Health and Disability Commissioner Act 1994
Lee M. made this Official Information request to Minister of Health
Response to this request is long overdue. By law Minister of Health should have responded by now (details and exceptions). The requester can complain to the Ombudsman.
From: Lee M.
Dear Minister of Health,
The Code of Health and Disability Services Consumers’ Rights (the Code) was established by the Health and Disability Commissioner under the Health and Disability Commissioner Act 1994.
According to Section 3(h) of the Health and Disability Commissioner Act 1994, the interpretation of a "health care provider" includes "any health practitioner". Therefore "any (Medical Council of N.Z. practising and registered) health practitioner", irrespective of his or her role, must comply with the Code of Health and Disability Services Consumers' Rights.
However, when it comes to ACC claimants that have been directed by the ACC to undergo medical reviews and/or assessments, neither the Health and Disability Commissioner nor the Medical Council of N.Z. are willing or prepared to investigate legitimate and valid complaints regarding competence and/or conduct of health practitioners who perform assessments and reviews at the behest of the ACC. This leaves ACC claimants with no recourse in terms of their legitimate and valid complaints.
According to sections 11 and 12 of the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act 2003 medical assessments for third parties - such as the ACC - fall within
the definition of the practice of medicine and are a common feature of medical practice. It matters not whether the health practitioner is a treating or non-treating doctor. All are equally subject to the Code of Health and Disability Services Consumers' Rights.
A publication issued by the Medical Council of N.Z. titled "Non-treating doctors performing
medical assessments of patients for third parties" describes the standards that all health practitioners must adhere to, but, this only applies to medical reviews and/or assessments where the ACC claimant undergoes a "face-to-face assessment". Consequently the large number of ACC claimants whose reviews and/or assessments are paper-based are 'left out in the cold' insofar as their right to having their legitimate and valid complaints about medical competence and/or conduct investigated. In this regard, the "Non-treating doctors performing medical assessments of patients for third parties" publication states that they "should direct such complaints directly to the third party, as the party is best placed to address these concerns".
Of course, the "third party" being ACC and the review and/or assessment having been appointed and funded by the ACC, leaves the claimant with little to no chance of having their legitimate and valid complaints considered by an organisation who is neither responsible nor qualified to hold health practitioners to account. In other words, the ACC does not have the necessary experience, qualification, authority or jurisdiction to investigate complaints it regularly receives from aggrieved claimants. It is patently obvious too that it would have no interest in investigating, and much less so in finding fault with, anything done by a medical practitioner it has appointed and funded to write a report that is very often subjective, biased and heavily weighted towards the ACC's position. Thus ACC claimants whose claims are subject to paper-based reviews and/or assessments are finding no-one willing or able to consider their legitimate and valid complaints.
In addition, even though the Health and Disability Commissioner has legal obligations and responsibilities under the Health and Disability Commissioner Act 1994 and its Code that would in most cases require investigations to be conducted into all complaints it receives, the publication titled "Non-treating doctors performing medical assessments of patients for third parties" states that "... the conduct of a non-treating doctor during a face-to-face assessment may fall within the Health and Disability Commissioner’s jurisdiction".
With Section 38(1) of the Health and Disability Commissioner Act 1994 providing that the Commissioner may, at any time after completing a preliminary assessment of a complaint, and at his or her discretion, decide to take no action or, as the case may require, no further action on the complaint, aggrieved ACC claimants who have undergone "face-to-face assessment" with non-treating health practitioners, and who have raised legitimate and valid complaints with the Health and Disability Commissioner, are routinely being told that the Commissioner does not have jurisdiction to investigate such matters.and their files are then closed often with a letter being sent to them conveying this message and with advice that this office will engage in no further correspondence in the matter.
Against the background provided above, I am requesting that you provide me with;
1. Information about which entity, body or organisation has the necessary authority and jurisdiction, and is responsible for investigating ACC claimant complaints about the contents of face-to-face review and/or assessment reports, and what statute or other legislation applies in this case. And, if there is no such entity, body or organisation, why not?
