For the aesthetics industry to take control of its future, I believe a unified voice representing all stakeholders is the way forward. Words by Dr David Kosenko, president of the Cosmetic Physicians College of Australasia.
The past 18 months has seen numerous regulatory changes thrust upon the aesthetics industry. This has unsettled many health practitioners as well as businesses. It feels as if the changes have been implemented irrespective of the consultation processes and those in the industry feel that they have not been listened to.
This is both true and false. To understand what I mean by this, it is important to recognise the roles of the various regulatory bodies and the representative groups that lobby for their members interests. It’s complicated.
Health practitioners are registered by the various Boards under the umbrella of the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Authority (Ahpra) which sets the standards regarding education, continuing professional development and standards (including ethical standards). Whilst they are generally called Guidelines, they are in fact the benchmark by which professional behaviour will be measured against.
The Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) is a regulatory body that mandates how therapeutic substances are used in Australia, including their advertising. They are independent of Ahpra and the decisions they make are based on legislation and not professional standards. In addition, the various states have their own regulations. An example of this is the way in which practitioners are licensed to use lasers in the different states.
WE HAVE NO INFLUENCE IN HOW THE REGULATORY BODIES ARE STRUCTURED OF FUNCTION, BUT WE DO HAVE THE ABILITY TO INFLUENCE THE GUIDANCE AND PROPOSALS THAT OUR REPRESENTATIVE ORGANISATIONS PRESENT TO AHPRA, THE TGA AND OTHER ORGANISATIONS.
Lastly we have the various stakeholders who work in aesthetics – ranging from surgeons to doctors to nurses, dentists and others. Within each of these craft groups there can be several organisations representing a group of practitioners.
Without understanding the landscape within which we work it can be difficult to understand the changes happening around us. The various government and professional bodies have their own mandates and function largely independently of each other. Each has their own goals and makes their own decisions based on their mandate. Each professional body also strives to get the best outcome for their members.
Herein lies the problem; the regulatory bodies have their own framework within which to work and have no requirement to ‘work with’ other organisations to try to reach a uniform and complementary set of guidelines and regulations. There can be regulatory overlap and the advice at times seems contradictory.
Similarly, the industry representative groups do not work in a cohesive or co-ordinated manner and as a result promote the agenda of their members.
We have no influence in how the regulatory bodies are structured of function, but as individuals working in aesthetics we do have the ability to influence the advice, guidance and proposals that our representative organisations present to Ahpra, the TGA and other organisations.
Whilst it is true that this already takes place, it could be argued that it has been largely ineffective. Many submissions were made to Ahpra and the TGA in the past 18 months with little change occurring as a result of those submissions. Ahpra’s (medical) guidelines came into effect in 2023 essentially unchanged and the TGA was steadfast in their decision to restrict the use of certain terms in advertising.
We are still awaiting the outcome of the last Ahpra draft guidelines which will affect all non-medical practitioners working in aesthetics. Through discussion with the various regulators, it seems that the diverse and often contradictory opinions from our industry representatives has resulted in many of the submissions being effectively ignored. Simply put, there was no industry consensus to guide them.
So what is the solution? How can we have more control of our future?
One solution could be to form an organisation with the goal of having a unified voice that represents all stakeholders. This body should aim to develop consensus statements that can be presented as needed to the various regulatory bodies.
The TGA indicated that the lack of this type of consensus was a factor in their recent decision-making process. Now that aesthetics is in the spotlight, we can expect further scrutiny and it would be best if the industry was prepared in order to provide authoritative advice from a single body that represented those working in the sector.
Other goals could aim to enhance education, standards and ethics within the industry in order to improve patient safety and restore some of the public confidence that has been lost.
Ultimately, if the desired outcome is to have a voice and exert influence on the development of guidelines and regulations that dictate how we work, we should acknowledge that what has been done in the past has not worked well and aim to change the way health practitioners can collectively make representations in a more effective manner. This would be best done through a single industry representative voice.
The real question is whether this is achievable or just a dream. AMP
