NEW TGA REGULATIONS

By Stefanie Milla, Founding Director and CEO The Aesthetic & Beauty Industry Council

As the non-surgical cosmetic sector of our industry grapples with the recent wave of regulatory changes, ABIC has received hundreds of enquiries and questions, as apprehension looms large among professionals and patients alike.

Our industry landscape, once filled with innovation and accessibility, now finds itself in the midst of uncertainty. The newly released Therapeutic Drugs Administration (TGA) guidance, while aimed at enhancing safety and accountability, has inadvertently cast a shadow of doubt over our industry’s future trajectory.

As we all navigate these uncharted waters, the pressing question remains - what path will lead to a balanced approach that safeguards patient well-being while enabling practitioners to communicate effectively?

With the concern of potential unintended consequences as a result of the updated guidelines, the search for a new way forward has become more urgent than ever.

For context, let’s delve into the recent and more pertinent updates to TGA regulations to understand what has been clarified and what material alterations have been made.

In years past, the TGA provided the nonsurgical cosmetic field with acceptable terminology while communicating with our patients, which included the use of specific terms such as “dermal filler” and “antiwrinkle injections” by cosmetic clinics and practitioners to communicate the services offered to clients. This provision aimed to provide clarity and transparency to consumers seeking these treatments.

However, amidst evolving regulatory oversight and safety concerns, the TGA has revisited this stance, prompting a re-evaluation of industry practices and permitted types of communication.

The implications have been felt throughout the entire industry. These once-familiar communication practices, use of this clear terminology and visual evidence through before and after images, has now been clearly defined by TGA as not permissible.

While the intention behind these regulations is to uphold safety and transparency, their implementation raises questions about the balance between regulation and transparency for patients.

With the removal of descriptive terms and the prohibition of visual endorsements, practitioners are now navigating uncharted waters, where conveying their expertise and showcasing their results requires rethinking.

Moreover, patients, accustomed to informative resources and testimonials, now face new challenges in their decision-making process. The Australian industry is now challenged to chart a new course that upholds both regulatory compliance and the needs of its clients.

The more commonly expressed concerns which have emerged in response to this updated guidance centre on patients’ access to information and their ability to conduct thorough research. The opinion from many industry experts is that should the current iteration of TGA guidance remain unaltered, patients may find themselves restricted from obtaining pertinent information from credible Australian practitioners unless they undergo a formal consultation, inadvertently redirecting them to less regulated overseas sources for information.

Estimates suggest that patients may need to physically contact as many as 15 different practitioners to even locate a specialised practitioner in their desired field, subsequently consulting with approximately 5 to 7 of them.

These scenarios potentially highlight a significant surge in both the financial investment and time required to access services, inevitably constraining the amount of options available to patients compared to the current system.

The consensus from the majority of vocal practitioners is that the constraints are poised to hinder the extent of pre-research patients can undertake in their quest to select suitable Australian practitioners for consultation, diminishing their ability to make informed decisions.

Furthermore, industry response is that it will deprive patients of the opportunity to discern the specific treatments and areas of specialisation offered by Australian practitioners before engaging in consultation or direct inquiry.

Hence, the concern is that individuals seeking an Australian practitioner with expertise in specialised treatments like addressing the ‘tear trough’ area may find themselves unaware of a practitioner’s proficiency in these procedures until after initiating a consultation.

These circumstances are poised to potentially escalate patient expenditures, prolong the duration of the process, and reduce the array of choices available to Australian clients. In fact, our preliminary investigation reveals that current patients typically perform online research of up to 30 practitioners before selecting one to two for consultation.

However, under the new legislation, patients will face the arduous task of identifying Australian practitioners proficient in their desired area or specialisation, necessitating multiple consultations, each potentially costing upwards of $200 to gather information, scrutinise results, and ultimately make a decision.

The question that many practitioners are asking - Does this course of action genuinely serve the best interests of our patients?

Looking at this through another lens, our industry finds itself in a state of upheaval, with some practitioners compelled to undergo substantial transformations in their business models. This encompasses comprehensive overhauls of websites and the removal of years’ worth of established communication via online platforms and social media. Practitioners who have built their careers within the previously permitted TGA guidelines now confront the stark reality that significant portions of their work must be removed.

The cumulative impact of these changes could feasibly impose a financial burden approaching half a billion dollars on the industry, encompassing both direct costs and revenue losses over the forthcoming 12 months and impact all four sectors of the industry.

As the peak industry association, ABIC is steadfast in its commitment to representing the voices of both the industry and its clientele, and based on the feedback we have received, it is unequivocally evident that further consultation is needed to comprehensively understand the ramifications and unintended consequences of these guidelines.

We are your voice.

If you would like to share your feedback with us; email info@theabic.org.au.