To the Editor: Donovan and colleagues bring attention to the restrictions placed by the Health Insurance Commission via the Medicare system on clinicians investigating patients for sexually transmitted infections (STIs).1 In their study of Sydney general practitioners, they suggested that reform was required to the three-test pathology testing rule to improve gonorrhoea screening in high-risk individuals living in a region of epidemic gonorrhoea.

In the Kimberley region of Western Australia, where we practise, syphilis, gonorrhoea and chlamydia continue to be endemic. Best-practice guidelines for primary healthcare providers in WA state that investigation for other possible STIs is essential to the care of patients with STIs or HIV infection.2

Health policy should be based on best-practice standards. For patients with confirmed or suspected STIs, this means that Medicare funding should meet the full costs of all tests for suspected STIs (as indicated by clinical need and best-practice guidelines) to enable and facilitate effective control of these infections at the population health level.

An Australian legal precedent exists for medical practitioners regarding testing for STIs. In the New South Wales Supreme Court case of BT v Oei, it was found that a doctor has a duty of care to offer testing for other STIs to a patient with one STI or a suspected STI.3 In that case, a sexual partner of an HIV-positive patient brought successful legal action against her partner's doctor for failing to diagnose HIV infection in her partner. The doctor was found negligent in failing to offer an HIV test to a patient with ongoing symptoms who had been found to be infected with hepatitis B virus and whose only risk factor for this infection was unprotected sex. The doctor's duty of care was found to extend to the patient's sexual partner, who became infected with HIV after unprotected sex with her partner.

Given that best-practice guidelines and a legal precedent exist which confirm that a medical practitioner should offer testing for other STIs to a patient with one STI or a suspected STI, what are the medicolegal implications of the Health Insurance Commission's three-test rule?

Comment: The Journal sought a comment from the Commonwealth Department of Health and Ageing, but after three months had yet to receive a response.