What Australian and New Zealand Regulators Actually Say About Overseas Cosmetic Surgery

By Dr. Rushapol Sdawat, MD — Thai Board-certified Plastic and Reconstructive Surgeon, Medical Licence No. 17689
Last reviewed: 28 AUG 2026

You have already read the clinic pages, and probably the warnings too, and noticed that the two sets of documents do not appear to describe the same world. One is full of smiling people and package inclusions. The other uses words like disfigurement, evacuation and death. Neither reads as though it was written by someone who expected you to read the other.

I am a plastic surgeon in Bangkok. Almost every commercial incentive I have points towards not showing you the second set of documents. I am going to show them to you anyway, in their own words, because a decision made on half the evidence is not a decision — it is a purchase. Then I answer each one, conceding what is fair. Some of it is fair.

What Ahpra actually regulates, and what it cannot reach

Ahpra and the Medical Board of Australia introduced a cosmetic surgery reform package that took effect on 1 July 2023. The Medical Board's then-Chair, Dr Anne Tonkin, said it was intended "to stop patients being exploited and reduce the risk of harm." Ahpra's then-CEO Martin Fletcher said the aim was to "raise standards, improve consent about surgery and raise the bar in advertising."

For patients in Australia, the practical effects include:

• "From 1 July 2023, anyone considering cosmetic surgery must first get a referral from their GP."

• "There must be a cooling-off period (of at least seven days) after you give consent, before you book the surgery (or pay)."

• A requirement that the practitioner tells you "the risks and possible complications", the "total cost" including deposits, refunds and "payments for follow-up care", and "the complaints process and how to make a complaint".

• "All cosmetic surgery must be performed in a facility that is appropriate for the level of risk involved."

• An endorsement for cosmetic surgery, which Ahpra says "will help consumers know who is trained and qualified to perform cosmetic surgery safely."

Ahpra also warns, about its own register, that "searching the register may not be enough to tell you whether they are qualified and experienced in the specific procedure." That is unusually candid for a regulator describing its own tool.

Here is the part that matters to you. Ahpra registers and regulates practitioners in Australia. I am registered by the Medical Council of Thailand, not by Ahpra. If you are unhappy with my care, Ahpra has no power over me and no register on which to record a finding against me. That is not a criticism of Ahpra; it is what national regulation is. Any facilitator who implies otherwise, or who waves at "international standards" as though they were a regulator, is misleading you.

What the Australian Society of Plastic Surgeons says

The Australian Society of Plastic Surgeons (ASPS) is blunt. It calls cosmetic tourism "a price-driven practice where patients travel overseas to undergo cosmetic surgery procedures", and states:

"Cosmetic surgery is real surgery and like all forms of surgery carries inherent risks."

"Australia holds very high medical standards which are often not met in other countries."

"In the event of post-operative complications, follow-up care is essential."

"ASPS does not recommend combining surgery with having a holiday."

"ASPS strongly advises against overseas cosmetic surgery tourism."

I agree with four of those five without qualification, including the one about holidays: combining an operation with sightseeing is the most common reason I see wounds break down. The fifth is a position, not a finding.

What ASAPS asked the government for after the 60 Minutes programme

On 9 August 2026, Australia's 60 Minutes aired "Destination Disaster," about Australian women left disfigured after cosmetic surgery at a large Bangkok operator. Two days later the Australasian Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgeons (ASAPS) called for government action, naming the marketing practice it holds responsible: "heavily curated patient stories, before-and-after content and positive recovery experiences [that] can create an impression of safety that may not show complications, recovery difficulties or longer-term outcomes." That criticism is correct, and describes most of the industry I work in.

The statement did not ask for overseas surgery to be banned. It asked for "a review of the regulation of Australian businesses that advertise, facilitate or sell overseas cosmetic surgery to Australians, with a view to ensuring they are subject to equivalent cosmetic surgery-specific advertising safeguards", and "a Federal Government-funded national public education campaign on the risks of cosmetic surgery tourism."

I support both. An Australian company selling you an operation in Bangkok should face the same advertising rules as one selling you an operation in Sydney. There is no principled reason for the gap, and the gap is where the worst marketing lives.

ASAPS's patient guidance is worth reading in full. It states that "the risks of having cosmetic surgery overseas can be serious, and in some cases, life-threatening"; that "overseas facilities often lack the strict safety standards, accreditation, and hygiene protocols required in Australia"; that "in some countries, surgeon titles aren't protected"; and that "in some countries, the surgeon you meet may not be the one who performs your operation." It estimates roughly 15,000 Australians travel overseas for cosmetic procedures each year, spending about $300 million, with revision needed in up to 7 per cent of cases, and advises that "in Australia and New Zealand, patients are advised not to fly for 6–8 weeks post-surgery" because of the risk of deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism.

What Smartraveller tells you before you fly

The Australian Government's Smartraveller service does not soften anything:

"There are always risks with medical procedures. You could suffer from complications, or you could die."

"If you have complications they can't treat overseas, you may need medical evacuation back to Australia. This can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars."

"Basic travel insurance policies rarely cover medical tourism."

Its advice is to talk to your doctor in Australia and get a health check at least six weeks before you go. I would add only this: bring that doctor's letter and your medication list with you.

What the Better Health Channel says about Thailand specifically

Victoria's Better Health Channel names Thailand first among destinations, and puts the saving at "as much as 80 per cent off the cost of the same procedure at home." It lists the risks as "lower quality surgical skills and practices that can lead to infection or disfigurement", "antibiotic resistant bacteria that can cause complications after surgery and may not be treatable", and "lack of follow-up after the operation."

On money it says "Medicare Australia is unlikely to cover overseas medical treatment, and private health insurance may not cover it either", and notes Australia has reciprocal healthcare agreements with only "11 countries, and these are mostly for emergency treatment only." Thailand is not one of them.

Its sharpest sentence is about liability: "The person having the procedure carries all the risk."

What NZAPS tells New Zealanders about ACC

The New Zealand Association of Plastic Surgeons states that "long flights and changes in altitude and pressure can complicate recovery from surgery, increasing the risk of blood clots, deep vein thrombosis (DVT), and other complications", and that "once they return home after their operation, the patient is essentially on their own."

