Proposed changes to ACC law are designed to make it easier and faster for deserving patients to win compensation.
They also aim to allow more patients to be covered.
The term "medical misadventure" would be replaced by "treatment injury".
To qualify for ACC medical misadventure cover, a patient's claim must stack up as
either a medical error, essentially negligence by the registered practitioner, or medical mishap. The latter is defined as a rare, but severe, consequence of treatment properly given.
An ACC review determined that the "rare but severe" criterion is arbitrary, leading to claimants unfairly missing out on cover.
It also found that in the error category, the requirement to establish that a provider is at fault:
* Is at odds with the "no-fault" ACC principle that establishing fault is not a condition of cover; and
* Hinders the claims process. Added to the current reporting requirements, the need to establish fault leads to health practitioners being reluctant to take part because of the potential consequences for them. They engage a lawyer and often contest decisions that go against them, which delays claims.
ACC is required to report error cases and patterns of mishaps to the relevant health registration authorities.
It stopped doing this in the mid-1990s after a law change but voluntarily resumed doing so after concerns were raised early in the Parry saga. Legislation then made reporting mandatory again.
The proposed changes before Parliament's health select committee would also alter ACC's reporting requirements.
If ACC found claim information showed a risk of harm to the public it would have to notify the appropriate health registration authority or the Director-General of Health.
Herald Feature: Health system