2. Information about which entity, body or organisation has the necessary authority and jurisdiction, and is responsible for investigating ACC claimant complaints about paper-based review and/or assessment reports, and what statute or other legislation applies in this case. And, if there is no such entity, body or organisation, why not?
3. Information about which entity, body or organisation has the necessary authority and jurisdiction, and is responsible for ACC claimant complaints about the conduct of non-treating health practitioners at face-to-face reviews and/or assessments.
Yours faithfully,
Lee M.
From: Ashley Goodwin
Dear Lee M
On behalf of Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman, Minister of Health, thank you for
your email received 11 August 2016, requesting under the Official
Information Act 1982:
1. Information about which entity, body or organisation has the necessary
authority and jurisdiction, and is responsible for investigating ACC
claimant complaints about the contents of face-to-face review and/or
assessment reports, and what statute or other legislation applies in this
case. And, if there is no such entity, body or organisation, why not?
2. Information about which entity, body or organisation has the necessary
authority and jurisdiction, and is responsible for investigating ACC
claimant complaints about paper-based review and/or assessment reports,
and what statute or other legislation applies in this case. And, if there
is no such entity, body or organisation, why not?
3. Information about which entity, body or organisation has the necessary
authority and jurisdiction, and is responsible for ACC claimant complaints
about the conduct of non-treating health practitioners at face-to-face
reviews and/or assessments.
The information requested appears to be more closely associated with the
functions and responsibilities of Health and Disability Commissioner.
Accordingly I am transferring your request to the Health and Disability
Commissioner, Anthony Hill, under section 14(b)(ii) of the Official
Information Act 1982
Yours sincerely
Ashley Goodwin
Private Secretary - Health
Office of Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman
-----Original Message-----
From: Lee M. [mailto:[FOI #4425 email]]
Sent: Thursday, 11 August 2016 9:05 p.m.
To: J Coleman (MIN)
Subject: Official Information request - Health and Disability Commissioner
Act 1994
Dear Minister of Health,
The Code of Health and Disability Services Consumers’ Rights (the Code)
was established by the Health and Disability Commissioner under the Health
and Disability Commissioner Act 1994.
According to Section 3(h) of the Health and Disability Commissioner Act
1994, the interpretation of a "health care provider" includes "any health
practitioner". Therefore "any (Medical Council of N.Z. practising and
registered) health practitioner", irrespective of his or her role, must
comply with the Code of Health and Disability Services Consumers' Rights.
However, when it comes to ACC claimants that have been directed by the ACC
to undergo medical reviews and/or assessments, neither the Health and
Disability Commissioner nor the Medical Council of N.Z. are willing or
prepared to investigate legitimate and valid complaints regarding
competence and/or conduct of health practitioners who perform assessments
and reviews at the behest of the ACC. This leaves ACC claimants with no
recourse in terms of their legitimate and valid complaints.
According to sections 11 and 12 of the Health Practitioners Competence
Assurance Act 2003 medical assessments for third parties - such as the ACC
- fall within the definition of the practice of medicine and are a common
feature of medical practice. It matters not whether the health
practitioner is a treating or non-treating doctor. All are equally
subject to the Code of Health and Disability Services Consumers' Rights.
A publication issued by the Medical Council of N.Z. titled "Non-treating
doctors performing medical assessments of patients for third parties"
describes the standards that all health practitioners must adhere to, but,
this only applies to medical reviews and/or assessments where the ACC
claimant undergoes a "face-to-face assessment". Consequently the large
number of ACC claimants whose reviews and/or assessments are paper-based
are 'left out in the cold' insofar as their right to having their
legitimate and valid complaints about medical competence and/or conduct
investigated. In this regard, the "Non-treating doctors performing
medical assessments of patients for third parties" publication states that
they "should direct such complaints directly to the third party, as the
party is best placed to address these concerns".