On accident compensation it says:

"ACC does not cover injuries sustained from surgery overseas. New Zealanders needing care will have their emergent needs (eg. infection, wounds opening up) met through the public hospital system, but there is no guarantee that any treatment beyond this will make it through the public hospital waiting list system."

Where these bodies are right, and I will not argue

They are right that cosmetic surgery is real surgery. Augmentation, abdominoplasty and rhinoplasty all carry haematoma (blood collecting under the wound), seroma (fluid collecting), infection, wound breakdown, necrosis (tissue death at the edges of long incisions), nerve injury with numbness or weakness that is sometimes permanent, venous thromboembolism, unpredictable scarring, asymmetry, and the outcome hardest to talk about — a result that is technically sound and that you are nonetheless disappointed by. Distance adds the flight, and the fact that if something goes wrong in week three you are 7,000 kilometres from the person who operated on you.

They are right that follow-up is the weak point of the model, that titles are not protected everywhere, that ghost surgery happens, and that curated marketing creates a false impression of safety.

And some people should simply have their surgery at home, whatever the price difference: anyone with a significant clotting history, anyone whose cardiac or respiratory reserve makes a long-haul flight a risk in itself, anyone with poorly controlled diabetes or a BMI that materially raises wound and anaesthetic risk, anyone travelling alone, anyone whose expectations do not match their anatomy, and anyone who cannot comfortably absorb the cost of a revision. If that is you and a clinic is still encouraging you to book, that tells you something about the clinic.

Where the wording is broader than the evidence

Conceding the fair criticisms does not oblige me to accept imprecise ones. Several widely repeated statements are true as general warnings but wrong as absolute rules.

The statement, as commonly readWhat the source actually supportsWhat I would do about it"ACC does not cover injuries from surgery overseas"NZAPS states this flatly. Jonathan Wheeler's 2020 analysis in the Australasian Journal of Plastic Surgery (3(2), doi:10.34239/ajops.v3n2.204) found ACC "will accept a treatment injury only if the surgery has been performed by an appropriately qualified doctor," and that ACC "may cover some patients who have complications as a result of surgery undertaken overseas." Of claims lodged 2014–19, 76 related to overseas procedures.Cover turns on the surgeon's qualifications, not geography. Ask ACC in writing before you book — not the clinic, and not me."Overseas facilities often lack the strict safety standards, accreditation, and hygiene protocols required in Australia"ASAPS's word is "often," not "always." Accreditation is a checkable fact for any named hospital.Ask for the accreditation certificate number, and verify it with the certifying body rather than the clinic."Revision is needed in up to 7% of cases"ASAPS gives this as an upper bound, not a point estimate.Budget for a revision you may not need."The surgeon you meet may not be the one who performs your operation"Correct, and a real practice in parts of the industry.Get the operating surgeon's name and licence number in writing before paying a deposit, and verify it yourself."Medicare does not cover overseas treatment"Correct — and Australia has no reciprocal agreement with Thailand.It does not follow that you are uninsurable at home. A GP consultation in Australia attracts its normal rebate whatever prompted it."Cosmetic tourism costs the Australian hospital system heavily"An audit at the Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital found that of 331 breast implant removals, 8 (2.4%) involved overseas-inserted devices, costing that department above AU$110,000 — about 4 per cent of its explantation spending.The burden is real and worth naming, and smaller than "cosmetic tourism crisis" implies. Both can be true.

The one claim I contest directly is the implicit one: that "overseas" is itself the risk factor. It is not. The risk factors are an unqualified operator, an unaccredited facility, an unrealistic timeline, and a patient who was never properly assessed — all four available in Sydney, Auckland and Bangkok alike. Distance makes each harder to detect and much harder to fix, which is a serious argument for caution. It is an argument about diligence, not about latitude.

When to seek care

In a Bangkok hotel room, on a plane, or at home: chest pain, breathlessness, coughing blood, or a hot, swollen, painful calf means an emergency department immediately, by ambulance if you cannot walk. Do not contact your surgeon or clinic first. Pulmonary embolism is the complication most likely to kill you, and it does not announce itself politely.

Also emergency, same hour: bleeding soaking through dressings, a breast or abdomen swelling rapidly and becoming tight and painful (an expanding haematoma), fever above 38.5°C with shaking chills, spreading redness with dusky, blistered or numb skin, or sudden confusion or collapse.

Same-day review, not tomorrow: a wound edge going from pink to grey or black, discharge that has turned cloudy or foul-smelling, pain escalating rather than settling after day three, one-sided calf discomfort, or a temperature creeping up over 24 hours.

Back in Australia or New Zealand, go to a public hospital emergency department for anything in the first two groups. Do not fly, do not wait for a Bangkok appointment, and do not let embarrassment cost you time. Take your operation report and medication list, and send me the notes afterwards; I would rather be woken at 3am than read about it three weeks later.

What I would actually do in your position

I would read the ASPS and ASAPS pages in full rather than in the quotes I have selected. I would ask Ahpra's questions of any overseas surgeon exactly as Ahpra frames them for Australian ones — total cost, refund terms, who pays for follow-up, what the complaint process is — and refuse to proceed with anyone who answered vaguely. I would verify the surgeon's registration myself, and ask in writing who will operate, who will assist, and who reviews me on day one, day three and day seven. I would confirm what is covered with ACC or my insurer, in writing, before paying anything.

If, having done all that, you decide to have your surgery in Australia or New Zealand, you will have made a good decision and I will have helped you make it. That is an acceptable outcome for me. What is not acceptable is that you make it on the basis of a page that only ever shows you half the file.

Dr. Rushapol Sdawat (known to international patients as Dr. Dominic) is a Thai Board-certified plastic and reconstructive surgeon practising at Intrarat Hospital, Bangkok, Medical Licence No. 17689. He holds Thai Board certification in General Surgery (Phramongkutklao Hospital) and in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery (Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University), has been a member of ISAPS since 2008 and is an international member of the American Society of Plastic Surgeons. Dr. Rushapol holds Thai specialist certification; he is not registered with Ahpra and does not hold Australian or New Zealand specialist registration. His registration can be verified on the Medical Council of Thailand register at checkmd.tmc.or.th.

This article is provided for general information and education. It is not medical advice and cannot substitute for individual assessment by a qualified practitioner who knows your history. Surgery carries risk, including risk of serious complications and of outcomes that do not meet expectations. Results vary between patients.

