Advertisement

Re: The need for healthcare reforms: is no-fault liability the solution to medical malpractice?

  • Kanny OoiEmail author
Commentary
  • 23 Downloads

In ‘The need for healthcare reforms: is no-fault liability the solution to medical malpractice?’(volume 11, issue 1 of ABR in March 2019; Rai and Devaiah 2019), Shivkrit Rai & Vishwas H. Devaiah looked at New Zealand’s no-fault liability system as a model from which the authors highlighted a number of advantages including greater efficiency in resolving medical malpractice claims, reduction in social cost and safer medical care.

I commend the authors on getting to grip with another country’s health system and distilling that in a paper. I am encouraged by their interest especially as New Zealand’s experience with no-fault injury compensation has long attracted attention from torts scholars and healthcare policy analysts (Bismark and Dauer 2006). However, some of Rai & Devaiah’s comments, particularly in the section headed ‘No-fault liability system as a possible solution’, do not portray an accurate picture of New Zealand’s Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) scheme and require...

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

I am a Senior Policy Adviser and Researcher at the Medical Council of New Zealand. Before that, I was an Investigator at the Office of the Health and Disability Commissioner. The views expressed in this commentary are my own and are not to be attributed to either organisation.

References

  1. Accident Compensation Corporation. ACC589 Getting help with an injury caused by treatment. Published June 2016. Accessed on 26 April 2019. https://www.acc.co.nz/assets/provider/e2099d6ec3/acc589-treatment-injury-help.pdf
  2. Accident Compensation Corporation. “What we cover.” Accessed on 23 April 2019. https://www.acc.co.nz/im-injured/injuries-we-cover/what-we-cover/
  3. Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Act. 1992.Google Scholar
  4. Bismark, M., and E.A. Dauer. 2006. Motivations for medico-legal action: lessons from New Zealand. J Legal Med 27 (1): 55–70.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01947640500533317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bismark, Marie, and Ron Paterson. 2006. No-fault compensation in New Zealand: harmonizing injury compensation, provider accountability, and patient safety. Health Aff 25 (1): 278–283.  https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.25.1.278.
  6. Bismark, M., E. Dauer, R. Paterson, and D. Studdert. 2006. Accountability sought by patients following adverse events from medical care: the New Zealand experience. Can Med Assoc J 175 (8): 889–894.  https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.060429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cervero, R.M., and J.K. Gaines. 2015. The impact of CME on physician performance and patient health outcomes: an updated synthesis of systematic reviews. J Contin Educ Health Prof 35 (2): 131–138.  https://doi.org/10.1002/chp.21290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chong, SA. The threat of malpractice suits falls even on good doctors. The Straits Times, 2019. https://www.straitstimes.com/opinion/when-doctors-are-sued-the-threat-of-malpractice-suits-falls-on-all-doctors-even-good-ones Accessed 26 April 2019
  9. Dyson R. 2004. Treatment injury to replace ACC medical misadventure. Accessed 23 April 2019. https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/treatment-injury-replace-acc-medical-misadventure
  10. Health and Disability Commissioner. 1996. Code of Health and Disability Services Consumers’ Rights. https://www.hdc.org.nz/your-rights/the-code-and-your-rights/
  11. Hill, A. 2017. The role of the Health and Disability Commissioner and the Code of Rights. In Cole’s Medical Practice in New Zealand, ed. Kevin A. Morris, 13th ed., 416–439. Wellington: Medical Council of New Zealand https://www.mcnz.org.nz/assets/News-and-Publications/V6-Coles-Medical-Book-2017.pdf. Accessed 4 June 2019
  12. Lillis, S. 2017. Maintaining competence. In Cole’s Medical Practice in New Zealand, ed. Kevin A. Morris, 13th ed., 153–159. Wellington: Medical Council of New Zealand https://www.mcnz.org.nz/assets/News-and-Publications/V6-Coles-Medical-Book-2017.pdf. Accessed 4 June 2019
  13. Manning, J.M. 2017. Does the law on compensation for research-related injury in the UK, Australia, and New Zealand meet ethical requirements? Med Law Rev 25 (3): 397–427.  https://doi.org/10.1093/medlaw/fwx019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Medical Council of New Zealand. “Recertification & professional development.” Accessed 23 April 2019. https://www.mcnz.org.nz/maintain-registration/recertification-and-professional-development/.
  15. New Zealand High Court. 1996. McLaren Transport Ltd v Somerville. 3 NZLR 424.Google Scholar
  16. New Zealand Supreme Court. 2010. Couch v Attorney-General (No 2). NZSC 27, 3 NZLR 149.Google Scholar
  17. Paterson, R. 2002. The patients’ complaints system in New Zealand. Health Aff 21: 70–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Rai, S., and V.H. Devaiah. 2019. The need for healthcare reforms: is no-fault liability the solution to medical malpractice? Asian Bioethics Rev 11 (1): 81–93.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s41649-019-00081-7.Google Scholar
  19. Wallis, K. 2013. New Zealand’s 2005 ‘no-fault’ compensation reforms and medical professional accountability for harm. N Z Med J 126 (1371): 33–44.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© National University of Singapore and Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Medical Council of New ZealandWellington CentralNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations