From 1 October, the Australian health‑tech firm HotDoc will add a $2.45 charge to patient payments made through its own online payment option, a move that has prompted concern among clinic owners about possible co‑payment increases.
What the new charge actually covers
The notice to practices says the amount “will apply … regardless of the amount or payment method,” but also notes that paying through the platform remains optional. In practice, the fee is triggered only when a patient selects the online payment feature that a clinic has enabled for a particular appointment type.
Fewer than 10 % of bookable appointment categories currently have the online option active. When it is active, patients may still choose an alternative method offered by the practice, avoiding the extra cost.
The existing payment‑processing surcharge of 1.75 % plus $0.30 per transaction will be discontinued on 1 October 2026, with the new charge intended to support ongoing platform development.
Related: Dr. Max Saves the Planet
Reaction from clinics and practitioners
Many practice managers read the wording as a blanket per‑booking levy, fearing that every one of the roughly 25 million annual bookings could be affected. A simple dictionary definition of “transaction” includes any exchange of services, which fueled the alarm.
Industry observers note that if the $2.45 amount were applied to every booking, the firm’s revenue would swell from the reported $30 million to near $80 million, a shift that would dwarf typical monetisation steps in Australian health‑tech.
Some clinicians worry the flat structure could act as a hidden cost, especially for low‑value, high‑frequency services such as repeat prescription requests that usually sit in the $20‑$40 range.
In contrast, the fee is modest compared with the previous credit‑card surcharge on larger payments. For a $200 specialist gap fee, the flat amount works out cheaper than the percentage‑based alternative that practices could previously pass on to patients.
Earlier communications have also drawn criticism. Last year a “Telehealth on Demand” pilot was paused after practices said it could divert patients without sufficient warning. Earlier this year a payments feature raised tax‑compliance questions from an industry accountant.
Related: Pharmacy in Indonesia Early Development
Those incidents suggest a pattern of rollout challenges that some clinics interpret as an attempt by HotDoc to become the primary payment conduit between patients and providers, potentially sidestepping the practice‑management systems it currently integrates with.
From a broader perspective, the shift reflects a common strategy among tech firms that have moved from founder‑led ownership to private‑equity control. New revenue streams often emerge as investors look for steadier cash flow, and a modest per‑use charge can provide that without overhauling the core service.
Clinics must decide on enabling the online payment option.
As the rollout proceeds, the actual financial effect on both the platform and its users will become clearer, especially once the optional payment feature sees broader adoption across the network of practices.
