reviewing privacy policies and patient consent documentation;
  • ensuring appropriate cybersecurity safeguards are in place;
  • developing or reviewing internal AI governance policies;
  • providing staff education and training on the appropriate use of AI;
  • considering Medicare billing implications; and
  • obtaining legal advice before implementing new AI technologies.

How Hillhouse Legal Partners Can Help

Hillhouse Legal Partners has been supporting Australia's health and medical profession for over 30 years.

  • Our Corporate & Commercial team regularly advises healthcare professionals, practice owners and healthcare businesses on:
  • AI governance and implementation;
  • Privacy Act compliance;
  • patient consent documentation;
  • AI supplier and software agreements;
  • technology procurement;
  • cybersecurity and data governance;
  • medical practice risk management; and
  • regulatory compliance.

We understand the commercial realities of modern healthcare and provide practical, commercially focused advice to help our clients embrace innovation while managing legal and regulatory risk.

Need Advice on AI in Your Practice?

Artificial Intelligence is evolving rapidly, but your legal obligations remain.

Whether you are introducing AI for the first time or reviewing
existing systems, our experienced team can help you navigate
the legal, privacy and regulatory considerations with confidence.

This fact sheet provides general information only and should not be relied upon as legal advice. Specific legal advice should be obtained based on your individual circumstances.

Areas of Expertise

Corporate & Commercial
Health & Medical
Related Posts:
Contractor or Employee? What a Recent Fair Work Decision Means for Businesses

Contractor or Employee? What a Recent Fair Work Decision Means for Businesses

Home » Corporate & Commercial

Contractor or Employee? What a Recent Fair Work Decision Means for Businesses

Author: Robert Lamb, Anthea Sun

}

3 min read

11 Aug 2026

Share:

  • r
    Key Takeaways
  • ࠂ
    Some direction or oversight of an independent contractor does not, by itself, make them an employee.
  • ࠂ
    When determining whether someone is a contractor or employee, the Fair Work Commission (FWC) will look at the whole relationship - including the terms of the contract and how the arrangement operates in practice.
  • ࠂ
    Businesses engaging contractors should ensure their agreements accurately reflect the intended relationship and, importantly, that the arrangement operates consistently with those terms in practice.

Stay Up-To-Date

Subscribe to receive updates specific to your preferences

Subscribe

Businesses engaging independent contractors will often need to provide some level of direction or oversight to ensure work meets their operational and professional requirements.

But when does that oversight become enough to suggest the contractor is actually an employee?

A recent Fair Work Commission decision involving a registered psychologist provides useful guidance for businesses, particularly professional and healthcare practices engaging independent contractors.

The Case

In Williams v Mind Matters Sydney Pty Ltd [2026] FWC 1163, a registered psychologist engaged under an Independent Contractor Agreement claimed that, despite the terms of his agreement, the way he worked in practice meant he was actually an employee.

This distinction was important because he was seeking to pursue a general protections dismissal claim under the Fair Work Act 2009.

The psychologist argued that he was effectively an employee because:

  • he was subject to day-to-day supervision;
  • he received instructions about how to perform certain tasks;
  • he was required to complete administrative tasks;
  • he was required to meet Key Performance Indicators (KPIs);
  • he did not have complete freedom to select his clients; and
  • he was required to provide six weeks’ notice to suspend his room rental arrangement.

Mind Matters maintained that he had always been engaged as an independent contractor.

What Did the Fair Work Commission Consider?

The FWC looked at the overall relationship between the psychologist and the practice and found that the way the arrangement operated was consistent with the Independent Contractor Agreement.

Importantly, some of the factors the psychologist relied on did not necessarily point to an employment relationship.

For example, his supervision was a requirement of his professional registration. The administrative requirements and alleged KPIs were also consistent with obligations contained in his contractor agreement.

He retained control over his availability and therefore when he could accept clients.

The FWC also found that a business can place certain requirements on a contractor without automatically creating an employment relationship. Mind Matters could set requirements around when and where services were provided, documentation and professional standards, but it did not control how the psychologist delivered his professional services to clients.

Other practical factors also supported his status as an independent contractor. He worked at another psychology practice, operated as a sole trader, invoiced under his own ABN and charged GST.

The Decision

Looking at the relationship as a whole, the FWC found that the psychologist was an independent contractor, not an employee.

The Independent Contractor Agreement was found to be valid and enforceable, and the way the parties worked together was consistent with its terms. As a result, the psychologist could not pursue his claim on the basis that he had been dismissed as an employee.

What Does This Mean for Businesses?

This decision is a useful reminder that having an Independent Contractor Agreement is important - but the agreement also needs to accurately reflect the relationship in practice.

If your business or practice engages contractors:

  • make sure your contractor agreements clearly reflect the intended working relationship;
  • ensure the way you work with contractors is consistent with those agreements;
  • be mindful of the level and type of control you exercise over contractors; and
  • regularly review contractor arrangements as roles and working practices evolve.

Getting the arrangement right from the outset can help reduce uncertainty and the risk of costly disputes later.

If you engage independent contractors and are unsure whether your agreements or working arrangements appropriately reflect the relationship, our Employment & Industrial Relations team can help.

Contact Robert Lamb or Claudia Molachino on 07 3220 1144, or email our team at email@hillhouse.com.au to discuss your contractor arrangements.

Areas of Expertise

Employment & Industrial Relations
Corporate & Commercial
Related Posts:
ACCC v Coles: A Landmark Case in Consumer Protection

ACCC v Coles: A Landmark Case in Consumer Protection

Home » Corporate & Commercial

ACCC v Coles: A Landmark Case in Consumer Protection

Author: Craig Hong, Claudia Molachino

}

3 min read

19 May 2026

Share:

  • r
    Key Takeaways
  • ࠂ
    The Federal Court’s findings against Coles over its “Down Down” campaign show that retailers may breach consumer law when advertised discounts are based on prices that were only briefly increased beforehand
  • ࠂ
    The case highlights that even commercially justified price increases can still mislead consumers if “sale” pricing does not reflect a genuine and sustained previous price
  • ࠂ
    The decision sends a strong warning to supermarkets and retailers that discount advertising must accurately represent real consumer savings under Australian Consumer Law

Stay Up-To-Date

Subscribe to receive updates specific to your preferences

Subscribe

ACCC v Coles: A Landmark Case in Consumer Protection

On 14 May 2026, the Federal Court of Australia found that Coles Supermarkets Australia Pty Ltd (Coles) made false or misleading representations about the prices of products, in contravention of sections 18(1) and 29(1)(i) of the Australian Consumer Law (ACL).

Background

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) commenced proceedings against Coles in September 2024, alleging that it made false or misleading representations about the prices of 245 products (affected products). Separately, a class action was also brought against Coles in relation to those products. The Federal Court previously ordered that liability in both proceedings be determined jointly.

The allegations concerned Coles’ ‘Down Down’ promotional pricing tickets, which advertised discounted prices against a ‘Was’ price. It was alleged that Coles temporarily increased the prices of the affected products by at least 15% for a relatively short period before including those products in its Down Down promotion at prices that were the same as, or higher than, the original prices. The ACCC argued that the discounted prices were not genuine and were therefore false or misleading.

Key issues

The Court considered a sample of 14 affected products and accepted that the Down Down tickets conveyed to ordinary consumers that Coles had discounted the price of those products from the ‘Was’ price and that the discount was genuine.

To determine whether consumers had been misled, Justice O’Bryan considered, in relation to the sampled products:

  1. the reason/s for the price increase prior to inclusion in the Down Down promotion
  2. the extent of the price increase
  3. the number of products sold at the ‘Was’ price
  4. how long the products were sold at the ‘Was’ price

His Honour concluded that:

  1. the price increases were due to increases in supplier costs and were commercially justifiable
  2. the increased prices were not ‘artificially high’
  3. products were sold at the ‘Was’ price in the ordinary course of business and in commercial volumes
  4. products were generally sold at the ‘Was’ price for four weeks, which, having regard to the matters below, was not a reasonable period

In determining what constituted a reasonable period, the Court considered several matters, including a previous internal policy requiring a product to be sold at a particular price for 12 weeks before that price could be advertised as a ‘Was’ price on a Down Down ticket. Notably, that policy had been relaxed due to perceived competitive pressure from Woolworths.

The Court considered that if an ordinary consumer were told a product had been sold at the ‘Was’ price for less than 12 weeks, they would not regard the discount as genuine.

