Who sets the rules? National telehealth standards spark debate across healthcare

A system moving faster than its rulebook

Telehealth has expanded rapidly across Australia, but the rules governing it have not kept pace.

The launch of the National Telehealth Standards, announced by Patients Australia at a parliamentary roundtable in March, marks a turning point for the sector. At the centre of the debate is a simple question: who sets the standard for safe, high-quality care in a digital-first system?

Why the industry is stepping in

The Virtual Care Provider Standards and Accreditation framework, developed by the Australian Telehealth Standards Consortium, aims to establish a baseline for safety, quality and accountability across virtual care providers.

According to Nic Blair, Founder of Midnight Health, the move reflects a structural gap created by the pace of change.

“The adoption of telehealth is growing at a rapid rate, with both consumers and businesses moving faster than regulators have been able to keep up with.”

That growth has created an environment where expectations remain unclear, particularly when it comes to defining what safe, high-quality telehealth care should look like.

“The challenge this has created is that we have an environment in which we have not established what safe, high-quality care looks like with regards to telehealth. This has led to tension across different groups within the healthcare industry, and risks associated with being unable to differentiate low quality providers from those that are investing in delivering safe, high-quality care.”

In this context, the standards are being positioned as a necessary starting point — not a final answer, but a framework to bring greater consistency to a rapidly evolving space.

“Patients Australia and the group within the National Telehealth Consortium have recognised the need to establish a set of guidelines that ensure safety and quality.”

A sign of maturity, or a question of authority?

Supporters argue the move signals a maturing sector. Rather than waiting for regulation to catch up, industry is stepping forward to define what good care looks like in a digital environment.

For a sector that has grown quickly in recent years, this kind of leadership is seen as both necessary and overdue. However, the response has not been universally positive.

The absence of key regulatory bodies, including the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency and the Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care, has raised questions about legitimacy, oversight and accountability. Can industry-led standards carry the same weight as formal regulation?

According to Dr Kushal Porwal, a clinician working extensively in telehealth, some gaps remain in how the standards translate into real-world practice.

“They underestimate the operational realities of telehealth.”

Blair acknowledges the concern, positioning the framework as an evolving process rather than a finished product.

“The standards that have been developed are not expected to be the final version, however a starting point for initiating the conversation and driving industry collaboration to reach the accepted standards.”

“The team at Patients Australia are investing time and effort in engaging regulatory bodies and industry groups to develop the final standards.”

This tension points to a broader reality: digital healthcare is advancing quickly, while the systems that govern it are still catching up.

Beyond telehealth: a shift in how care is governed

The debate extends beyond telehealth itself. It reflects a structural shift in Australian healthcare, where digital models of care are evolving faster than traditional regulatory frameworks.

In this environment, governance is no longer something that follows innovation, it is increasingly being shaped alongside it. Industry-led standards are one example of how that shift is playing out in real time.

What this means for healthcare leaders

For healthcare organisations operating in virtual or hybrid care models, the implications are immediate. Governance, risk and quality are no longer background considerations; they are central to how services are designed, delivered and scaled.

Blair argues that virtual care requires greater investment in these areas to ensure safe and sustainable delivery.

“Operating within a virtual health environment arguably requires a higher investment into governance, risk and quality to ensure that the right guardrails are in place for delivering a safe, high quality service.”

He points to two critical priorities:

“An organisation’s clinical governance framework and cybersecurity posture are two of the most critical areas in which a virtual health provider should focus their time and attention.”

As digital health continues to expand, these capabilities are becoming a key point of differentiation between providers, not just in compliance, but in trust.

A defining moment for digital healthcare

The introduction of national telehealth standards signals a shift in responsibility. The industry is no longer waiting for regulation to define the future of virtual care, it is beginning to shape it.

Whether this approach leads to stronger, more consistent care or introduces new complexity will depend on how effectively industry and regulators align in the next phase.

For healthcare leaders, the message is clear: as care becomes more digital, the question is no longer just how services are delivered, but who defines what good care looks like.

Sources:

Patients Australia. (2026). Patients Australia launches national telehealth standards at Parliament House. https://www.patients.org.au/post/patients-australia-launches-national-telehealth-standards-atparliament-house 

Patients Australia. (2026). Telehealth standards. https://www.patients.org.au/our-work/telehealth-standards 

Midnight Health. (2026). Midnight Health. https://midnight.health/