In recent years, Australia’s healthcare landscape has begun to shift in subtle but significant ways. Two of the country’s largest private health insurers — Medibank and Australian Unity — are no longer just paying for health services. Increasingly, they are also delivering them.

Through vertically integrated subsidiaries such as Amplar Health (Medibank) and Remedy Healthcare / Plena (Australian Unity), these insurers are expanding their roles from funders to full-service providers of allied health, hospital-in-the-home, telehealth, rehabilitation, and aged care support.

At first glance, this shift might appear progressive — a bid to reduce hospital strain, modernise care, and offer convenience to patients through bundled, “no-gap” services. But dig deeper, and the model raises critical questions about competition, consumer choice, and the future of independent healthcare providers.

The Rise of Amplar Health and Remedy: Insurers as Providers

In 2022, Medibank invested $10 million into health tech startup Medinet, which quickly evolved into Amplar Health — a full-fledged service delivery arm now providing over 1,000 homecare visits daily and managing millions of “health interactions” annually. Amplar’s services range from rehab and hospital substitution to aged care transition support and virtual nursing.

Australian Unity, meanwhile, recently acquired Plena Healthcare — a major mobile allied health provider — in a $70 million deal. This adds to its existing Remedy Healthcare offering and forms part of a growing “Home Health” platform that now delivers over 4.5 million hours of care per year to more than 160,000 clients.

These moves aren’t just about better care coordination. They represent a strategic shift toward control of the full healthcare value chain — from insurance product to diagnosis, treatment, and rehabilitation.

A Convenient Model — But for Whom?

At face value, these insurer-led services offer practical benefits:

• “No-gap” care models promise patients no out-of-pocket expenses.
• Integrated care pathways mean less fragmentation for consumers.
• Governments can partner with large-scale providers to deliver programs more efficiently.

Indeed, Amplar has been awarded federal and state contracts — such as delivering hotel-based aged care transition services in South Australia and virtual nursing support to 30 residential aged care homes nationwide.

But these developments also come with risks:

• Patients may be steered toward in-house providers, with limited awareness or access to alternatives.
• Small to medium-sized allied health businesses may find themselves locked out of referral networks and government tenders.
• The insurers’ dual role as funder and provider introduces a conflict of interest: cost containment and profit maximisation may influence decisions over patient care.

Competition Under Pressure

This growing concentration of power raises the question: Are Medibank and Australian Unity quietly becoming Australia’s next health oligopoly?

By building internal networks, acquiring providers, and securing preferred status in public and private hospitals, these companies are reshaping the market — often outside the public spotlight. Smaller providers face increasing barriers to participation, not because of lower quality, but because they can’t compete with vertically integrated giants who write the business rules and own the delivery mechanisms.

The Australian Medical Association (AMA) and other health groups have previously raised red flags over similar strategies from other insurers, like Bupa, warning that such vertical integration could undermine clinical independence and reduce patient choice.

If patients can only access services from their insurer’s internal network — whether by financial incentive or default system design — then true competition and informed choice are eroded.

What Should Be Done?

None of this is to argue against innovation or system efficiency. Integrated care has real value — when implemented with transparency, fairness, and oversight. But the current trajectory raises fundamental policy questions:

• Should insurers be allowed to act as dominant service providers?
• How are government contracts awarded — and are smaller providers being given fair access?
• Are patients being given clear, unbiased choices in their care pathways?
• What protections exist to preserve market diversity and prevent monopolistic behaviour?

A proactive, measured regulatory response may be needed to maintain competition, ensure accountability, and protect the role of independent allied health businesses that have long underpinned Australia’s healthcare system.

Final Thought

We’re at a critical juncture. As the lines between funder, provider, and regulator blur, Australians must ask: Is our health system being reshaped to serve patients — or profits?

Careful scrutiny, public debate, and policy oversight are essential to ensure that innovation doesn’t come at the cost of fairness, transparency, and long-term sustainability.