Of course, the "third party" being ACC and the review and/or assessment
having been appointed and funded by the ACC, leaves the claimant with
little to no chance of having their legitimate and valid complaints
considered by an organisation who is neither responsible nor qualified to
hold health practitioners to account. In other words, the ACC does not
have the necessary experience, qualification, authority or jurisdiction to
investigate complaints it regularly receives from aggrieved claimants. It
is patently obvious too that it would have no interest in investigating,
and much less so in finding fault with, anything done by a medical
practitioner it has appointed and funded to write a report that is very
often subjective, biased and heavily weighted towards the ACC's position.
Thus ACC claimants whose claims are subject to paper-based reviews and/or
assessments are finding no-one willing or able to consider their
legitimate and valid complaints.
In addition, even though the Health and Disability Commissioner has legal
obligations and responsibilities under the Health and Disability
Commissioner Act 1994 and its Code that would in most cases require
investigations to be conducted into all complaints it receives, the
publication titled "Non-treating doctors performing medical assessments of
patients for third parties" states that "... the conduct of a non-treating
doctor during a face-to-face assessment may fall within the Health and
Disability Commissioner’s jurisdiction".
With Section 38(1) of the Health and Disability Commissioner Act 1994
providing that the Commissioner may, at any time after completing a
preliminary assessment of a complaint, and at his or her discretion,
decide to take no action or, as the case may require, no further action on
the complaint, aggrieved ACC claimants who have undergone "face-to-face
assessment" with non-treating health practitioners, and who have raised
legitimate and valid complaints with the Health and Disability
Commissioner, are routinely being told that the Commissioner does not have
jurisdiction to investigate such matters.and their files are then closed
often with a letter being sent to them conveying this message and with
advice that this office will engage in no further correspondence in the
matter.
Against the background provided above, I am requesting that you provide me
with;
1. Information about which entity, body or organisation has the necessary
authority and jurisdiction, and is responsible for investigating ACC
claimant complaints about the contents of face-to-face review and/or
assessment reports, and what statute or other legislation applies in this
case. And, if there is no such entity, body or organisation, why not?
2. Information about which entity, body or organisation has the necessary
authority and jurisdiction, and is responsible for investigating ACC
claimant complaints about paper-based review and/or assessment reports,
and what statute or other legislation applies in this case. And, if there
is no such entity, body or organisation, why not?
3. Information about which entity, body or organisation has the necessary
authority and jurisdiction, and is responsible for ACC claimant complaints
about the conduct of non-treating health practitioners at face-to-face
reviews and/or assessments.
Yours faithfully,
Lee M.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
This is an Official Information request made via the FYI website.
Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
[FOI #4425 email]
Is [Minister of Health request email] the wrong address for Official Information
requests to Minister of Health? If so, please contact us using this form:
https://fyi.org.nz/change_request/new?bo...
Disclaimer: This message and any reply that you make will be published on
the internet. Our privacy and copyright policies:
https://fyi.org.nz/help/officers
If you find this service useful as an Official Information officer, please
ask your web manager to link to us from your organisation's OIA or LGOIMA
page.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
hide quoted sections
From: Lee M.
Dear Ashley Goodwin,
Can you please provide me with a copy of your transfer letter to the Health and Disability Commissioner's office. Also, I am trusting that you and/or the Health and Disability Commissioner are cognisant of the fact that the 20 working day deadline falls on 20 September 2016 and that I need a response by then at the latest.
Yours sincerely,
Lee M.
From: Ashley Goodwin
Dear Lee M
Thank you for your email
The email as detailed below, was forwarded on to the office of the Health
and Disability Commissioner, Anthony Hill.
This email was accepted as a formal transfer by the commissioner’s office.
You may wish to contact the HDC office for an update on the progress of
your request, as the information you have requested is more closely
associated with the functions and responsibilities of Health and
Disability Commissioner.
