BACKGROUND: Eating disorders are a public health concern in Australia. In 2019, Medicare expanded publicly funded eating disorder treatment, covering up to 40 psychological and 20 dietetic services annually. This study evaluated service-user experiences and outcomes, identified predictors of symptom improvement and examined treatment costs and affordability. METHODS: Services Australia invited 27,658 individuals aged ⩾ 15 years who accessed Medicare eating disorder services since 2019 to complete a survey. The survey captured demographics, service use, satisfaction, outcomes and costs. Medicare Benefits Schedule data linkage provided objective service use and out-of-pocket costs. Logistic regression identified predictors of symptom improvement. RESULTS: A total of 2421 individuals (8.8%) responded. Most participants were satisfied with treatment (psychological 71%, dietetic 68%). Retrospective self-reported symptoms improved following both service types. Among respondents, 1959 (81%) consented to Medicare Benefits Schedule (MBS) linkage. Mean out-of-pocket costs per session were $60 (SE = 0.24) for psychological and $51 (SE = 0.36) for dietetic services. Five-year out-of-pocket costs were higher for psychological services (median $876) than dietetic services (median $335), though psychological care was more often considered affordable. Cost contributed to early treatment cessation (psychological 47%, dietetic 33%). Receiving 10-19 sessions (psychological odds ratio = 3.30; dietetic odds ratio = 3.37), ⩾ 40 sessions (psychological odds ratio = 2.64) and greater baseline severity (psychological odds ratio = 16.67; dietetic odds ratio = 25.0) were associated with increased likelihood of symptom improvement. CONCLUSION: Medicare-funded eating disorder services were associated with high satisfaction and improved symptoms. However, costs remain a key barrier, contributing to early cessation, despite greater perceived affordability of psychological care. Greater treatment intensity and baseline severity were associated with improved outcomes.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hall et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: