Today I’ve written a short reflection on AHPRA and the Medical Board of Australia’s (MBA) proposed options to reform the regulation of ‘late-career medical practitioners’ — ie, doctors over 70 years old — by requiring them to undergo regular health assessments. I will mostly let my short analysis published in the Conversation, speak for itself. However, I will add that, when one looks closely at the proposed options, the options do not seem to be overly onerous or burdensome.
That initial assessment, however, depends on whether the description of the reforms will in practice be transformed into something more detrimental to the rights and entitlements of practitioners. On my reading of the proposed reforms, doctors would not be obligated to report any health conditions to the MBA unless they reached a certain threshold (ie, posed a substantial risk of harm to patients). However, if a doctor were inclined to omit to perform this obligation — perhaps in contravention of the mandatory reporting rules under, eg, s 141B of the National Law — how, at a later stage, would the Medical Board discover that the practitioner had failed to make the mandatory report?
It seems to follow from this question that the envisioned regime will include a form of checking whether the practitioner has (1) undergone the required health check (obviously); but (2) complied with their reporting obligations under the National Law at the conclusion of that check. I wonder whether, pursuant to these requirements, a form or statutory declaration would be required from practitioners. Certainly, more could, and will, be written on the topic.
