MMI practice scenarios: health policy and society

These are original practice scenarios written for this site. They are not real interview stations, no university is named in the scenarios themselves and none is recalled from any real interview. Each university sets its own criteria, so treat these as thinking practice and not a prediction of what you will be asked.

The scenarios on health policy and society rarely have one right answer. A useful habit is to give balanced reasoning, respect different views and explain your thinking clearly and kindly. Universities publish their own criteria; Auckland, for example, lists eight attributes on its MMI page. This page does not take a party-political side, and it quotes no statistics. Where a point below is a value judgement, treat it as a prompt to think about, not as the one correct view.

ExamExplained is not affiliated with, endorsed by or sponsored by any university or the UCAT ANZ Consortium. We are run alongside a tutoring business (see /about); the universities' own pages always come first. Each university sets its own interview rules and criteria. Some, such as Adelaide, say they discourage reciting rehearsed responses, so use these scenarios to practise thinking, not to memorise answers.

These scenarios use Australian professional settings. If you are applying to a New Zealand school, also read the Medical Council of New Zealand's guidance and the university's own published MMI material.

If a scenario hits close to home: some scenarios mention a friend who is struggling. If you or someone you know needs support, call Lifeline on 13 11 14 or Kids Helpline on 1800 55 1800 (New Zealand: call or text 1737). In an emergency call 000 (New Zealand 111).

Scenario 1: Rural and remote access to care

Prompt

A town of 2,000 people has one part-time GP and the nearest hospital is a three-hour drive away. A resident says the town is being treated as second class. You are asked how health services should respond to this kind of gap.

What the station is probing

Whether you can weigh access, quality and cost without reaching for a single slogan.

A framework to think it through

• Name the barriers: distance, workforce, transport, cost, and fewer specialists.
• Separate fixes: attracting staff, telehealth, visiting services, and training locals.
• Note trade-offs: a small local service may see fewer cases than a city unit, but travel is itself a harm.
• Ask who decides and who should be consulted, including the community.
• Consider what is safe to do locally and what genuinely needs transfer.

Strong points to reach

• Some people argue that equal outcomes may need unequal resources; be ready to say why others disagree.
• Technology helps some needs (reviews, advice) but not others (emergencies, procedures).
• Communities should be partners in designing services.

Common traps

• Saying 'just pay doctors more' as the whole answer.
• Assuming rural patients all want the same thing.

Scenario 2: Waiting lists and fairness

Prompt

Two patients need the same non-urgent operation. One has waited eight months. The other has waited two but is a well-known local figure who asks to be moved up. You are asked how a fair system should handle this.

What the station is probing

Your sense of fairness, transparency and resistance to pressure.

A framework to think it through

• State the principle: clinical need and urgency first, then time waited.
• Ask what the criteria are and whether they are published and applied consistently.
• Consider why fame or influence should not matter, and what it would do to trust.
• Think about how to communicate a refusal kindly and clearly.
• Acknowledge that waiting itself can cause harm and that systems need honest information about expected times.

Strong points to reach

• Fair processes are transparent and the same for everyone.
• Urgency can legitimately override queue order; status cannot.
• Good communication reduces distress even when the answer is no.

Common traps

• Treating 'first come, first served' as the only fair rule.
• Ignoring the patient who is asking; they may be anxious rather than entitled.

Scenario 3: Vaccination and public health communication

Prompt

A local health service wants to raise vaccination rates in a suburb where many parents are hesitant. You are asked how you would communicate with them. You are not asked for your own view on any specific vaccine.

What the station is probing

Empathy, respect for autonomy and the ability to communicate evidence plainly.

A framework to think it through

• Start by listening: what are the specific worries, and where do they come from?
• Separate access barriers (appointments, cost, language) from concerns about the vaccine.
• Use clear, honest messages that admit uncertainty where it exists and avoid talking down.
• Consider trusted messengers such as GPs, pharmacists and community leaders.
• Balance individual choice with the community benefit that public health aims at.

Strong points to reach

• Hesitancy is often about trust and convenience, not ignorance.
• Shaming people entrenches positions.
• Respecting a person does not mean agreeing with every claim.

Common traps

• Lecturing with statistics and no listening.
• Treating all hesitant parents as the same group.

Scenario 4: An ageing population

Prompt

A councillor says that as the population ages, health spending will become unaffordable and services for younger people will suffer. You are asked to give a balanced response.

What the station is probing

Whether you can hold several considerations in view without catastrophising or dismissing the concern.

A framework to think it through

• Describe the likely pressures: more chronic illness, more demand for aged and palliative care, workforce needs.
• Note the benefits: older people contribute as carers, volunteers and workers.
• Consider prevention, community care and supporting people to stay at home.
• Think about how to avoid age-based assumptions about the value of treatment.
• Acknowledge that funding choices are for the whole community and involve value judgements.

Strong points to reach

• Many would frame ageing as a planning challenge; explain how you would avoid rationing by age alone.
• Prevention and primary care can ease later demand.
• Dignity in later life is a core goal of care.

Common traps

• Speaking of older people as a burden.
• Quoting numbers from memory to sound authoritative.

Scenario 5: Mental health stigma

Prompt

A teenager tells their school counsellor they would rather fail a subject than let friends know they are seeing a psychologist. Someone asks what a health system and a community can do about stigma.

What the station is probing

Compassion, practical thinking and awareness of how stigma affects help-seeking.

A framework to think it through

• Understand why people fear judgement: employment, friendships, being labelled.
• Consider individual steps: privacy, language that is respectful, normalising talking early.
• Consider system steps: easier access, schools, workplaces, and clinicians who model openness.
• Think about the limits of awareness campaigns by themselves.
• Respect that the teenager decides what to share, while keeping safety in view.

Strong points to reach

• Stigma reduces help-seeking, so it is a health issue as well as a social one.
• Confidentiality and its limits should be explained honestly.
• Everyday language from clinicians sets the tone.

Common traps

• Saying 'they should just be brave'.
• Treating all mental illness as one thing.

Scenario 6: Using AI tools in healthcare

Prompt

A clinic is trialling an AI tool that suggests possible diagnoses from a patient's symptoms. Some staff are enthusiastic and others are worried. You are asked how the clinic should think about using it.

What the station is probing

Whether you can weigh benefit, accuracy, accountability and privacy.

A framework to think it through

• Ask what the tool is for and how it was tested, including on people like the clinic's patients.
• Consider benefits: speed, a second look, catching rare conditions.
• Consider risks: errors, bias in training data, over-reliance, and patient data security.
• Ask who is accountable when it is wrong; clinicians remain responsible for decisions.
• Think about telling patients and obtaining their consent where appropriate.

Strong points to reach

• A tool supports judgement; it does not replace it.
• Patients should know when it is used and how their data is handled.
• Monitoring after introduction matters, not only testing before.

Common traps

• Declaring AI will replace doctors, or that it is useless.
• Forgetting privacy.

Scenario 7: Indigenous health and cultural safety

Prompt

A health service wants to improve how Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander patients experience its clinics. You are asked where it should begin.

What the station is probing

Humility, respect and understanding that solutions are built with communities, not for them.

A framework to think it through

• Begin with listening to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and community-controlled organisations.
• Recognise that experience of past and present discrimination affects trust.
• Consider practical steps: employing Aboriginal health workers, welcoming spaces, flexible appointments.
• Think about cultural safety as defined by the patient's experience of feeling safe.
• Be honest about what you do not know and willing to learn.

Strong points to reach

• Partnership and shared decision-making, led by communities.
• Cultural safety is an ongoing practice, not a one-off training.
• Avoid generalising; communities and individuals differ.

Common traps

• Speaking about communities as a problem to fix.
• Claiming expertise you do not have.

Scenario 8: The cost of care

Prompt

A patient with a chronic condition says they have started skipping appointments because of out-of-pocket costs. You are asked what a clinician can do and what a system might consider.

What the station is probing

Awareness of how cost shapes health and your ability to respond practically and without judgement.

A framework to think it through

• Ask gently about cost without assuming; many people do not volunteer it.
• Consider what the clinician can do: prioritise tests, discuss options, refer to lower-cost services.
• Think about system questions: who pays, how, and how to protect the people with least capacity.
• Note that costs can be financial, time and travel.
• Recognise that debates about funding involve values on which reasonable people differ.

Strong points to reach

• Cost is a clinical issue when it changes what care a person gets.
• Non-judgemental questions build trust.
• A clinician cannot fix funding but can reduce harm within it.

Common traps

• Telling the patient to prioritise health over money.
• Announcing the 'right' funding model.

Scenario 9: Resource allocation

Prompt

A hospital has one intensive care bed left and two patients who might benefit. You are not asked to choose, but to describe how a fair decision could be made.

What the station is probing

Reasoning about fairness, transparency and the role of clinicians.

A framework to think it through

• Identify relevant factors: clinical need, likelihood of benefit, urgency.
• Name factors that should not decide: wealth, status, personal characteristics.
• Value a consistent, published process over ad hoc choices.
• Consider involving a senior team rather than one person.
• Think about supporting the family of the patient who does not receive the bed.

Strong points to reach

• Fair process matters as well as outcome.
• Decisions are shared and documented.
• Communication and compassion continue after the decision.

Common traps

• Jumping straight to picking a patient.
• Using social worth as a criterion.

Scenario 10: Health misinformation online

Prompt

A patient arrives convinced by an online video that a common treatment is dangerous and wants to stop it. You are asked how a doctor should respond and what else could be done.

What the station is probing

Respect for the patient combined with clear, honest communication.

A framework to think it through

• Ask what they saw and what worries them before correcting.
• Acknowledge that the concern is real, even if the claim is not.
• Explain what is known, with plain language and no jargon.
• Offer reliable sources and a follow-up conversation.
• Consider system actions: digital literacy, trusted public information, platforms' responsibilities.

Strong points to reach

• Listening first keeps the door open.
• Patients keep the right to decide.
• One conversation rarely changes minds; trust builds over time.

Common traps

• Dismissing the patient as foolish.
• Proposing censorship as a simple fix.

ExamExplained is not affiliated with, endorsed by or sponsored by any university or the UCAT ANZ Consortium.