The office contact details are included in the link below.
http://www.hdc.org.nz/contact-us
Kind regards
Ashley Goodwin
Private Secretary - Health
Office of Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman
From: Ashley Goodwin
Sent: Tuesday, 23 August 2016 12:37 p.m.
To: '[FOI #4425 email]'
Subject: Official Information request - Health and Disability Commissioner
Act 1994
Dear Lee M
On behalf of Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman, Minister of Health, thank you for
your email received 11 August 2016, requesting under the Official
Information Act 1982:
1. Information about which entity, body or organisation has the necessary
authority and jurisdiction, and is responsible for investigating ACC
claimant complaints about the contents of face-to-face review and/or
assessment reports, and what statute or other legislation applies in this
case. And, if there is no such entity, body or organisation, why not?
2. Information about which entity, body or organisation has the necessary
authority and jurisdiction, and is responsible for investigating ACC
claimant complaints about paper-based review and/or assessment reports,
and what statute or other legislation applies in this case. And, if there
is no such entity, body or organisation, why not?
3. Information about which entity, body or organisation has the necessary
authority and jurisdiction, and is responsible for ACC claimant complaints
about the conduct of non-treating health practitioners at face-to-face
reviews and/or assessments.
The information requested appears to be more closely associated with the
functions and responsibilities of Health and Disability Commissioner.
Accordingly I am transferring your request to the Health and Disability
Commissioner, Anthony Hill, under section 14(b)(ii) of the Official
Information Act 1982
Yours sincerely
Ashley Goodwin
Private Secretary - Health
Office of Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman
-----Original Message-----
From: Lee M. [mailto:[FOI #4425 email]]
Sent: Monday, 12 September 2016 9:51 p.m.
To: Ashley Goodwin
Subject: Re: Official Information request - Health and Disability
Commissioner Act 1994
Dear Ashley Goodwin,
Can you please provide me with a copy of your transfer letter to the
Health and Disability Commissioner's office. Also, I am trusting that you
and/or the Health and Disability Commissioner are cognisant of the fact
that the 20 working day deadline falls on 20 September 2016 and that I
need a response by then at the latest.
Yours sincerely,
Lee M.
-----Original Message-----
Dear Lee M
On behalf of Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman, Minister of Health, thank you for
your email received 11 August 2016, requesting under the Official
Information Act 1982:
1. Information about which entity, body or organisation has the
necessary authority and jurisdiction, and is responsible for
investigating ACC claimant complaints about the contents of face-to-face
review and/or assessment reports, and what statute or other legislation
applies in this case. And, if there is no such entity, body or
organisation, why not?
2. Information about which entity, body or organisation has the
necessary authority and jurisdiction, and is responsible for
investigating ACC claimant complaints about paper-based review and/or
assessment reports, and what statute or other legislation applies in this
case. And, if there is no such entity, body or organisation, why not?
3. Information about which entity, body or organisation has the
necessary authority and jurisdiction, and is responsible for ACC claimant
complaints about the conduct of non-treating health practitioners at
face-to-face reviews and/or assessments.
The information requested appears to be more closely associated with the
functions and responsibilities of Health and Disability Commissioner.
Accordingly I am transferring your request to the Health and Disability
Commissioner, Anthony Hill, under section 14(b)(ii) of the Official
Information Act 1982
Yours sincerely
Ashley Goodwin
Private Secretary - Health
Office of Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
[1][FOI #4425 email]
Disclaimer: This message and any reply that you make will be published on
the internet. Our privacy and copyright policies:
[2]https://fyi.org.nz/help/officers
If you find this service useful as an Official Information officer, please
ask your web manager to link to us from your organisation's OIA or LGOIMA
page.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
-----Original Message-----
From: Lee M. [[3]mailto:[FOI #4425 email]]
Sent: Thursday, 11 August 2016 9:05 p.m.
To: J Coleman (MIN)
Subject: Official Information request - Health and Disability Commissioner
Act 1994
Dear Minister of Health,
The Code of Health and Disability Services Consumers’ Rights (the Code)
was established by the Health and Disability Commissioner under the Health
and Disability Commissioner Act 1994.
