Testimonials within health advertising in Australia: an analysis of current policy
Alexander C. L. Holden
University of Sydney School of Dentistry, Faculty of Medicine and Health, 2–6 Chalmers Street, Surry Hills, NSW 2010, Australia. Email: alexander.holden@sydney.edu.au
Australian Health Review 43(6) 712-716 https://doi.org/10.1071/AH18103
Submitted: 14 May 2018 Accepted: 22 August 2018 Published: 2 November 2018
Abstract
The advertising of regulated health services to consumers is strictly regulated in Australia. The advertising prohibitions within the National Law that ban the use of testimonials relating to services provided by health practitioners have caused controversy, garnering mixed reactions from the health professions, health consumers and other stakeholders. Advertising that misleads health consumers may promote unnecessary and inappropriate engagement in health services and may therefore negatively affect consumers’ ability to exercise autonomous decisions relating to their care. This article considers policy implications relating to advertising with a focus on the use of testimonials, particularly those that are online. Although there would seem to be appetite for amending the current legislative framework, there is uncertainty as to the form change may take and the effect this could have.
What is known about the topic? Testimonials relating to health care are a prohibited form of advertising, but a form still used by non-regulated health providers and those who are regulated but who are either ignorant of the law or defiant of its requirements. Views are split as to whether the restriction on consumer reviews of regulated health services is reasonable; frequently, arguments are put forward stating that the status quo inhibits consumers’ ability to discuss their care. Other jurisdictions outside Australia permit the use of patient reviews and testimonials.
What does this paper add? This paper discusses the greater policy implications of the current restrictions within the National Law and analyses the arguments placed forward by different stakeholders from the health professions and those that consume health services. The ethical and market arguments surrounding advertising and testimonials are examined. Suggestions are then made as to the deficits in knowledge that presently exist relating to this area and the actions required before future policy may be developed.
What are the implications for practitioners? Practitioners should be aware of the current restrictions upon advertising within regulated health services. This paper develops an understanding of the complex arguments surrounding advertising and testimonials in health care, as well as when testimonials may be permitted and not subject to the current regulations. Before any amendment to the current legislation is actioned, regulators should consider instead the need to develop an evidence-based approach to understanding the effects of health advertising on the decision making of healthcare consumers.
References
[1] Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency. Guidelines for Advertising Regulated Health Services. Melbourne: AHPRA; 2014. Available at: https://www.ahpra.gov.au/Publications/Advertising-resources/Legislation-guidelines/Advertising-guidelines.aspx [verified 11 September 2018].[2] Victorian Department of Health. Final report: a national code of conduct for health care workers. Adelaide: COAG Health Council; 2015. Available at: http://www.coaghealthcouncil.gov.au/NationalCodeOfConductForHealthCareWorkers [verified 13 May 2018].
[3] Snowball K. Independent review of the National Registration and Accreditation Scheme for health professions. Canberra: Australian Health Ministers’ Advisory Council; 2014. Available at: https://www.coaghealthcouncil.gov.au/DesktopModules/EasyDNNNews/Document Download.ashx?portalid=0&moduleid=524&articleid=68&documentid=74 [verified 13 May 2018].
[4] Health Care Consumers Association (HCCA). HCCA submission for the review of the National Registration and Accreditation Scheme for health professionals. Hackett, ACT: HCCA; 2014. Available at: http://www.coaghealthcouncil.gov.au/Portals/0/Health%20Care%20Consumers%20Association.pdf [verified 13 May 2018].
[5] Chiropractors’ Association of Australia (CAA). Review of the National Registration and Accreditation Scheme for health professions: submission from the Australian Chiropractors’ Association of Australia. Sydney: CAA; 2014. Available at: http://www.coaghealthcouncil.gov.au/Portals/0/HealthPACT/NRAS%20Documents/Searchable/Chiropractors%27%20Association%20of%20Australia.pdf [verified 13 May 2018].
[6] Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA). NSW chiropractor who claimed cancer cure convicted in landmark case. Melbourne: AHPRA; 2017. Available at: https://www.ahpra.gov.au/News/2017-02-15-media-release-chiropractic-board.aspx [verified 13 May 2018].