Decision

The Court ultimately found that 13 of the 14 sampled Down Down tickets were misleading because the ‘Was’ prices displayed on the promotional tickets were not maintained for a reasonable period and did not accurately represent the previous prices of the products. As a result, the discounts represented were not genuine and were misleading.

The only sampled Down Down ticket found not to be misleading did not include a ‘Was’ price.

Penalties and other orders sought by the ACCC, as well as compensation sought separately in the class action, are yet to be determined by the Federal Court, although it is anticipated that the amounts involved will be substantial.

Impact for businesses

The judgment serves as an important reminder for businesses to maintain transparency and accuracy in their marketing practices. Businesses should review their promotional strategies and internal policies to ensure strict compliance with the ACL.

If you are unsure about your obligations, please contact us.

 

Areas of Expertise

Corporate & Commercial
Related Posts:
The Cost of Poor Documentation to Medicos – Webinar with Hillhouse and Pilot Partners

The Cost of Poor Documentation to Medicos – Webinar with Hillhouse and Pilot Partners

Home » Corporate & Commercial

The Cost of Poor Documentation to Medicos – Webinar with Hillhouse and Pilot Partners

Author: Craig Hong

}

54 min watch

5 May 2026

Share:

    Missed the live session? You can now watch the replay.

    With increased ATO scrutiny and recent court decisions placing medical practices under the spotlight, this practical webinar with Craig Hong (Hillhouse Director) and Tom Howard (Pilot Partners Associate Partner – Taxation) unpacks where practices are being caught out - particularly around documentation and intra-group arrangements - and what you should be doing now to reduce risk.

    Stay Up-To-Date

    Subscribe to receive updates specific to your preferences

    Subscribe

    Areas of Expertise

    Corporate & Commercial
    Health & Medical
    Related Posts:
    $700k Legal Lesson for Lululemon- When ‘Service Emails’ Become Spam

    $700k Legal Lesson for Lululemon- When ‘Service Emails’ Become Spam

    Home » Corporate & Commercial

    $700k Legal Lesson for Lululemon - When ‘Service Emails’ Become Spam

    Author: Zach Sudiro, Claudia Molachino

    }

    3 min read

    28 Apr 2026

    Share:

    • r
      Key Takeaways
    • ࠂ
      Even “service” or transactional emails can be classified as marketing if they include promotional content.
    • ࠂ
      If a message is commercial in any way, it must comply with the Spam Act 2003 (Cth), including a functional unsubscribe option.
    • ࠂ
      Mischaracterising emails as non-commercial is a growing enforcement focus for regulators.
    • ࠂ
      Separating service communications from marketing content is the simplest way to manage compliance risk.

    Stay Up-To-Date

    Subscribe to receive updates specific to your preferences

    Subscribe

    What Happened?

    Activewear retailer Lululemon Athletica Australia Pty Ltd has been fined $702,900 by the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) after sending more than 370,000 emails without a functional unsubscribe facility.

    The emails, sent between December 2024 and January 2025, were largely framed as transactional updates, including order confirmations and shipping notifications. However, they also contained promotional material and links to sales content.

    Why This Was a Breach

    Under the Spam Act 2003 (Cth), a commercial electronic message includes any email, SMS or similar communication where one of the purposes is to promote goods, services or a business.

    Lululemon argued the emails were primarily factual and therefore not commercial. The ACMA disagreed, finding that:

    • the inclusion of promotional content meant at least one purpose was marketing;
    • the emails were therefore commercial electronic messages; and
    • each email required a functional unsubscribe facility.

    This resulted in more than 370,000 contraventions of the legislation.

    A Clear Trend from Regulators

    This is not an isolated case. The ACMA has taken multiple enforcement actions in recent months where businesses attempted to classify communications as “non-commercial” despite including marketing elements.

    The regulator’s message is clear:
    If there is any promotional content, the full compliance obligations apply.

    What This Means for Your Business

    For many businesses, particularly those with automated customer communications, this decision highlights a common risk area.

    Blended communications are often used for efficiency, but they create exposure where:

    • transactional emails include marketing banners, offers or links;
    • system-generated messages are not reviewed for compliance; or
    • unsubscribe functionality is overlooked in “non-marketing” templates.

    The practical takeaway is simple - intent does not determine compliance, content does.

