The specialist telehealth boom: What 432 mapped services reveal about virtual care
Virtual care &
telehealth in Australia
432 companies mapped across 6 subsectors — the most comprehensive view of Australian telehealth available.
services mapped
The rise of specialist telehealth: what 432 companies tell us about where virtual care is heading
Since the mid-to-late 2010s I've mapped healthtech in Australia, and later New Zealand. Prior to COVID, most services were effectively health IT and practice management systems, and a sprinkle of wellness apps on the periphery.
And then the pandemic arrived. Telehealth and virtual care exploded. Given it's now been over six years since those times, I expected the birth of new telehealth services to have peaked. And in general services, perhaps it has.
But from my daily research and mapping of healthtech, it appears "specialist" and alternative telehealth services are on the rise.
The HTD ANZ - Healthtech Directory now tracks 432 virtual care and telehealth companies across six subsectors. The breakdown is revealing.
GP and urgent care, the workhorse of pandemic-era telehealth, accounts for 89 companies. That's a mature, competitive segment where the major platforms are well established and the race to the bottom on pricing is already underway. Medicinal cannabis and alternative medicine follows with 67 companies, a segment that barely existed before legislative changes opened the door. Mental health sits at 50.
But the largest subsector by a significant margin is what I call Specialist and Niche. 178 companies, or 41% of the entire telehealth segment.
These aren't general practice replacement services. They're highly targeted clinics built around specific conditions, demographics, or treatment modalities. Weight loss clinics riding the GLP-1 wave. Hormone optimisation and TRT platforms. Peptide therapy coordinators. ADHD assessment services with waitlists shorter than the public system by months. Travel health. Smoking cessation. Remote physiotherapy and rehab. Longevity medicine.
And yes, there is room to further segment this subsector for even deeper accuracy (watch this space).
What's striking is how many of these have launched in the last two to three years, well after anyone would have predicted the telehealth boom to have run its course.
Why is this happening?
A few forces seem to be converging. First, the regulatory environment has matured. Prescribers, pharmacies, and patients are all more comfortable with the telehealth model than they were in 2020. The infrastructure such as prescribing platforms, compounding pharmacies and delivery logistics, is now in place and accessible to small operators.
Second, consumer expectations have shifted permanently. Having experienced the convenience of a video consultation or an online script, patients are not going back to a waiting room for conditions that don't require one. That creates a willing market for anyone who can deliver a specific clinical service efficiently and at reasonable cost.
Third, and perhaps most interesting, is the emergence of what I'd call the "clinical DTC" model, direct-to-consumer health services modelled more like subscription businesses than traditional practices. These services have learned from consumer startups: sharp positioning, clear messaging, frictionless onboarding. Whether that's a good thing for Australian healthcare is a separate conversation. But as a commercial model, it's working (we think).
What this means for the broader primary care landscape
For GPs and primary care networks, the proliferation of specialist telehealth services is both a threat and a signal. A threat because these services are capturing conditions such as weight management, ADHD, hormone health, chronic pain that have historically sat in general practice. A signal because it reflects genuine unmet need: patients who couldn't access timely, affordable, or convenient care through traditional channels.
The question isn't whether these services will keep growing. Based on everything I'm tracking, they will. The question is how the broader primary care system responds, and whether the integration between these new services and the GP-led care model improves, or whether fragmentation deepens.
That's the conversation I'm most interested in having. If you're working in this space, as a founder, clinician, investor, or system leader, I'd like to hear your perspective.
The HTD ANZ - Healthtech Directory tracks 2,358 healthtech companies across Australia and New Zealand. The virtual care and telehealth segment represents 18% of all services mapped. For access to the full directory or to discuss the landscape, reach out at terry@clinicaladvisors.com.au
Comments
Where a service is offering many types, I've put them in the "GP & Urgent Care" category.
For longevity and the like, I've chosen "Specialist & Niche" (this also includes services delivered by Specialist doctors eg. Paediatricians).
Allied health services (except mental health as this has its own category), are also in "Specialist & Niche", as are dental for example.
Some services are designed for a quick outcome, some are programs of care.
There is always going to be grey areas and disagreement over whether some services are actually "telehealth, eg. some could be argued as retail or EAP etc.
Some may disagree with the categorisation, or that some of these services are classed as Telehealth or Virtual Care at all - please send an email to terry@clinicaladvisors.com.au with suggestions.
Disclaimer: The information in this blog and directory is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. The inclusion of any business, service, or product does not imply endorsement, recommendation, or vetting by us. We do not guarantee the accuracy or quality of the listings, and users are strongly advised to conduct their own due diligence before engaging any provider.
