Ahpra conflicts of interest guidance and the codes of conduct review

Ahpra’s interim guidance says a website disclaimer is not disclosure. What it means for product-led clinics, plus the new codes of conduct review.

23 September 202611 min read

In September 2026 Ahpra and the National Boards made two related moves. On 17 September 2026 they started a review of the codes of conduct, beginning with an early scoping survey open until Thursday 15 October 2026. Then they published interim guidance on managing financial or commercial conflicts of interest, first published in September 2026 and dated on Ahpra’s site 23 September 2026, with four case studies.

The conflicts guidance is not an advertising guideline, but it has real consequences for marketing. It says plainly that a disclaimer on your website or social media does not count as disclosure. It singles out business models that many clinics market heavily, such as single-product and “one stop shop” models. And it reminds clinic owners and employers that pushing practitioners to put commercial targets ahead of patient care can be a criminal offence.

Status: the guidance is interim. Ahpra says the review of the codes of conduct may lead to updates. No changes to the codes themselves have been made yet, and no review of the general advertising guidelines has been announced.

What changed

The codes of conduct review

Ahpra’s announcement of 17 September 2026 says the review covers three codes:

the Shared Code of conduct used by most National Boards, which took effect on 29 June 2022 for 12 professions, including dental practitioners, physiotherapists, pharmacists, chiropractors, optometrists, osteopaths, occupational therapists, paramedics and podiatrists
the Medical Board of Australia’s code, Good medical practice, the current version of which took effect on 1 October 2020
the Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia’s code.

Psychology is not in that list: the Psychology Board’s own code of conduct took effect on 1 December 2025.

Ahpra says the codes set out expectations for safe, ethical and professional behaviour, help the public know what to expect, and support consistent decisions when concerns are raised. The review aims to keep them in line with community expectations. The scoping survey is open to practitioners, consumers, organisations and other stakeholders until Thursday 15 October 2026. Later stages will be posted on Ahpra’s consultations page. The announcement does not say whether advertising, social media, artificial intelligence or conflicts of interest are in scope, so it is too early to know what will change.

The interim conflicts of interest guidance

Ahpra signalled the guidance on 16 September 2026, when it announced a crackdown on unsafe prescribing of unapproved peptides, medicinal cannabis and GLP-1 weight-loss medicines in high-volume and single-treatment business models, and said it would “shortly release” conflict of interest guidance. The guidance page, Managing financial or commercial conflicts of interest, says it is based on existing expectations in each Board’s code of conduct. Ahpra’s concern is that some business models make it harder for practitioners to separate clinical judgement from commercial pressure.

Who it applies to

All registered health practitioners, across every profession. The guidance is built on each Board’s code.
Clinic owners, employers and businesses, including owners who are not registered. The section 136 offence applies to anyone, registered or not.
Telehealth, product supply and vertically integrated businesses, which the guidance discusses specifically.
Practitioners who endorse or sell products, including in marketing.

What the guidance requires

What counts as a conflict

The guidance says: “A conflict arises when you have an interest other than patient health and wellbeing.” It covers situations where you, your employer or a connected person stands to benefit from an assessment, treatment, referral, product or service you recommend or provide. The benefit does not have to be money: free training, education, travel or similar benefits can count. Perceived and potential conflicts should be treated as seriously as actual ones.

Disclosure has to happen with the patient

Practitioners should be honest and transparent and declare relevant interests before care proceeds, including any interest in a product they prescribe, sell or endorse. Disclosure should be part of informed consent and presented in a way the patient can easily understand. The guidance is explicit: “Declaring a conflict of interest on your website, in advertising or on social media is not sufficient disclosure.”

Business models flagged

The guidance identifies situations that need particular care, including:

business models that tie financial incentives to clinical activity, such as commissions or bonuses linked to specific outcomes or products
selling products, devices or services directly to patients where you or your employer have an ownership interest or financial benefit
dual clinical and commercial roles
personal financial arrangements with patients, such as loans, investment schemes or leasing
vertically integrated models, where one organisation controls diagnosis, medicine, device or treatment
“one stop shop” models, such as clinics that prescribe and dispense a single medicine
subscription models that may lead to services without a clear clinical need
overservicing, and incentives to recommend particular assessments, treatments or devices.