[7] Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA). Responsible advertising in healthcare: keeping people safe. Melbourne: AHPRA; 2017. Available at: https://www.ahpra.gov.au/documents/default.aspx?record=WD17%2f23116&dbid=AP&chksum=MVfbTf4nBIwpK6WNXyeVmA%3d%3d [verified 13 May 2018].
[8] Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency. Check and correct your advertising. Melbourne: AHPRA; 2018. Available at: http://www.ahpra.gov.au/Publications/Advertising-resources/Check-and-correct.aspx [verified 8 August 2018].
[9] Mendham T. Re: review of the National Registration and Accreditation Scheme for health professions – consultation paper (August 2014). [Letter] 2014. Available at: http://www.coaghealthcouncil.gov.au/Portals/0/HealthPACT/NRAS%20Documents/Searchable/Australian%20Skeptics.pdf [verified 13 May 2018].
[10] Holden ACL, Spallek H. How compliant are dental practice Facebook pages with Australian healthcare advertising regulations? A netnographic review. Aust Dent J 2018; 63 109–17.
| How compliant are dental practice Facebook pages with Australian healthcare advertising regulations? A netnographic review.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[11] Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA). APHRA annual report 2016/17. Melbourne: AHPRA; 2017. Available at: http://www.ahpra.gov.au/annualreport/2017/ [verified 13 May 2018].
[12] Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA). Selectively editing reviews or testimonials may break the law. Melbourne: AHPRA; 2018. Available at: http://www.ahpra.gov.au/News/2018-06-13-media-release.aspx [verified 8 August 2018].
[13] Lee M, Youn S. Electronic word of mouth (eWOM): how eWOM platforms influence consumer product judgement. Int J Advert 2009; 28 473–99.
| Electronic word of mouth (eWOM): how eWOM platforms influence consumer product judgement.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[14] Hennig-Thurau T, Walsh G.. Electronic word-of-mouth: motives for and consequences of reading customer articulations on the Internet. International Journal of Electronic Commerce 2003; 8 51–74.
| Electronic word-of-mouth: motives for and consequences of reading customer articulations on the Internet.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[15] Akerlof GA. The market for “lemons”: quality uncertainty and the market mechanism. Q J Econ 1970; 84 488–500.
| The market for “lemons”: quality uncertainty and the market mechanism.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[16] Leland HE. Quacks, lemons, and licensing: a theory of minimum quality standards. J Polit Econ 1979; 87 1328–46.
| Quacks, lemons, and licensing: a theory of minimum quality standards.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[17] Schindler RM, Bickart B. Published ‘word of mouth’: referable, consumer generated information on the internet. In Haugtvedt CP, Machleit KA, Yalch R, editors. Online consumer psychology: understanding and influencing consumer behaviour in the virtual world. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2005. pp. 35–61.
[18] Filieri R. What makes an online consumer review trustworthy? Ann Tour Res 2016; 58 46–64.
| What makes an online consumer review trustworthy?Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[19] Nestorovska D. Revisiting Breen v Williams: breathing life into a doctor–patient fiduciary relationship. J Law Med 2018; 25 692–706.
[20] Sneddon A. Advertising and deep autonomy. J Bus Ethics 2001; 33 15–28.
| Advertising and deep autonomy.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[21] Schudson M. Advertising, the uneasy persuasion. New York: Basic Books; 1984.
[22] Phillips BJ. In defense of advertising: a social perspective. J Bus Ethics 1997; 16 109–18.
| In defense of advertising: a social perspective.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[23] Waide J. The making of self and world in advertising. J Bus Ethics 1987; 6 73–9.
| The making of self and world in advertising.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[24] Villarán A. Irrational advertising and moral autonomy. J Bus Ethics 2017; 144 479–90.
| Irrational advertising and moral autonomy.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[25] Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA). What consumers need to know about advertising. Melbourne: AHPRA; 2018. Available at: http://www.ahpra.gov.au/Publications/Advertising-resources/What-consumers-need-to-know.aspx [verified 13 May 2018].