ACC and Overseas Cosmetic Surgery: What New Zealanders Are Told, and What the Data Shows

By Dr. Rushapol Sdawat, MD — Thai Board-certified Plastic and Reconstructive Surgeon, Medical Licence No. 17689
Last reviewed: 28 Sep 2026

You have found two answers to the same question and they do not agree. Your national plastic surgery association says ACC does not cover injuries from surgery overseas. Somewhere else — a forum, a friend, a clinic — you have been told that ACC sometimes does. You would quite like to know which is right before you spend your money.

Neither is wrong, exactly. They answer slightly different questions, and the gap between them is where most New Zealanders considering surgery in Thailand end up deciding on a guess.

I am a plastic surgeon in Bangkok, and I have an obvious commercial interest in the more generous reading. So I will give you the sources, the published claims data, and the sentence that actually determines the outcome — then tell you to confirm all of it with ACC directly rather than with me.

What NZAPS tells New Zealanders

The New Zealand Association of Plastic Surgeons is unambiguous on its cosmetic tourism page:

"ACC does not cover injuries sustained from surgery overseas. New Zealanders needing care will have their emergent needs (eg. infection, wounds opening up) met through the public hospital system, but there is no guarantee that any treatment beyond this will make it through the public hospital waiting list system."

The same page warns that "long flights and changes in altitude and pressure can complicate recovery from surgery, increasing the risk of blood clots, deep vein thrombosis (DVT), and other complications", and — the most important sentence on it — that "once they return home after their operation, the patient is essentially on their own."

I would not soften any of that. The second half of the quoted passage is worth reading twice: even where the public system treats your emergency, that is emergency care. Getting a scar revised or an asymmetry corrected through a public waiting list is a different proposition, and often not one that happens.

What the ACC data actually shows

In 2020, the New Zealand plastic surgeon Jonathan Wheeler published an analysis of ACC's own cosmetic surgery claims in the Australasian Journal of Plastic Surgery — "Cosmetic surgery treatment injuries: the New Zealand experience both at home and from cosmetic surgery tourism," volume 3(2), doi 10.34239/ajops.v3n2.204. He reviewed ACC claims from 1 July 2014 to 30 June 2019, alongside a prospective hospital audit at Middlemore between March 2018 and March 2019.

The findings, briefly:

• 1,048 claims were lodged over the five years; 738 were accepted, about 70%.

• Total costs — treatment, lost earnings and rehabilitation — came to about NZ$6.3 million.

• Setting aside breast reconstruction, 76 claims related to procedures performed overseas and 620 to procedures performed in New Zealand.

• The overseas group included Thailand, Korea, Costa Rica, Malaysia and Turkey.

• Most claims involved breast reduction and reconstruction, breast implants and augmentation, and septorhinoplasty. Infection and haematoma were the most common complications.

• The hospital audit found nine inpatient and three outpatient cases treated for complications of overseas surgery in a single year at one hospital.

Seventy-six overseas claims is not zero. That number alone tells you the flat version of the rule cannot be the whole story.

Why "an appropriately qualified doctor" is the hinge of the whole thing

Wheeler is precise about the mechanism, and this is the passage that resolves the apparent conflict:

"It is more complicated for patients who have their treatment overseas as the ACC will accept a treatment injury only if the surgery has been performed by an appropriately qualified doctor. However, it is not well understood by health professionals in New Zealand that the ACC may cover some patients who have complications as a result of surgery undertaken overseas."

Read that sentence carefully. The condition is not where the surgery happened. It is who performed it. Geography is not the test; qualification is. He adds that because the position is poorly understood even among clinicians, "it is thought that many patients do not apply."

That is a very different proposition from "ACC does not cover surgery overseas." The answer for you personally depends on facts you can establish before you book: whether your surgeon holds a recognised specialist qualification, and whether that can be documented to ACC's satisfaction afterwards.

What a treatment injury is, and what ACC excludes

New Zealand's scheme is, as Wheeler describes it, "an automatic no-fault accidental injury compensation scheme," under which, if a complication of surgery "is accepted by the ACC as an unexpected occurrence, the cost of subsequent treatment and a proportion of lost income are covered."

A treatment injury is an injury caused to someone seeking or receiving treatment from a registered health professional. Cover generally requires that the treatment directly caused the injury, that a registered health professional was treating you, and that the injury is not a normal side effect of the treatment.

ACC's exclusions matter as much as its criteria. Cover is not available where the injury is "a necessary part or ordinary consequence of treatment", where it is "wholly or substantially caused by an underlying condition", where the complaint is simply that "desired results were not achieved", where the problem is "solely attributable to resource allocation", or where it amounts to "fair wear and tear of a prosthesis or device".

That third exclusion deserves emphasis, because it disappoints cosmetic surgery patients most often. Not liking your result is not a treatment injury. A scar that healed in the ordinary way, a breast that settled slightly differently from the other, a nose that is straight but not the nose you pictured — those are outcomes, not injuries, and ACC does not compensate for them. Neither, incidentally, do I.

Why more overseas claims are declined

Wheeler found that "the percentage of cases declined by the ACC was higher if the surgery had taken place overseas, which most likely reflects either a lack of clear documentation or the fact that the surgery was performed by a doctor whose credentials could not be confirmed."

Both causes are within your control before you fly, and neither is afterwards. This is the most actionable finding in the paper.

If you want a treatment injury claim assessed on its merits, you need two things in hand when you get home: a properly documented operation record, and verifiable evidence of your surgeon's qualifications. Get both before you leave Bangkok — the operation report, anaesthetic record, discharge summary, implant stickers and lot numbers, and the surgeon's full name and licence number. Photograph them. Email them to yourself.

What ACC does not cover, wherever you are

Separately, there are things ACC simply does not pay for, and clinics sometimes blur the two.

ACC does not cover your overseas treatment costs. It states that plainly for New Zealanders injured overseas, alongside exclusions for non-accident medical emergencies or illness, disrupted travel plans and lost deposits, and emergency travel for a relative — and adds, bluntly, "you'll still need travel insurance."

So even in the best case, ACC will not pay your Bangkok hospital bill. What may be available is cover for treatment you need in New Zealand afterwards, and a proportion of lost income. That is meaningful, but it is a domestic safety net, not an overseas insurance policy.

The conflict resolved: conditional, not contested

Put the sources side by side and the disagreement mostly dissolves.