Managing a conflict

Having a conflict is not inherently wrong, and practitioners may profit from their profession. Where a conflict cannot be removed, it must be managed so commercial interests do not adversely affect care. The guidance suggests steps such as stepping away from a decision, delegating, refusing gifts or incentives, avoiding private financial dealings with patients, and telling patients about their options and the associated costs and benefits. Good care includes referring to a practitioner without the conflict where possible, thorough individual assessment, evidence-based treatment, presenting options including those your organisation does not offer or no treatment, and documenting your reasoning.

Employers and section 136

Responsibility for managing conflicts stays with the registered practitioner, whatever the business structure. Employers should avoid setting incentives, objectives or performance measures that put business benefit ahead of practitioners’ duties to patients. The guidance reminds readers that under section 136 of the National Law it is a criminal offence for anyone, registered or not, to direct or incite a registered practitioner to engage in unprofessional conduct or professional misconduct, including inciting practitioners to place commercial interests above good patient care. The maximum penalties stated are $60,000 for an individual and $120,000 for a body corporate.

The case studies

Ahpra published four case studies with the guidance:

A weight-loss business (a poor example). A doctor is paid per consultation, earns commission on the medicine she prescribes, offers no alternative medicines, brands or suppliers, and often prescribes from an online form. The lesson: recognise that your working structure creates conflicts, disclose them, and be able to show commercial interests did not drive clinical decisions.
Referral in a vertically integrated organisation (a good example). A GP co-owner can refer to in-house services. He discloses his interest, tells patients they can use other providers, and does not pressure colleagues, whose employment carries no incentives or consequences tied to in-house referral.
Performance targets in a physiotherapy clinic (a good example). The owner expects around 80 per cent of appointment capacity to be filled, but keeps practitioner performance separate from directions on clinical care, and does not link the measure to a particular treatment, client or product.
A rural pharmacy (a good example). A pharmacist who part-owns the town’s only pharmacy discloses his interest and tells the patient they are under no obligation to have their medicine dispensed there.

What it means for your marketing

Website

A “we may receive a benefit” disclaimer in your footer or terms is fine to keep, but it is not disclosure. Make sure the patient pathway includes disclosure during consultation and consent.
Review product-led pages. If your site presents one product or one treatment as the answer, with a consultation that leads to supply of that product, the guidance’s comments on single-product and vertically integrated models are directly relevant.
Avoid copy that implies a predetermined outcome, such as “get your prescription today”, which sits uneasily with assessment based on individual clinical need. Related guidance published on 16 September 2026 says patient demand alone is not a valid reason to prescribe.
Where practitioners appear in product content, identify any financial interest they have and plan how it is disclosed to patients.

Google Business Profile and reviews

The guidance does not change review rules, but if your profile promotes a product your practitioners have an interest in, the same disclosure expectations apply in the consultation room.

Social media and influencers

Practitioners who endorse products on social media, or who are paid by suppliers, have an interest in those products. A paid partnership label may satisfy platform rules, but under this guidance it does not satisfy the practitioner’s duty to disclose to each patient. If you run practitioner-led content for a product range you sell, plan for both.

Paid ads and sales funnels

Marketing targets are normal, but be careful how they reach clinicians. Targets for appointment volume, like the physiotherapy case study, can be managed. Targets, bonuses or commissions tied to prescribing or selling a specific product are the kind of incentive the guidance warns against. Conversion goals for “consult to prescription” or “consult to purchase” are worth reviewing with this in mind.

Email and SMS

Subscription and auto-renewal programs are named in the guidance. Messaging that pushes repeat purchases or renewals without a clinical review step may sit poorly with the expectation that services are based on clinical need.

