G.M.S. case Judge refers to timing

Press, 31 May 1985, Page 4

G.M.S. case Judge refers to timing

PA Auckland A judge reserved his decision yesterday in an action seeking a review of the general medical services benefit. At the end of a four-day hearing in the High Court at Auckland, Mr Justice Vautier said he realised the importance of a decision before the August 1 date set for an increase in the level of the benefit. The action has been brought by three Auckland doctors, Michael Henderson Cooper, David Matthew De Lacey and Thomas Harry Marshall. They allege that the Minister of Health, Dr Bassett, misused his powers in introducing new criteria for the scheme this year. Appearing for them were Mr Paul Temm, Q.C., and Miss Jane Lovell-Smith.

Dr Bassett was represented by the Solicitor-Gen-eral, Mr Paul Neazor, Q.C., and Mr R. B. Squire. Mr Neazor said the general medical services benefit for children arose because the Minister believed a significant number of children did not have access to primary medical care. The scheme, he said, had two main elements: an increase in the benefit paid to doctors for a child consultation; and securing a limit on the amount the patient would have to pay the doctor. The purpose was not to control doctors’ fees as such, said Mr Neazor. Entry and withdrawal from the scheme were voluntary, the power to fix guideline fees was vested in a committee, and doctors could charge for longer or

more complex services without approval — simply with an explanation to the patient. Mr Temm said the purpose of the special arrangement for the child benefit had been to reduce the cost of medical expenses of the patient by controlling or putting a lid on doctors' fees. The scheme, he said, had haphazard results, and had not achieved its objective of helping the children of poor parents. The Minister should have identified such children and provided for them accordingly, said Mr Temm. “The purpose of the special arrangement is to limit medical expenses, which has been the dominating object in the Minister’s mind and which is not an authorised or legitimate use of his statutory power."