Some changes in healthcare do not come with great fanfare. They quietly hit you and impact the way one operates or how they do referrals, as the case may be.

The changes to the mental health treatment plan under the Better Access initiative, announced by the Australian government's Department of Health, Disability and Ageing, are one such initiative that has made a silent yet impactful entry.

Silently but surely, the initiative cuts a lot of paperwork and admin tasks — and has brought care right back to the general practitioners. But with that simplification comes a shift that is easy to miss: the structured checkpoint that used to prompt GPs to reassess their patients' mental health is no longer built into the system.

Let's explore what the changes are and how they will impact GPs, specialists, and especially patients.

 

What has actually changed

The checkpoints and pathways

If you are a general practitioner with a focus or special interest in mental health, you are familiar with the process. You fill in the mental health treatment plan, patients access Medicare-subsidised psychological services through it, and the referral process goes on as before with all the necessary paperwork.

With the new changes to MHTP, what has been removed are the MBS review items. Originally, these review items brought patients back to their GP after some sessions with a psychologist to review whether the treatment was working. That clinical reassessment is no longer a formal, built-in step.

 

Another shift lies within the consultation itself.

There is also a more practical tension emerging for GPs around how mental health care is now billed and structured within everyday consultations.

Previously, formal MHTP review items created a clearer framework around follow-up. Under the new model, reviews are expected to occur through standard time-tiered attendance items instead. In principle, this provides GPs more flexibility to respond to clinical need rather than fixed review points.

In practice, however, mental health consultations do not always fit neatly into shorter appointment structures.

An MHTP review may involve reassessing symptoms, discussing progress, coordinating referrals, reviewing psychologist feedback, adjusting treatment goals, and documenting ongoing care. Now, individual clinicians play a larger role in deciding which attendance item best reflects that work and in ensuring the consultation is appropriately documented.

Some GPs have also raised concerns that shorter time-tiered attendance items may not fully reflect the complexity involved in mental health reviews.

The Royal Australian College of General Practitioners has advised GPs to use the attendance item that best reflects the complexity and time involved. But for many practices, the new system introduces a layer of judgement and workflow consideration that previously sat more clearly within the dedicated MHTP review structure.


Who does this affect

GPs, specialists, and patients – all three feel it differently

The MHTP pathway navigates from GPs to specialists, with patients forming the major stakeholders in it all. The referrer and the referee need to be in coordination with the treatment plan for it to take effect — and that's precisely why we need to understand how these changes will impact each group.

 

Pros & Cons

Are MHTPs good or detrimental for patients?

MHTPs are still a strong foundation for mental health care. But without structured reviews, the system now relies more on coordination, and that's where challenges can arise.

 

Maintaining continuity of care

How practices can maintain continuity of care

While the MBS changes may have made things easier for GPs and primary care — less admin, no heavy paperwork moving between providers — the challenge that remains is continuity of care.

As the two case studies show, outcomes don't depend on the framework. They depend on the patient. A self-motivated, self-aware patient may come in for a review after seeing a specialist. Another, just as deserving of care, may not.

That's the gap. And this is not a system that closes automatically. The advantages and challenges of the post-2025 MHTP changes lie not in the framework itself, but in what happens inside the practice after the referral. Where an internal follow-up approach exists, continuity of care holds regardless of whether the patient raises concerns. Where it does not support, care becomes dependent on the patient's own initiative, and that's an uneven foundation for mental health support.

So the real question for practices is not whether to follow up, but it's how to build a system that ensures follow-up happens consistently, regardless of whether the patient initiates it.

 

How RxTro supports continuity of care 

The current MBS changes to MHTP pose a challenge not just for the referral alone, but for all parties concerned. It's what comes after and what happens during the process. RxTro does not change how care is delivered. It makes it easier to stay connected while it's underway. For practices building their own follow-up approach, this visibility makes the difference.  

With RxTro, practices can: 

• Refer patients and book appointments directly through their EMR and ensure patients leave with a confirmed appointment; no admin chase needed

• Stay in clearer communication with mental health providers after the referral, not just at the point of it

• See where patients are in their care journey without relying on manual tracking

• Build follow-up visibility into how the practice runs, not as an extra step