According to Section 3(h) of the Health and Disability Commissioner Act
1994, the interpretation of a "health care provider" includes "any health
practitioner". Therefore "any (Medical Council of N.Z. practising and
registered) health practitioner", irrespective of his or her role, must
comply with the Code of Health and Disability Services Consumers' Rights.
However, when it comes to ACC claimants that have been directed by the ACC
to undergo medical reviews and/or assessments, neither the Health and
Disability Commissioner nor the Medical Council of N.Z. are willing or
prepared to investigate legitimate and valid complaints regarding
competence and/or conduct of health practitioners who perform assessments
and reviews at the behest of the ACC. This leaves ACC claimants with no
recourse in terms of their legitimate and valid complaints.
According to sections 11 and 12 of the Health Practitioners Competence
Assurance Act 2003 medical assessments for third parties - such as the ACC
- fall within the definition of the practice of medicine and are a common
feature of medical practice. It matters not whether the health
practitioner is a treating or non-treating doctor. All are equally
subject to the Code of Health and Disability Services Consumers' Rights.
A publication issued by the Medical Council of N.Z. titled "Non-treating
doctors performing medical assessments of patients for third parties"
describes the standards that all health practitioners must adhere to, but,
this only applies to medical reviews and/or assessments where the ACC
claimant undergoes a "face-to-face assessment". Consequently the large
number of ACC claimants whose reviews and/or assessments are paper-based
are 'left out in the cold' insofar as their right to having their
legitimate and valid complaints about medical competence and/or conduct
investigated. In this regard, the "Non-treating doctors performing
medical assessments of patients for third parties" publication states that
they "should direct such complaints directly to the third party, as the
party is best placed to address these concerns".
Of course, the "third party" being ACC and the review and/or assessment
having been appointed and funded by the ACC, leaves the claimant with
little to no chance of having their legitimate and valid complaints
considered by an organisation who is neither responsible nor qualified to
hold health practitioners to account. In other words, the ACC does not
have the necessary experience, qualification, authority or jurisdiction to
investigate complaints it regularly receives from aggrieved claimants. It
is patently obvious too that it would have no interest in investigating,
and much less so in finding fault with, anything done by a medical
practitioner it has appointed and funded to write a report that is very
often subjective, biased and heavily weighted towards the ACC's position.
Thus ACC claimants whose claims are subject to paper-based reviews and/or
assessments are finding no-one willing or able to consider their
legitimate and valid complaints.
In addition, even though the Health and Disability Commissioner has legal
obligations and responsibilities under the Health and Disability
Commissioner Act 1994 and its Code that would in most cases require
investigations to be conducted into all complaints it receives, the
publication titled "Non-treating doctors performing medical assessments of
patients for third parties" states that "... the conduct of a non-treating
doctor during a face-to-face assessment may fall within the Health and
Disability Commissioner’s jurisdiction".
With Section 38(1) of the Health and Disability Commissioner Act 1994
providing that the Commissioner may, at any time after completing a
preliminary assessment of a complaint, and at his or her discretion,
decide to take no action or, as the case may require, no further action on
the complaint, aggrieved ACC claimants who have undergone "face-to-face
assessment" with non-treating health practitioners, and who have raised
legitimate and valid complaints with the Health and Disability
Commissioner, are routinely being told that the Commissioner does not have
jurisdiction to investigate such matters.and their files are then closed
often with a letter being sent to them conveying this message and with
advice that this office will engage in no further correspondence in the
matter.
Against the background provided above, I am requesting that you provide me
with;
1. Information about which entity, body or organisation has the necessary
authority and jurisdiction, and is responsible for investigating ACC
claimant complaints about the contents of face-to-face review and/or
assessment reports, and what statute or other legislation applies in this
case. And, if there is no such entity, body or organisation, why not?
