Expanding the chronic condition management plans to support effective obesity care

PBS-funded GLP-1s could transform obesity care, but experts warn patients need greater access to multidisciplinary support if the investment is to deliver lasting results.

---

Obesity is widely recognised as one of Australia’s leading risk factors for illness and premature death, while also placing a substantial economic strain on society.

The impact of overweight and obesity is both clinically and economically significant, costing the Australian community an estimated $11.8 billion in 2018 and projected to rise to $87.7 billion by 2032 without effective intervention.^[1]

Improving access to effective obesity treatment would deliver meaningful gains in productivity and equity, along with reducing overall healthcare expenditure.

More than 500,000 Australians are now accessing GLP-1s, which are generally regarded as a revolution in weight loss treatment.^[2]

What is also generally accepted is that optimising patients’ health outcomes from these treatments requires accompanying them with lifestyle interventions such as diet and exercise, as well as support with side effects.

One of the most acute barriers to patient access to GLP-1s is their price. The imminent listing of Wegovy on the PBS, following a recommendation from PBAC in late 2025 for patients with BMI 35+ and established cardiovascular disease, will democratise this treatment for a priority population.^[3]

At the same time, the prospect of these patients not being able to practically access or afford wraparound care raises a genuine concern about the efficacy of some of this PBS expenditure: patients who cease treatment prematurely due to a lack of support to navigate side effects will likely put back on any weight lost, and those who do not address lifestyle factors will reduce both the sustainability of their weight loss and the broader health improvements that they could otherwise have achieved.

This concern presents an opportunity to re-examine the available pathways for government subsidisation for these types of allied health services for patients being treated for obesity.

The most established of these mechanisms are Chronic Condition Management Plans (CCMPs) under Medicare. However, while effective for some conditions, the model does not adequately meet the needs of patients seeking obesity treatment.

Effective obesity care requires more flexible service delivery and more frequent, multidisciplinary clinical engagement. To better support weight management at scale, the CDMP framework should be modernised and adapted to enable a broader range of models of care.

Key limitations of the current CCMP model

The CCMP provides a structured pathway for chronic condition management and enables multidisciplinary care via MBS rebates, improving access for patients who may not otherwise be able to afford allied health services. However, the framework is rigid and not well suited to complex conditions such as obesity.

One key limitation is the current cap of five allied health services per year, as patients seeking obesity management services often require more frequent interactions in the early stages of treatment to manage side effects, support behavioural change, and optimise adherence.

The model assumes patients can readily access in-person GP consultations to establish the initial CCMP,  which is often unrealistic given workforce and geographic constraints.

This disproportionately impacts rural and regional patients, who experience a 1.4 times higher burden of disease (a holistic measure of the impact of illness and death) compared to those in major cities.^[4]

The CCMP is further limited to in-person or synchronous telehealth consultations, excluding more flexible models such as asynchronous care via messaging and group-based sessions (except that the latter is available for patients with type 2 diabetes).

Although these approaches can improve access and reduce costs, they are not currently supported by the CCMP. As such, out-of-pocket costs remain high, with rebates frequently failing to cover the full cost of care, while the requirement for referral from a patient’s usual GP exacerbates additional access friction.

Finally, the model does not reflect how modern multidisciplinary care is delivered. Currently, pharmacists and nurses, outside of a specific practice, are excluded from eligible providers despite their critical role in medication management, patient education, and early-stage support. Patients often rely on these clinicians as the primary and most appropriate source of guidance on medication use, side effects, and adherence.

This type of support is not readily substitutable by other allied health providers, limiting the system’s ability to deliver timely, coordinated, and scalable care.

Relevance to obesity and GLP-1s

These limitations are particularly relevant in the context of obesity management and GLP-1 therapies. This is because effective obesity care typically requires sustained, multidisciplinary input, including dietary guidance, behavioural support, and medication management. Patients initiating GLP-1 therapies often benefit from more frequent, lower-intensity interactions, particularly in the early stages of treatment where side effects are most prominent and adherence is most fragile.

The current CCMP model, which emphasises a small number of longer, discrete consultations, does not align with this pattern of care. As a result, patients may not receive sufficient support to remain on treatment or to implement the lifestyle changes necessary to achieve durable outcomes. This creates a risk that otherwise effective therapies are underutilised or discontinued prematurely, reducing their overall clinical and economic value.

Recommendation

Targeted reforms to the CCMP –  either in the form of an obesity-specific stream, or more generally – would provide a practical and scalable way to improve patient outcomes while maximising the value of public investment in emerging therapies.

Such reforms should focus on improving flexibility, access, and alignment with contemporary care models, while also addressing the broader economic burden of chronic disease. Four potential structural changes could be:

1. Expand the range of supported service delivery models to include asynchronous care when appropriate, such as messaging, digital check-ins and group-based consultations. These models can deliver care more efficiently, reduce costs, and improve access, particularly in remote areas.
2. Increase or introduce flexibility to the current cap of five allied health services per year. High-touch conditions such as obesity require more intensive support at key stages of treatment, and the current limit does not reflect clinical need.
3. Broaden the range of eligible providers to include nurses (beyond practice nurses) and pharmacists. These professionals are essential for medication management, patient education, and ongoing monitoring, and their inclusion would improve care coordination and system efficiency.
4. Reduce access friction within the referral pathway, including reliance on a single “usual GP”, to enable more timely and flexible care utilising integrated communication channels and interoperable national medical records to address fragmentation.

Together, these changes would better align the CCMP with modern, scalable models of care, improving patient outcomes while supporting more efficient use of health system resources. And in the context of obesity treatment specifically, facilitating access to this type of wraparound care would optimise both patient health outcomes and the federal government’s expenditure on listing Wegovy on the PBS.

Dr Matt Vickers FRACGP is the Clinical Director at Eucalyptus

REFERENCES

^[1] Commonwealth of Australia, National Obesity Strategy 2022–2032: At a Glance – Summary with a Logic Framework (Report, Health Ministers Meeting, March 2022).

^[2] Commonwealth of Australia, National Obesity Strategy 2022–2032: At a Glance – Summary with a Logic Framework (Report, Health Ministers Meeting, March 2022).

^[3] Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee, November 2025 PBAC Outcomes (Report, Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, November 2025).

^[4] National Rural Health Alliance, Rural Health in Australia Snapshot 2025 (Report, February 2025).