1300 Smiles Limited : Healthcare provider ratings website angers doctors

Posted November 08, 2013 12:46:25

The NIB's new online rating website for ancillary healthcare providers is already drawing industry criticism, after three years in the planning.

The site, called Whitecoat, will allow consumers to find and compare healthcare specialists such as doctors, dentists, optometrists and physiotherapists in their area.

Anyone can consult the website, which provides contact details and cost comparisons for about 30,000 healthcare providers in Australia, but only NIB customers can rate them.

"Every time an NIB customer visits an extras provider and we pay a claim, we send the customer an email and asking them to give us feedback on our experience," group manager Rhod McKensey said.

"That feedback will be put through a robust moderation process, but about 85 per cent of the comments end up on the Whitecoat website."

The ratings will be moderated according to guidelines set and monitored by the NIB in order to safeguard healthcare specialists.

But while NIB has only just launched the website, doctors and dentists are already complaining.

The Australian Dental Association is warning its members not to become involved with the site, and vice president Carmelo Bonanno concerned ratings and comments fail to adequately represent the whole experience of visiting a healthcare provider.

"It's really a brief summary. It really doesn't afford the opportunity to really understand what happened, what the dynamic was, what the treatment was, the sort of difficulties that may have been encountered," he said.

"I see this as a cheap marketing exercise and nothing more."

Mr Bonanno says he is also concerned about the ability for NIB to adequately moderate comments and ratings on the website.

"There is really no way of controlling the source of the comments and the veracity and the integrity of the comments," he said.

"They say they can, but we don't believe that they can."

A random search of the site located Sydney dentist Joel Kligman, who was pleased to learn of his 100 per cent approval rating, but not overjoyed about the site itself.

"Of course we want to give the best service possible, you want to try to treat each patient individually and give the best possible outcome," Mr Kligman said.

"But you know, there are different levels of expectations."

The Australian Medical Association (AMA) opposed the NIB's initial attempt to establish a ratings site in 2011, and objects to the new version.

The Association's president, Steve Hambleton, says complaints can be more forthcoming than praise.

"You can make 10 people happy, and one of them might send you a thank you. But you can make one unhappy, and they might tell ten people," he said.

"Online ratings sites can often slip into berating sites."

However the Consumers Health Forum of Australia disagrees, with spokesman Mark Metherell calling the website a significant advance for Australian consumers.

"This sort of thing should have happened a long time ago, particularly with the ease of modern information technology," he said.

"But it has been very hard to bring providers in the health sphere up to the same level of transparency on fees that we expect in every other occupation group."