The questionNZAPSThe published ACC claims analysis (Wheeler, 2020)What it means for youWill ACC pay for my surgery or my hospital bill in Thailand?Not coveredNot addressed — ACC does not fund overseas treatment costsNo. Budget accordingly, and hold travel or medical tourism insuranceCan a treatment injury claim be accepted for surgery performed overseas?"ACC does not cover injuries sustained from surgery overseas"ACC "may cover some patients who have complications as a result of surgery undertaken overseas"Sometimes. It is conditional, not impossibleWhat determines it?Not specifiedACC "will accept a treatment injury only if the surgery has been performed by an appropriately qualified doctor"The surgeon's qualifications, not the countryAre overseas claims harder?ImpliedYes — decline rates were higher, attributed to poor documentation or credentials that could not be confirmedCollect documentation and verify credentials before you travelWhat if I simply dislike the result?Not a listed pathwayExcluded: cover does not extend to cases where "desired results were not achieved"Not covered anywhere, by anyone, including in New ZealandWhat happens if I have an emergency after I get home?Emergent needs met through the public hospital system, but no guarantee for anything beyond that12 cases treated for overseas complications in one hospital in one yearYou will be treated. Go

The honest summary: NZAPS is giving safe general advice that will be correct for many people, particularly those who go to unqualified operators. Wheeler is describing the decision rule ACC actually applies. Those are not contradictory — they are a general warning and a specific mechanism, and the warning exists precisely because so many overseas patients cannot satisfy the mechanism.

What to get in writing, and from whom

This is where a clinic's incentives and your interests diverge, so I want to be very clear.

Do not take my word for any of this, and do not take any clinic's. Not NZAPS's paraphrase, not Wheeler's analysis as I have summarised it, and above all not mine. Contact ACC yourself, before you pay a deposit.

ACC's general claims line is 0800 101 996, Monday to Friday 8am to 6pm, or claims@acc.co.nz. From outside New Zealand, +64 7 848 7400.

Ask them, in writing, and keep the reply:

• Whether a treatment injury claim can be lodged for surgery performed outside New Zealand, and what ACC requires to establish that the operating surgeon was appropriately qualified.

• What documentation they would want from the overseas hospital, and in what form.

• What is and is not treated as an ordinary consequence of the specific operation you are considering.

• What happens to a claim if the injury is discovered months later.

An email from ACC is worth more than every reassurance on every clinic website in Thailand combined, including this one. If any clinic tells you they will "handle ACC" for you, or that ACC "always covers it," ask them to put that in writing over their own name and watch what happens.

What I tell New Zealand patients before they book

I would rather lose the booking than have you find this out in week three.

You will be flying home a long way, and NZAPS is right that flights raise the risk of deep vein thrombosis. In Australia and New Zealand patients are commonly advised not to fly for six to eight weeks after surgery, and no travel package I know of accommodates that. Your recovery will therefore involve a compromise, and you should decide consciously what it is rather than let your return ticket decide.

The complications that actually happen are the ones in Wheeler's data: infection and haematoma — blood collecting under the wound, which can need urgent return to theatre. Add seroma, wound breakdown, tissue necrosis at the edge of a long incision, nerve injury with numbness or weakness that is sometimes permanent, venous thromboembolism, scars that widen unpredictably, asymmetry, and a result that is technically sound and that you are nonetheless disappointed by. My board certification removes none of those. It changes what happens next, which is not nothing, but it is not the same thing.

And there are people I would tell to stay in New Zealand: anyone with a clotting history, anyone travelling alone, anyone whose leave will not stretch past the first complication, anyone who cannot fund a revision, and anyone whose expectation is more specific than the anatomy can deliver. If that is you, having the surgery at home — where ACC's decision rule is not in question and your surgeon is a bus ride away — is the better decision, and I will say so at consultation.

When to seek care

Emergency, immediately, by ambulance if you cannot walk — in a Bangkok hotel, in transit, or back in New Zealand: chest pain, breathlessness, coughing blood, or a hot, swollen, painful calf. That is possible DVT or pulmonary embolism, the complication most likely to kill you. Do not phone the clinic first. Also emergency: bleeding soaking through dressings, a breast or abdomen swelling rapidly and becoming tight and painful, fever above 38.5°C with rigors, spreading redness with dusky, blistered or numb skin, or sudden confusion or collapse.

Same-day review, not tomorrow: a wound edge turning grey or black, discharge that has become cloudy, thick or foul-smelling, pain escalating rather than settling after day three, one-sided calf ache, or a temperature climbing over 24 hours.

Back in New Zealand: go to an emergency department for anything in the first group, or see your GP the same day for anything in the second. NZAPS is right that your emergent needs will be met by the public system. Take your operation report, implant details, medication list and your surgeon's name and licence number — and ask your treating clinician to lodge an ACC claim for you, which ACC's own guidance says your health provider "can make... for you." Wheeler's finding that many eligible patients never apply is a reason to lodge and let ACC decide, not to assume the answer.

The thing I cannot promise you

I can tell you my licence number is 17689, that it is verifiable on the Medical Council of Thailand's public register, and that my Thai Board certification in plastic and reconstructive surgery is documented and can be provided to ACC in writing. Those facts are relevant to the "appropriately qualified doctor" test, and they are the reason I publish them.

What I cannot tell you is that ACC will accept your claim. That decision is theirs, on your facts, under their criteria, and no surgeon anywhere is in a position to guarantee it. Anyone who does is telling you something they have no authority to say.

Get it in writing from ACC. Then decide.

Dr. Rushapol Sdawat (known to international patients as Dr. Dominic) is a Thai Board-certified plastic and reconstructive surgeon practising at Intrarat Hospital, Bangkok, Medical Licence No. 17689. He holds Thai Board certification in General Surgery (Phramongkutklao Hospital) and in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery (Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University), has been a member of ISAPS since 2008 and is an international member of the American Society of Plastic Surgeons. Dr. Rushapol holds Thai specialist certification; he is not registered with Ahpra and does not hold Australian or New Zealand specialist registration. His registration can be verified on the Medical Council of Thailand register at checkmd.tmc.or.th.

This article is provided for general information and education. It is not medical advice and cannot substitute for individual assessment by a qualified practitioner who knows your history. Surgery carries risk, including risk of serious complications and of outcomes that do not meet expectations. Results vary between patients.

What Australian and New Zealand Regulators Actually Say About Overseas Cosmetic Surgery

By Dr. Rushapol Sdawat, MD — Thai Board-certified Plastic and Reconstructive Surgeon, Medical Licence No. 17689
Last reviewed: [SET DATE ON PUBLISH]

You have already read the clinic pages, and probably the warnings too, and noticed that the two sets of documents do not appear to describe the same world. One is full of smiling people and package inclusions. The other uses words like disfigurement, evacuation and death. Neither reads as though it was written by someone who expected you to read the other.

I am a plastic surgeon in Bangkok. Almost every commercial incentive I have points towards not showing you the second set of documents. I am going to show them to you anyway, in their own words, because a decision made on half the evidence is not a decision — it is a purchase. Then I answer each one, conceding what is fair. Some of it is fair.

What Ahpra actually regulates, and what it cannot reach

Ahpra and the Medical Board of Australia introduced a cosmetic surgery reform package that took effect on 1 July 2023. The Medical Board's then-Chair, Dr Anne Tonkin, said it was intended "to stop patients being exploited and reduce the risk of harm." Ahpra's then-CEO Martin Fletcher said the aim was to "raise standards, improve consent about surgery and raise the bar in advertising."

For patients in Australia, the practical effects include:

• "From 1 July 2023, anyone considering cosmetic surgery must first get a referral from their GP."
• "There must be a cooling-off period (of at least seven days) after you give consent, before you book the surgery (or pay)."
• A requirement that the practitioner tells you "the risks and possible complications", the "total cost" including deposits, refunds and "payments for follow-up care", and "the complaints process and how to make a complaint".
• "All cosmetic surgery must be performed in a facility that is appropriate for the level of risk involved."
• An endorsement for cosmetic surgery, which Ahpra says "will help consumers know who is trained and qualified to perform cosmetic surgery safely."

Ahpra also warns, about its own register, that "searching the register may not be enough to tell you whether they are qualified and experienced in the specific procedure." That is unusually candid for a regulator describing its own tool.

Here is the part that matters to you. Ahpra registers and regulates practitioners in Australia. I am registered by the Medical Council of Thailand, not by Ahpra. If you are unhappy with my care, Ahpra has no power over me and no register on which to record a finding against me. That is not a criticism of Ahpra; it is what national regulation is. Any facilitator who implies otherwise, or who waves at "international standards" as though they were a regulator, is misleading you.

What the Australian Society of Plastic Surgeons says

The Australian Society of Plastic Surgeons (ASPS) is blunt. It calls cosmetic tourism "a price-driven practice where patients travel overseas to undergo cosmetic surgery procedures", and states:

"Cosmetic surgery is real surgery and like all forms of surgery carries inherent risks."

"Australia holds very high medical standards which are often not met in other countries."

"In the event of post-operative complications, follow-up care is essential."

"ASPS does not recommend combining surgery with having a holiday."

"ASPS strongly advises against overseas cosmetic surgery tourism."

I agree with four of those five without qualification, including the one about holidays: combining an operation with sightseeing is the most common reason I see wounds break down. The fifth is a position, not a finding.

What ASAPS asked the government for after the 60 Minutes programme

On 9 August 2026, Australia's 60 Minutes aired "Destination Disaster," about Australian women left disfigured after cosmetic surgery at a large Bangkok operator. Two days later the Australasian Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgeons (ASAPS) called for government action, naming the marketing practice it holds responsible: "heavily curated patient stories, before-and-after content and positive recovery experiences [that] can create an impression of safety that may not show complications, recovery difficulties or longer-term outcomes." That criticism is correct, and describes most of the industry I work in.

The statement did not ask for overseas surgery to be banned. It asked for "a review of the regulation of Australian businesses that advertise, facilitate or sell overseas cosmetic surgery to Australians, with a view to ensuring they are subject to equivalent cosmetic surgery-specific advertising safeguards", and "a Federal Government-funded national public education campaign on the risks of cosmetic surgery tourism."

I support both. An Australian company selling you an operation in Bangkok should face the same advertising rules as one selling you an operation in Sydney. There is no principled reason for the gap, and the gap is where the worst marketing lives.

ASAPS's patient guidance is worth reading in full. It states that "the risks of having cosmetic surgery overseas can be serious, and in some cases, life-threatening"; that "overseas facilities often lack the strict safety standards, accreditation, and hygiene protocols required in Australia"; that "in some countries, surgeon titles aren't protected"; and that "in some countries, the surgeon you meet may not be the one who performs your operation." It estimates roughly 15,000 Australians travel overseas for cosmetic procedures each year, spending about $300 million, with revision needed in up to 7 per cent of cases, and advises that "in Australia and New Zealand, patients are advised not to fly for 6–8 weeks post-surgery" because of the risk of deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism.

What Smartraveller tells you before you fly

The Australian Government's Smartraveller service does not soften anything:

"There are always risks with medical procedures. You could suffer from complications, or you could die."

"If you have complications they can't treat overseas, you may need medical evacuation back to Australia. This can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars."

"Basic travel insurance policies rarely cover medical tourism."

Its advice is to talk to your doctor in Australia and get a health check at least six weeks before you go. I would add only this: bring that doctor's letter and your medication list with you.

What the Better Health Channel says about Thailand specifically

Victoria's Better Health Channel names Thailand first among destinations, and puts the saving at "as much as 80 per cent off the cost of the same procedure at home." It lists the risks as "lower quality surgical skills and practices that can lead to infection or disfigurement", "antibiotic resistant bacteria that can cause complications after surgery and may not be treatable", and "lack of follow-up after the operation."

On money it says "Medicare Australia is unlikely to cover overseas medical treatment, and private health insurance may not cover it either", and notes Australia has reciprocal healthcare agreements with only "11 countries, and these are mostly for emergency treatment only." Thailand is not one of them.

Its sharpest sentence is about liability: "The person having the procedure carries all the risk."

What NZAPS tells New Zealanders about ACC

The New Zealand Association of Plastic Surgeons states that "long flights and changes in altitude and pressure can complicate recovery from surgery, increasing the risk of blood clots, deep vein thrombosis (DVT), and other complications", and that "once they return home after their operation, the patient is essentially on their own."

On accident compensation it says:

"ACC does not cover injuries sustained from surgery overseas. New Zealanders needing care will have their emergent needs (eg. infection, wounds opening up) met through the public hospital system, but there is no guarantee that any treatment beyond this will make it through the public hospital waiting list system."

Where these bodies are right, and I will not argue

They are right that cosmetic surgery is real surgery. Augmentation, abdominoplasty and rhinoplasty all carry haematoma (blood collecting under the wound), seroma (fluid collecting), infection, wound breakdown, necrosis (tissue death at the edges of long incisions), nerve injury with numbness or weakness that is sometimes permanent, venous thromboembolism, unpredictable scarring, asymmetry, and the outcome hardest to talk about — a result that is technically sound and that you are nonetheless disappointed by. Distance adds the flight, and the fact that if something goes wrong in week three you are 7,000 kilometres from the person who operated on you.

They are right that follow-up is the weak point of the model, that titles are not protected everywhere, that ghost surgery happens, and that curated marketing creates a false impression of safety.

And some people should simply have their surgery at home, whatever the price difference: anyone with a significant clotting history, anyone whose cardiac or respiratory reserve makes a long-haul flight a risk in itself, anyone with poorly controlled diabetes or a BMI that materially raises wound and anaesthetic risk, anyone travelling alone, anyone whose expectations do not match their anatomy, and anyone who cannot comfortably absorb the cost of a revision. If that is you and a clinic is still encouraging you to book, that tells you something about the clinic.

Where the wording is broader than the evidence

Conceding the fair criticisms does not oblige me to accept imprecise ones. Several widely repeated statements are true as general warnings but wrong as absolute rules.

The statement, as commonly read	What the source actually supports	What I would do about it
"ACC does not cover injuries from surgery overseas"	NZAPS states this flatly. Jonathan Wheeler's 2020 analysis in the Australasian Journal of Plastic Surgery (3(2), doi:10.34239/ajops.v3n2.204) found ACC "will accept a treatment injury only if the surgery has been performed by an appropriately qualified doctor," and that ACC "may cover some patients who have complications as a result of surgery undertaken overseas." Of claims lodged 2014–19, 76 related to overseas procedures.	Cover turns on the surgeon's qualifications, not geography. Ask ACC in writing before you book — not the clinic, and not me.
"Overseas facilities often lack the strict safety standards, accreditation, and hygiene protocols required in Australia"	ASAPS's word is "often," not "always." Accreditation is a checkable fact for any named hospital.	Ask for the accreditation certificate number, and verify it with the certifying body rather than the clinic.
"Revision is needed in up to 7% of cases"	ASAPS gives this as an upper bound, not a point estimate.	Budget for a revision you may not need.
"The surgeon you meet may not be the one who performs your operation"	Correct, and a real practice in parts of the industry.	Get the operating surgeon's name and licence number in writing before paying a deposit, and verify it yourself.
"Medicare does not cover overseas treatment"	Correct — and Australia has no reciprocal agreement with Thailand.	It does not follow that you are uninsurable at home. A GP consultation in Australia attracts its normal rebate whatever prompted it.
"Cosmetic tourism costs the Australian hospital system heavily"	An audit at the Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital found that of 331 breast implant removals, 8 (2.4%) involved overseas-inserted devices, costing that department above AU$110,000 — about 4 per cent of its explantation spending.	The burden is real and worth naming, and smaller than "cosmetic tourism crisis" implies. Both can be true.

The one claim I contest directly is the implicit one: that "overseas" is itself the risk factor. It is not. The risk factors are an unqualified operator, an unaccredited facility, an unrealistic timeline, and a patient who was never properly assessed — all four available in Sydney, Auckland and Bangkok alike. Distance makes each harder to detect and much harder to fix, which is a serious argument for caution. It is an argument about diligence, not about latitude.

When to seek care

In a Bangkok hotel room, on a plane, or at home: chest pain, breathlessness, coughing blood, or a hot, swollen, painful calf means an emergency department immediately, by ambulance if you cannot walk. Do not contact your surgeon or clinic first. Pulmonary embolism is the complication most likely to kill you, and it does not announce itself politely.

Also emergency, same hour: bleeding soaking through dressings, a breast or abdomen swelling rapidly and becoming tight and painful (an expanding haematoma), fever above 38.5°C with shaking chills, spreading redness with dusky, blistered or numb skin, or sudden confusion or collapse.

Same-day review, not tomorrow: a wound edge going from pink to grey or black, discharge that has turned cloudy or foul-smelling, pain escalating rather than settling after day three, one-sided calf discomfort, or a temperature creeping up over 24 hours.

Back in Australia or New Zealand, go to a public hospital emergency department for anything in the first two groups. Do not fly, do not wait for a Bangkok appointment, and do not let embarrassment cost you time. Take your operation report and medication list, and send me the notes afterwards; I would rather be woken at 3am than read about it three weeks later.

What I would actually do in your position

I would read the ASPS and ASAPS pages in full rather than in the quotes I have selected. I would ask Ahpra's questions of any overseas surgeon exactly as Ahpra frames them for Australian ones — total cost, refund terms, who pays for follow-up, what the complaint process is — and refuse to proceed with anyone who answered vaguely. I would verify the surgeon's registration myself, and ask in writing who will operate, who will assist, and who reviews me on day one, day three and day seven. I would confirm what is covered with ACC or my insurer, in writing, before paying anything.

If, having done all that, you decide to have your surgery in Australia or New Zealand, you will have made a good decision and I will have helped you make it. That is an acceptable outcome for me. What is not acceptable is that you make it on the basis of a page that only ever shows you half the file.

---

Dr. Rushapol Sdawat (known to international patients as Dr. Dominic) is a Thai Board-certified plastic and reconstructive surgeon practising at Intrarat Hospital, Bangkok, Medical Licence No. 17689. He holds Thai Board certification in General Surgery (Phramongkutklao Hospital) and in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery (Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University), has been a member of ISAPS since 2008 and is an international member of the American Society of Plastic Surgeons. Dr. Rushapol holds Thai specialist certification; he is not registered with Ahpra and does not hold Australian or New Zealand specialist registration. His registration can be verified on the Medical Council of Thailand register at checkmd.tmc.or.th.

This article is provided for general information and education. It is not medical advice and cannot substitute for individual assessment by a qualified practitioner who knows your history. Surgery carries risk, including risk of serious complications and of outcomes that do not meet expectations. Results vary between patients.

ACC and Overseas Cosmetic Surgery: What New Zealanders Are Told, and What the Data Shows

By Dr. Rushapol Sdawat, MD — Thai Board-certified Plastic and Reconstructive Surgeon, Medical Licence No. 17689

You have found two answers to the same question and they do not agree. Your national plastic surgery association says ACC does not cover injuries from surgery overseas. Somewhere else — a forum, a friend, a clinic — you have been told that ACC sometimes does. You would quite like to know which is right before you spend your money.

Neither is wrong, exactly. They answer slightly different questions, and the gap between them is where most New Zealanders considering surgery in Thailand end up deciding on a guess.

I am a plastic surgeon in Bangkok, and I have an obvious commercial interest in the more generous reading. So I will give you the sources, the published claims data, and the sentence that actually determines the outcome — then tell you to confirm all of it with ACC directly rather than with me.

What NZAPS tells New Zealanders

The New Zealand Association of Plastic Surgeons is unambiguous on its cosmetic tourism page:

"ACC does not cover injuries sustained from surgery overseas. New Zealanders needing care will have their emergent needs (eg. infection, wounds opening up) met through the public hospital system, but there is no guarantee that any treatment beyond this will make it through the public hospital waiting list system."

The same page warns that "long flights and changes in altitude and pressure can complicate recovery from surgery, increasing the risk of blood clots, deep vein thrombosis (DVT), and other complications", and — the most important sentence on it — that "once they return home after their operation, the patient is essentially on their own."

I would not soften any of that. The second half of the quoted passage is worth reading twice: even where the public system treats your emergency, that is emergency care. Getting a scar revised or an asymmetry corrected through a public waiting list is a different proposition, and often not one that happens.

What the ACC data actually shows

In 2020, the New Zealand plastic surgeon Jonathan Wheeler published an analysis of ACC's own cosmetic surgery claims in the Australasian Journal of Plastic Surgery — "Cosmetic surgery treatment injuries: the New Zealand experience both at home and from cosmetic surgery tourism," volume 3(2), doi 10.34239/ajops.v3n2.204. He reviewed ACC claims from 1 July 2014 to 30 June 2019, alongside a prospective hospital audit at Middlemore between March 2018 and March 2019.

The findings, briefly:

• 1,048 claims were lodged over the five years; 738 were accepted, about 70%.

• Total costs — treatment, lost earnings and rehabilitation — came to about NZ$6.3 million.

• Setting aside breast reconstruction, 76 claims related to procedures performed overseas and 620 to procedures performed in New Zealand.

• The overseas group included Thailand, Korea, Costa Rica, Malaysia and Turkey.

• Most claims involved breast reduction and reconstruction, breast implants and augmentation, and septorhinoplasty. Infection and haematoma were the most common complications.

• The hospital audit found nine inpatient and three outpatient cases treated for complications of overseas surgery in a single year at one hospital.

Seventy-six overseas claims is not zero. That number alone tells you the flat version of the rule cannot be the whole story.

Why "an appropriately qualified doctor" is the hinge of the whole thing

Wheeler is precise about the mechanism, and this is the passage that resolves the apparent conflict:

"It is more complicated for patients who have their treatment overseas as the ACC will accept a treatment injury only if the surgery has been performed by an appropriately qualified doctor. However, it is not well understood by health professionals in New Zealand that the ACC may cover some patients who have complications as a result of surgery undertaken overseas."

Read that sentence carefully. The condition is not where the surgery happened. It is who performed it. Geography is not the test; qualification is. He adds that because the position is poorly understood even among clinicians, "it is thought that many patients do not apply."

That is a very different proposition from "ACC does not cover surgery overseas." The answer for you personally depends on facts you can establish before you book: whether your surgeon holds a recognised specialist qualification, and whether that can be documented to ACC's satisfaction afterwards.

What a treatment injury is, and what ACC excludes

New Zealand's scheme is, as Wheeler describes it, "an automatic no-fault accidental injury compensation scheme," under which, if a complication of surgery "is accepted by the ACC as an unexpected occurrence, the cost of subsequent treatment and a proportion of lost income are covered."

A treatment injury is an injury caused to someone seeking or receiving treatment from a registered health professional. Cover generally requires that the treatment directly caused the injury, that a registered health professional was treating you, and that the injury is not a normal side effect of the treatment.

ACC's exclusions matter as much as its criteria. Cover is not available where the injury is "a necessary part or ordinary consequence of treatment", where it is "wholly or substantially caused by an underlying condition", where the complaint is simply that "desired results were not achieved", where the problem is "solely attributable to resource allocation", or where it amounts to "fair wear and tear of a prosthesis or device".

That third exclusion deserves emphasis, because it disappoints cosmetic surgery patients most often. Not liking your result is not a treatment injury. A scar that healed in the ordinary way, a breast that settled slightly differently from the other, a nose that is straight but not the nose you pictured — those are outcomes, not injuries, and ACC does not compensate for them. Neither, incidentally, do I.

Why more overseas claims are declined

Wheeler found that "the percentage of cases declined by the ACC was higher if the surgery had taken place overseas, which most likely reflects either a lack of clear documentation or the fact that the surgery was performed by a doctor whose credentials could not be confirmed."

Both causes are within your control before you fly, and neither is afterwards. This is the most actionable finding in the paper.

If you want a treatment injury claim assessed on its merits, you need two things in hand when you get home: a properly documented operation record, and verifiable evidence of your surgeon's qualifications. Get both before you leave Bangkok — the operation report, anaesthetic record, discharge summary, implant stickers and lot numbers, and the surgeon's full name and licence number. Photograph them. Email them to yourself.

What ACC does not cover, wherever you are

Separately, there are things ACC simply does not pay for, and clinics sometimes blur the two.

ACC does not cover your overseas treatment costs. It states that plainly for New Zealanders injured overseas, alongside exclusions for non-accident medical emergencies or illness, disrupted travel plans and lost deposits, and emergency travel for a relative — and adds, bluntly, "you'll still need travel insurance."

So even in the best case, ACC will not pay your Bangkok hospital bill. What may be available is cover for treatment you need in New Zealand afterwards, and a proportion of lost income. That is meaningful, but it is a domestic safety net, not an overseas insurance policy.

The conflict resolved: conditional, not contested

Put the sources side by side and the disagreement mostly dissolves.

The questionNZAPSThe published ACC claims analysis (Wheeler, 2020)What it means for youWill ACC pay for my surgery or my hospital bill in Thailand?Not coveredNot addressed — ACC does not fund overseas treatment costsNo. Budget accordingly, and hold travel or medical tourism insuranceCan a treatment injury claim be accepted for surgery performed overseas?"ACC does not cover injuries sustained from surgery overseas"ACC "may cover some patients who have complications as a result of surgery undertaken overseas"Sometimes. It is conditional, not impossibleWhat determines it?Not specifiedACC "will accept a treatment injury only if the surgery has been performed by an appropriately qualified doctor"The surgeon's qualifications, not the countryAre overseas claims harder?ImpliedYes — decline rates were higher, attributed to poor documentation or credentials that could not be confirmedCollect documentation and verify credentials before you travelWhat if I simply dislike the result?Not a listed pathwayExcluded: cover does not extend to cases where "desired results were not achieved"Not covered anywhere, by anyone, including in New ZealandWhat happens if I have an emergency after I get home?Emergent needs met through the public hospital system, but no guarantee for anything beyond that12 cases treated for overseas complications in one hospital in one yearYou will be treated. Go

The honest summary: NZAPS is giving safe general advice that will be correct for many people, particularly those who go to unqualified operators. Wheeler is describing the decision rule ACC actually applies. Those are not contradictory — they are a general warning and a specific mechanism, and the warning exists precisely because so many overseas patients cannot satisfy the mechanism.

What to get in writing, and from whom

This is where a clinic's incentives and your interests diverge, so I want to be very clear.

Do not take my word for any of this, and do not take any clinic's. Not NZAPS's paraphrase, not Wheeler's analysis as I have summarised it, and above all not mine. Contact ACC yourself, before you pay a deposit.

ACC's general claims line is 0800 101 996, Monday to Friday 8am to 6pm, or claims@acc.co.nz. From outside New Zealand, +64 7 848 7400.

Ask them, in writing, and keep the reply:

• Whether a treatment injury claim can be lodged for surgery performed outside New Zealand, and what ACC requires to establish that the operating surgeon was appropriately qualified.

• What documentation they would want from the overseas hospital, and in what form.

• What is and is not treated as an ordinary consequence of the specific operation you are considering.

• What happens to a claim if the injury is discovered months later.

An email from ACC is worth more than every reassurance on every clinic website in Thailand combined, including this one. If any clinic tells you they will "handle ACC" for you, or that ACC "always covers it," ask them to put that in writing over their own name and watch what happens.

What I tell New Zealand patients before they book

I would rather lose the booking than have you find this out in week three.

You will be flying home a long way, and NZAPS is right that flights raise the risk of deep vein thrombosis. In Australia and New Zealand patients are commonly advised not to fly for six to eight weeks after surgery, and no travel package I know of accommodates that. Your recovery will therefore involve a compromise, and you should decide consciously what it is rather than let your return ticket decide.

The complications that actually happen are the ones in Wheeler's data: infection and haematoma — blood collecting under the wound, which can need urgent return to theatre. Add seroma, wound breakdown, tissue necrosis at the edge of a long incision, nerve injury with numbness or weakness that is sometimes permanent, venous thromboembolism, scars that widen unpredictably, asymmetry, and a result that is technically sound and that you are nonetheless disappointed by. My board certification removes none of those. It changes what happens next, which is not nothing, but it is not the same thing.

And there are people I would tell to stay in New Zealand: anyone with a clotting history, anyone travelling alone, anyone whose leave will not stretch past the first complication, anyone who cannot fund a revision, and anyone whose expectation is more specific than the anatomy can deliver. If that is you, having the surgery at home — where ACC's decision rule is not in question and your surgeon is a bus ride away — is the better decision, and I will say so at consultation.

When to seek care

Emergency, immediately, by ambulance if you cannot walk — in a Bangkok hotel, in transit, or back in New Zealand: chest pain, breathlessness, coughing blood, or a hot, swollen, painful calf. That is possible DVT or pulmonary embolism, the complication most likely to kill you. Do not phone the clinic first. Also emergency: bleeding soaking through dressings, a breast or abdomen swelling rapidly and becoming tight and painful, fever above 38.5°C with rigors, spreading redness with dusky, blistered or numb skin, or sudden confusion or collapse.

Same-day review, not tomorrow: a wound edge turning grey or black, discharge that has become cloudy, thick or foul-smelling, pain escalating rather than settling after day three, one-sided calf ache, or a temperature climbing over 24 hours.

Back in New Zealand: go to an emergency department for anything in the first group, or see your GP the same day for anything in the second. NZAPS is right that your emergent needs will be met by the public system. Take your operation report, implant details, medication list and your surgeon's name and licence number — and ask your treating clinician to lodge an ACC claim for you, which ACC's own guidance says your health provider "can make... for you." Wheeler's finding that many eligible patients never apply is a reason to lodge and let ACC decide, not to assume the answer.

The thing I cannot promise you

I can tell you my licence number is 17689, that it is verifiable on the Medical Council of Thailand's public register, and that my Thai Board certification in plastic and reconstructive surgery is documented and can be provided to ACC in writing. Those facts are relevant to the "appropriately qualified doctor" test, and they are the reason I publish them.

What I cannot tell you is that ACC will accept your claim. That decision is theirs, on your facts, under their criteria, and no surgeon anywhere is in a position to guarantee it. Anyone who does is telling you something they have no authority to say.

Get it in writing from ACC. Then decide.

Dr. Rushapol Sdawat (known to international patients as Dr. Dominic) is a Thai Board-certified plastic and reconstructive surgeon practising at Intrarat Hospital, Bangkok, Medical Licence No. 17689. He holds Thai Board certification in General Surgery (Phramongkutklao Hospital) and in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery (Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University), has been a member of ISAPS since 2008 and is an international member of the American Society of Plastic Surgeons. Dr. Rushapol holds Thai specialist certification; he is not registered with Ahpra and does not hold Australian or New Zealand specialist registration. His registration can be verified on the Medical Council of Thailand register at checkmd.tmc.or.th.

This article is provided for general information and education. It is not medical advice and cannot substitute for individual assessment by a qualified practitioner who knows your history. Surgery carries risk, including risk of serious complications and of outcomes that do not meet expectations. Results vary between patients.