THE PRESS MONDAY, APRIL 14, 1980. Inquiries before compensation

Press, 14 April 1980, Page 16

THE PRESS MONDAY, APRIL 14, 1980. Inquiries before compensation

The Medical Superintendent-in-Chief of the North Canterbury Hospital Board, Dr R. A. Fairgray, has expressed alarm about the power of the Accident Compensation Commission to gain access to confidential medical records. The chairman of the. commission, Mr K. D. Sandford, has said that the commission seeks confidential medical records on behalf of accident victims and to support their claims. Before records were sought, written permission to approach the appropriate authority was obtained from the accident victim, Mr Sandford said? 7 /

The community as a whole, and the great majority of individual accident victims, are unlikely to object to a system in which evidence of a patient’s medical condition is sought before payments are made in respect of a claim for accident compensation. To arrange matters otherwise would be to open the way to fraudulent or inaccurate claims.

The commission also has power to require people claiming compensation to siibmit themselves to examination by a medical practitioner nominated by the commission. Failure to comply with this requirement can lead to any:compensation payments being suspended. Once again, it would seem no more than reasonable that the commission should be able to have a check, from, a competent medical authority, on the condition of a person seeking help from the commission.

According to the chief solicitor for the Accident Compensation Commission, Mr J. W. Brown, the authority of the commission to obtain information from the records of a hospital board concerning the medical condition of an accident victim is governed by section 62 of the Hospitals Act, 1957. The authority is no more extensive than that of any other organisation or person entitled to access to an accident victim’s medical records. This authority is clearly limited and does not derogate from the provisions 'of the Evidence Act, 1908, which affords to a patient privilege against disclosure of information concerning his medical /condition without the patient’s consent; The provisions of the Accident Compensation Act, 1972, have not the scope of section 62 of the Hospitals Act. Section 146 .of the Accident Compensation Act authorises . the commis■f ■

sion to approach a hospital board on behalf of an accident victim for medical information which is necessary to allow the commission effectively to deal with a claim for compensation and rehabilitation benefits available to an accident victim. Without that authority, the required information would have to be obtained by each accident victim personally and be passed on to the commission.

The sheer volume of claims for compensation probably imposes a burden of form filling on doctors and hospital staff from whom information might? with the accident victim’s permission, be sought. In its first’ five years of operation the commission received claims from more than 600,000 people —that is, from one New Zealander in every five. In its last annual report to Parliament, made last August, the commission said that in the previous year 135,000 claims had been made; only 5000 of these were declined in whole, dr in part; almost $lOO million was spent, on compensation and medical treatment in the year. Some of that ainpuht was for continuing compensation on claims lodged in previous years.

The volume of claims, and the amounts being paid out for treatment, rehabilitation, and compensation, indicates that the system is working well, ati least from the point of view of the great majority of people who suffer accidents. Indeed, it has been argued in decent times that the provisions of the Accident Compensation Act may be too generous.

Such an attitude is to be resisted, as far as possible, for the ability of accident compensation to relieve misfortune in the community, with as little

fuss as possible, is enormous. But the ’Commission, and the law it administers, can only retain public respect and sup- ;; port if there; is general agreement that the commission is continuing to walk i the, difficult' line between unnecessary intrusions on privacy and ill-considered payments those who seek help.

On' the evidence available so far the commission is generally performing. this difficult task with tact towards claimants and. with respect towards those—chiefly employers—who are required to provide the money for treatment and compensation.