2. Information about which entity, body or organisation has the necessary
authority and jurisdiction, and is responsible for investigating ACC
claimant complaints about paper-based review and/or assessment reports,
and what statute or other legislation applies in this case. And, if there
is no such entity, body or organisation, why not?
3. Information about which entity, body or organisation has the necessary
authority and jurisdiction, and is responsible for ACC claimant complaints
about the conduct of non-treating health practitioners at face-to-face
reviews and/or assessments.
Yours faithfully,
Lee M.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
This is an Official Information request made via the FYI website.
Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
[4][FOI #4425 email]
Is [5][Minister of Health request email] the wrong address for Official
Information requests to Minister of Health? If so, please contact us using
this form:
[6]https://fyi.org.nz/change_request/new?bo...
Disclaimer: This message and any reply that you make will be published on
the internet. Our privacy and copyright policies:
[7]https://fyi.org.nz/help/officers
If you find this service useful as an Official Information officer, please
ask your web manager to link to us from your organisation's OIA or LGOIMA
page.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
References
Visible links
1. mailto:[FOI #4425 email]
2. https://fyi.org.nz/help/officers
3. mailto:[FOI #4425 email]
4. mailto:[FOI #4425 email]
5. mailto:[Minister of Health request email]
6. https://fyi.org.nz/change_request/new?bo...
7. https://fyi.org.nz/help/officers
hide quoted sections
From: HDC
Please find attached our response to your information request.
_____________________________________
Health and Disability Commissioner
45 Queen St, Level 10, Tower Centre Building
PO Box 1791, Auckland 1140
NEW ZEALAND
0800 11 22 33
[1]www.hdc.org.nz
*************************************************************
The information contained in this document is confidential to the intended
recipient and may be legally privileged. You may not copy or disclose this
email to anyone without the written permission of the sender. It is not
necessarily the view nor an official communication of the Health and
Disability Commissioner. If you have received this email in error, please
notify the sender immediately and delete this message.
*************************************************************
References
Visible links
1. file:///tmp/www.hdc.org.nz
hide quoted sections
From: Lee M.
Dear nameless person at the HDC who replied to my information request
Your responses are ludicrous. You have not provided me with any of the information I am seeking.
I am giving you a further 20 working days to properly respond to my information request. If you do not do so by 13 October 2016 I will have no option but to complain to the Ombudsman.
Incidentally, do you not know that it is discourteous to sign a business letter but not disclose your name?
Yours sincerely,
Lee M.
From: HDC
Dear Lee M
Please find attached a response to your email of 15 September 2016.
Yours sincerely
_____________________________________
Health and Disability Commissioner
45 Queen St, Level 10, Tower Centre Building
PO Box 1791, Auckland 1140
NEW ZEALAND
0800 11 22 33
[1]www.hdc.org.nz
*************************************************************
The information contained in this document is confidential to the intended
recipient and may be legally privileged. You may not copy or disclose this
email to anyone without the written permission of the sender. It is not
necessarily the view nor an official communication of the Health and
Disability Commissioner. If you have received this email in error, please
notify the sender immediately and delete this message.
*************************************************************
References
Visible links
1. file:///tmp/www.hdc.org.nz
hide quoted sections
Things to do with this request
- Add an annotation (to help the requester or others)
- Download a zip file of all correspondence
Offensive? Unsuitable?
Requests for personal information and vexatious requests are not considered valid requests for Official Information (read more).
If you believe this request is not suitable, you can report it for attention by the site administrators
Report this requestAct on what you've learnt
Similar requests
Principle 6: Section 7(2) of the Privacy Act "overrides" Section 154(2) of the AC Act
To Privacy Commissioner by Lee M.
Information regarding out of scope diagnostics, patient notes and GP responsibilities
To Ministry of Health by M Smith
Lee M. left an annotation ()
The usual "fudged" reply where they write a lot but say nothing, and don't respond to your particular information requests.
Link to this