    Practical Steps to Reduce Risk

    To minimise exposure under the Spam Act 2003 (Cth):

    • Separate service and marketing messages - Keep order updates, invoices and account notifications free from promotional material.
    • Review all customer communication templates - This includes automated and system-generated emails.
    • Ensure unsubscribe functionality is always present where required - It must be clear, functional and easy to use.
    • Train internal teams - Marketing, operations and IT teams should understand how small content changes can shift a message into “commercial” territory.

    Final Word

    As noted by the ACMA, the simplest approach is often the best - keep service communications clean and separate from marketing.

    For businesses that rely heavily on automated communications, this case is a timely reminder that compliance needs to be built into systems and processes, not added as an afterthought.

    Areas of Expertise

    Corporate & Commercial
    Related Posts:
    Fact Sheet: Service Agreements for Medical Practices

    Fact Sheet: Service Agreements for Medical Practices

    Home » Corporate & Commercial

    FACT SHEET: Service Agreements for Medical Practices

    Author: Craig Hong, Zach Sudiro

    }

    3 min read

    2 Apr 2026

    Share:

    • r
      Key Takeaways
    • ࠂ
      Service and Facilities Agreements (SFAs) define the relationship between a medical practice and independent practitioners, outlining how facilities, services, fees, and responsibilities are managed.
    • ࠂ
      Well-drafted SFAs are critical for legal protection and compliance, particularly in reducing disputes, managing operational responsibilities, and supporting practice valuation or succession.
    • ࠂ
      Regularly reviewing SFAs is essential due to payroll tax risks and regulatory changes, ensuring agreements accurately reflect how the practice operates and protect the business from financial or legal exposure.

    Stay Up-To-Date

    Subscribe to receive updates specific to your preferences

    Subscribe

    What they are, why they matter, and how to get them right

    Running a medical practice involves far more than delivering quality patient care. Behind the scenes, your legal and commercial arrangements play a critical role in protecting your business, managing risk, and ensuring compliance - particularly in today’s evolving regulatory environment.

    One of the most important (and often misunderstood) documents in any medical practice is the Service and Facilities Agreement (SFA).

    This fact sheet explains what an SFA is, why they matter, and why medical practices should be reviewing their agreements to remain compliant and protected.

    What is a SFA?

    A SFA (sometimes referred to as a Practitioner Services Agreement or simply a Service Agreement) governs the relationship between a medical practice and the practitioners who operate their own independent business utilising services offered by the medical practice.

    A common point of confusion for medical practices is the difference between the relationship between a practitioner engaged under an SFA and employed under an Employment Contract. Some of the key factors that distinguish an employment contract from an SFA include:

      Employment Agreement Service and Facilities Agreement
    Role and relationship of the parties The relationship is that of employer and employee.

    The practitioner is providing labor to the medical practice in consideration of the remuneration (e.g. wage, salary) paid to the practitioner.

    		 The relationship is that of service provider and practitioner.

    The medical practice is providing services and facilities necessary for the practitioner to operate their own independent medical business in consideration of the service fees payable to the medical practice.

     
    How are the practitioner and medical practice paid? The medical practice collects patient fees and then pays the practitioner a salary or other agreed remuneration. The preferred approach is for practitioners to collect fees into their own bank account and are invoiced by the medical practice for service fees, rather than the medical practice collecting fees on the practitioner’s behalf.

     
    Duties of each party and control over performance of work The medical practice determines the nature of the medical services available at the practice, and practitioner must comply with the policies and instructions of the medical practice while performing medical services. The practitioner has discretion as to the operation of their medical practice without rigorous oversight from the medical practice.
    Obligations regarding employee entitlements

     

    		 The medical practice is responsible for superannuation, annual leave, sick leave, long service leave, and other employee entitlements of the practitioner. The practitioner is responsible for superannuation, annual leave, sick leave, long service leave, and other employee entitlements.
    How patient records are handled The medical practice will claim control and ownership of patient records and other confidential information at all times. The medical practice does not control or own the patient records, except to the extent needed to provide the services to the practitioner.

     
    Does the practitioner represent him or herself as being part of the medical practice’s business? The medical practice is advertised as the provider of medical services and the practitioner is a part of the business. The medical practice is advertised as a place for patients to visit the practitioners.

