The Guardian has reported that senior Australian executives at Bupa were collectively granted more than $14 million in performance bonuses just months before the health insurer admitted to misleading thousands of policyholders over their entitlement to claim for certain medical treatments.
The payments—disclosed under new Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) reporting requirements—were made to more than 20 senior staff in the 2023–24 financial year, even as the company faced ongoing regulatory investigation by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC).
In June, Bupa admitted to “misleading and deceptive conduct” and “unconscionable behaviour” between 2018 and 2023 that caused over 7,500 customers to cancel or delay procedures they were, at least in part, covered for. The insurer later agreed to pay a $35 million penalty, which the Federal Court has yet to confirm.
The ACCC’s case centred on “mixed coverage” claims—instances where patients made claims for multiple procedures and were wrongly told their policies did not cover any of them if one component fell outside policy terms. According to the regulator, this error forced many members to upgrade their cover unnecessarily or forego treatment altogether.
Bupa said it was “deeply sorry” for the impact of its conduct and noted that a remediation program begun in 2021 had already delivered $14.3 million in compensation to 4,100 affected members.
While the company was publicly apologising and repaying customers, internal disclosures reveal executives were simultaneously rewarded for “strong improvements in both business outcomes and customer experience.”
One senior executive received a $2.5 million annual bonus, more than double their $1.1 million base salary, with $2 million deferred to future years. Another 19 managers shared $11.6 million, half of which will be paid later.
The Consumer Health Forum’s chief executive, Dr Elizabeth Deveny, said such payouts “send the wrong message” following a breach of consumer trust. “It’s pretty hard to believe these executive bonuses are in line with community expectations,” she said.
Corporate governance specialists have also questioned whether Bupa’s remuneration structures align with accountability. Helen Bird, of Swinburne University, said executive pay practices often reveal “how a company is really governed.”
Bupa said the misconduct was “not the result of any one individual’s actions,” blaming systemic shortcomings in internal systems, processes and training. The company also stated that “appropriate action” had been taken, including disciplinary measures and financial penalties where warranted.
It remains unclear whether any clawback mechanisms will be applied to deferred payments. Several staff involved in the relevant business areas have since left the organisation.
The case adds to a string of recent high-profile governance controversies in corporate Australia, with Qantas and G8 Education among those criticised for large executive rewards despite public scandals and compliance breaches.
Under APRA’s new disclosure framework, insurers and banks must now publish detailed breakdowns of senior remuneration and risk outcomes. Regulators say this aims to “shine light on incentive structures” and ensure they do not reward poor risk management.
Meanwhile, the Financial Times reported that the $35 million fine stems from years of rejected legitimate claims, primarily in Bupa’s Australian division—which accounts for nearly half of the group’s £914 million underlying profit.
Bupa entered the Australian market in 2002 and has since become the country’s second-largest private health insurer, with 4.5 million members, alongside operations in aged care and medical centres.
While the Australian Medical Association stopped short of criticising Bupa directly, its president, Dr Danielle McMullen, said she remained concerned that executive pay and patient outcomes are increasingly at odds in private healthcare.
The final penalty will be determined by the Federal Court, but for now, Bupa faces an uphill task in convincing both regulators and consumers that its internal culture has changed.