In-clinic material

Point-of-sale displays and product brochures in consulting rooms are part of the patient experience. Make sure patients are told about alternatives, including products you do not stock, where clinically relevant.

Common mistakes we see

Relying on a website disclaimer as the disclosure.
Treating conflicts as only about money, and overlooking sponsored education, travel and free stock.
Owners who are not registered assuming the National Law does not apply to them. Section 136 applies to anyone.
Sales dashboards and bonuses for clinicians based on specific product sales.
Booking funnels designed so the only possible outcome is a purchase of the clinic’s product.
Practitioner endorsements of products in marketing with no plan for disclosing that interest to patients.

A practical checklist

List every financial or commercial interest your practitioners and your business hold in products, devices, services or referral destinations.
Add a disclosure step to consultation and consent processes, recorded in the clinical notes.
Review clinician incentives, bonuses and KPIs and remove any tied to specific treatments, products or prescribing outcomes.
Review marketing copy for predetermined outcomes and single-product messaging.
Check practitioner endorsements and paid partnerships, and plan how each is disclosed to patients.
Make sure patients are told about alternatives, including options you do not offer.
Check subscription and auto-renewal programs include clinical review.
Brief clinic owners and managers on section 136.
Note the outcome of the codes of conduct review when it is published, and update policies.

How this fits with other rules

Codes of conduct. The guidance applies existing code expectations. The Medical Board’s 2023 cosmetic practice guidelines, and the September 2025 non-surgical cosmetic practice guidelines, already required practitioners to avoid and disclose financial conflicts that could influence advice.

Related Ahpra guidance. Ahpra’s medicinal cannabis guidance of 9 July 2025 described single-product prescribe-and-dispense models as creating an inherent conflict of interest. Its guidance of 16 September 2026 on prescribing off-label, unapproved or compounded medicines said single-treatment telehealth models present an inherent conflict, that a website conflict declaration is not sufficient, and listed inappropriate advertising as a red flag.

Advertising rules. The National Law’s section 133 advertising provisions and Ahpra’s advertising guidelines still apply to how you promote services. The conflicts guidance adds expectations about what happens once a patient engages with you.

TGA. Prescription-only medicines cannot be advertised to the public. Ahpra has said it is working with the TGA on possible unlawful advertising, importation or supply of therapeutic goods.

Australian Consumer Law. Subscription terms and how prices are presented can also raise consumer law issues.

Frequently asked questions

Is the conflicts guidance binding?

It is described as interim guidance based on existing code of conduct expectations. Ahpra says the codes support consistent regulatory decisions when concerns are raised about a practitioner, so treat the guidance as describing what is already expected of you.

Is a disclosure on our website enough?

No. The guidance says declaring a conflict on your website, in advertising or on social media is not sufficient disclosure. Disclosure should happen with the patient as part of informed consent.

Can practitioners still earn money from products they sell?

Yes. The guidance says practitioners may profit from their profession and having a conflict is not inherently wrong, provided it is managed and patients’ interests come first.

Does this affect clinic owners who are not practitioners?

Yes. The section 136 offence of directing or inciting a practitioner to engage in unprofessional conduct applies to anyone, with maximum penalties of $60,000 for an individual and $120,000 for a body corporate.

Will the codes review change advertising rules?

We do not know yet. The announcement does not mention advertising or social media. The general advertising guidelines are separate and their review has not been announced.

Can we still respond to the codes review?

The scoping survey is open until Thursday 15 October 2026. Ahpra says later opportunities will be posted on its consultations page.

Need a hand?

If your marketing promotes products your practitioners prescribe or sell, it is worth reviewing your funnels, copy and incentive structures together. Our AHPRA compliance audit can look at both, and our compliance training helps owners and clinical teams understand where marketing ends and clinical responsibility begins. For telehealth and product-led clinics, we also review prescription medicine advertising through our TGA advertising compliance service.

This article is general guidance based on the published rules, not legal advice. Final responsibility for advertising sits with the registered practitioner, and complex situations may need independent legal advice.