    SFA’s typically set out:

    • how the practitioner uses the medical practice’s facilities and services;
    • how and when fees are collected and distributed;
    • what services the medical practice provides (rooms, staff, IT, equipment, administration);
    • what services the medical practice will not provide the practitioners (specialist equipment);
    • the obligations of each party;
    • insurance requirements of each party; and
    • termination and exit arrangements, including the handling of patient records.

    For many medical practices, and SFA underpins the entire business model.

    Why SFA’s Matter

    A well-drafted SFA helps to:

    • clearly define the legal relationship between the practice and practitioner;
    • support compliance with payroll tax and revenue laws;
    • reduce the risk of disputes during, and after, a practitioners engagement;
    • align operational, financial and regulatory obligations;
    • support practice valuation and future sale or succession; and
    • poorly drafted or outdated agreements can expose practices to significant financial and legal risk.

    Service Agreements & Payroll Tax - A Critical Connection

    Payroll tax has become one of the most significant issues affecting medical practices across Australia.

    Recent various state revenue rulings have made it clear that the substance of the relationship matters more than the label.

    Payroll tax risk may arise where:

    • patient fees are collected by the practice and later distributed to practitioners;
    • the medical practice controls billing, pricing or appointment systems;
    • practitioners are not operating independently, but rather for or on behalf of the medical practice; and
    • agreements do not reflect the reality of how a medical practice operates as a service entity.

    Even where practitioners are engaged as independent contractors, state revenue authorities may still treat payments as “wages” if the agreement and practice structure do not support genuine independence.

    Each state has its own payroll tax thresholds, exemptions, amnesty regimes, and reporting requirements, making regular review of Service Agreements essential. For more detailed information on a specific state’s requirements, please visit the Hillhouse website’s Knowledge Hub: https://hillhouse.com.au/knowledge/

    Key Elements Every Medical Service Agreement Should Address

    A well-drafted Service Agreement should clearly deal with:

    • Nature of the relationship - confirming the practitioner is an independent contractor, not an employee
    • Fee collection and payments - how patient fees are received, service fees calculated, and funds distributed
    • Services provided by the practice - rooms, reception, IT systems, nursing support, equipment and administration
    • Practitioner obligations - professional standards, compliance, insurances and use of practice systems
    • Leave, absence and locum arrangements - how absences are managed
    • Termination and exit - notice periods, handover obligations, restraint provisions and patient continuity
    • Data, records and confidentiality - ownership of records, privacy compliance and information security.

    Common Issues We See in Practice

    Some of the most common risks we encounter include:

    • outdated agreements that no longer reflect how the practice operates;
    • template agreements not tailored to medical practices;
    • inconsistencies between agreements and actual operational and billing arrangements;
    • poor alignment with payroll tax requirements;
    • unclear exit provisions leading to disputes; and
    • misalignment between Service Agreements and shareholder or lease arrangements.

    These issues often only come to light during:

    • payroll tax audits;
    • practice sales or restructures;
    • Partner or practitioner exits;
    • disputes between medical practices and practitioners; and
    • ATO or state revenue reviews.

    What Medical Practices Should Do Now

    To protect your practice, we recommend:

    • reviewing all current Service Agreements;
    • ensuring agreements reflect how the medical practice business actually operates;
    • assessing payroll tax exposure with legal and accounting input;
    • checking consistency across service, lease and shareholder documents;
    • updating agreements to reflect legislative and regulatory changes; and
    • reviewing agreements whenever there is a change in ownership, structure or billing practices.

    Proactive review is far more cost-effective than addressing issues after a problem arises.

    How Hillhouse Legal Partners Can Help

    Hillhouse Legal Partners has over 30 years’ experience supporting medical and healthcare practices across Australia. Our team regularly advises on the drafting and review of Service Agreements, payroll tax risk management, practice structuring and restructuring, medical practice compliance, and practice acquisitions and exits.

    We understand the commercial realities of running a medical practice and provide clear, practical advice focused on solutions - not legal jargon.

    Need a Service Agreement Review?

    If your Service Agreements haven’t been reviewed recently or if you’re unsure whether they align with current payroll tax and compliance requirements NOW is the time to act.

    Let our experienced team help ensure your agreements protect your practice, support compliance, and position your business for long-term success.

    Areas of Expertise

    Corporate & Commercial
    Health & Medical
    Related Posts: