FedRAMP Moderate covers 22.5% of Australia My Health Records Act 2012
9 of the 40 controls in Australia My Health Records Act 2012 are already satisfied by evidence you collected for FedRAMP Moderate. 31 are genuine gaps. Every claim below was judged against both control sets and then argued against; the ones that did not survive are published further down with the reason each failed.
What this leaves you to do
Australia My Health Records Act 2012 has 40 controls. Holding FedRAMP Moderate already evidences 9 of them, so the work in front of you is 31 controls, not 40, which is 78% of the standard rather than all of it.
That is the whole claim. Every number in that sentence comes from the two counts above it and can be re-derived from the free tools without taking our word for any of it.
In money, using only our numbers. The full report is $299 and names 9 controls of Australia My Health Records Act 2012 you do not have to implement again, which is $33.22 per control identified. That arithmetic uses our price and our count and assumes nothing about you.
In your hours, using your assumption. We do not know what a control costs you to implement, so pick the column that looks like your organisation. These are your figures, not our claim.
| If a control takes you | 4 hours | 8 hours | 16 hours |
|---|---|---|---|
| the 9 already evidenced are | 36 hours | 72 hours | 144 hours |
| and the 31 remaining are | 124 hours | 248 hours | 496 hours |
Multiply by your own rate. We publish no rate because we have not measured yours, and a number built on an invented rate is the kind of claim this platform exists to argue against.
This number is directional. It says how much of Australia My Health Records Act 2012 your FedRAMP Moderate evidence satisfies. The reverse pair is a different number, often very different, because a security standard has enormous depth for access control and almost none for lawful basis or data subject rights.
37 candidate mappings were examined and 0 were removed. Signed off 2026-08-19, review level machine verified. Mappings were judged by Claude Code rather than read line by line by a practitioner. Every claim shows its reasoning so you can check it. Ask and a practitioner will review this pair.
Where the gaps are
Coverage is never evenly spread. A source standard usually satisfies one part of a target almost completely and barely touches another, and which part is which is the thing worth knowing before you plan the work.
Theme level, not control level, deliberately. The per-control list of what is evidenced and what is a gap is the report itself, so publishing it here would be publishing the thing being sold.
Claims that held
A sample. Each one names the control whose evidence does the work, the control it satisfies, and why.
Mandatory external incident reporting to authorities within a fixed timeframe is the notification mechanism.
Incident response plan documents and implements the reporting path, reviewed and updated annually.
Formal personnel sanctions for policy breach is precisely the sanctions obligation here.
Signed rules of behaviour state prohibited conduct to personnel before access is granted.
Identity proofing resolves each individual to a unique identity before account access is granted.
Presented identity evidence must be validated and verified, which is the verification step required.
External service providers must meet the same requirements, with documented oversight roles and responsibilities.
External personnel security requirements with mandated change notification cover contracted service provider staff.
Claims that did not hold
Nothing proposed for this pair was rejected in review. That is unusual and worth knowing rather than hiding: it means the candidate set was small and every candidate held.
The full report
Everything above is a sample. The report is every evidenced control and every gap, with the reasoning and the source document behind each one, in a form you can hand to an assessor. $299, emailed immediately.
Buy this crosswalk