Health Ministry did act on complaint

Star, 2nd May 2008.

I REFER to the letter “No action taken to nab bogus doctor” (The Star, April 30). I would like to respond to the comments made with regard to the Private Healthcare Facilities and Service Act 1998 (Act 586) and the issue related to insurance companies.

He stated that the Act “seems more interested in penalising genuine doctors than bogus doctors”.

He notified the Health Ministry (MOH) about a bogus doctor working in the emergency department of a private hospital. We acknowledge receiving such a complaint and would like to clarify matters.

The complainant first wrote to the Malaysian Medical Council (MMC) on Sept 20, 2007, to inquire about the registration status of one foreign doctor, a Myanmar citizen, formerly employed by Universiti Malaya Medical Centre.

MMC referred the case to MOH for investigation. Subsequently, the MOH received another letter from the complainant regarding this matter.

The enforcement team of the Health Department of Federal Territory, Kuala Lumpur, visited one of the facilities of the alleged group hospital but could not trace the said doctor.

Another team from the Selangor State Health Department went to another hospital of the same group but was told that the service of the said doctor had been terminated.

Following this, the MOH issued a warning letter to the private hospital not to employ any non-registered medical practitioners. The latest follow-up visit by MOH officials on March 13, 2008, revealed that the group hospital has stopped engaging him.

I would like to remind all private hospitals and clinics to check the registration status and Annual Practising Certificate of any locum doctors they wish to employ.

It is the responsibility of the licensee or the holder of the certificate of registration to ensure that this requirement of engaging doctors be complied with, as provided for under Section 31(1)(c) of Act 586.

To date, the MOH has acted on 37 healthcare facilities with 39 offences (with one facility having two offences), 17 of which were operating without registration/licence and another 13 guilty of employing unregistered practitioners.

Three cases have been prosecuted. One pleaded guilty and two others are being heard. The rest of the cases are awaiting prosecution by Deputy Public Prosecutors.

Act 586 is effective in ensuring that bogus doctors are not wilfully employed by private hospitals or clinics. However, the law does not provide powers to prosecute bogus doctors directly.

To address this anomaly, the Medical Act 1971 is being amended.

With regard to the insurance issue raised in his letter, the MOH is addressing this issue by registering all Managed Care Organisations (MCO), including insurance companies that deal with patient care.

In addition, we will gazette them as health-related services, which will then allow us to regulate the MCOs under Act 586.

I hope the writer can contact me directly via e-mail (ismailmerican@moh.gov.my) or any of my officers should he have more information regarding any hospital or clinic that employs unregistered doctors. I also welcome any suggestions to improve our healthcare services.

TAN SRI DR HAJI ISMAIL MERICAN,
Director General Of Health, Malaysia.