AHPRA has issued interim guidance today targeting “one-stop shop” clinic models and practitioners recommending treatments, medical devices or assessments for financial gain.
While a review of the codes of conduct for the national boards is underway, the interim guidance outlined how to identify and manage commercial or financial conflicts of interest, which practitioners should consider alongside their profession’s code of conduct and professional standards, the regulator advised.
It also issued a word of warning directed squarely at employers.
“Under section 136 of the National Law, it is a criminal offence for anyone, whether or not they are registered practitioners, to direct or incite a registered health practitioner to do anything in the course of the practice of their profession that amounts to unprofessional conduct or professional misconduct,” the statement read.
“This includes inciting practitioners to place commercial interests above good patient care.”
Maximum penalties for individuals carry a $60,000 fine, while a body corporate could be fined a hefty $120,000.
Practitioners were urged to immediately report, via a survey, any emerging risks, business practices, or organisational arrangements that threatened public safety and undermined ethical professional judgement.
AHPRA chief executive Justin Untersteiner said the regulatory agency was concerned that vertically integrated models could jeopardise patient trust in practitioners and compromise clinical judgement.
“The onus is on practitioners to do the right thing, regardless of business model or employment arrangements,” he said in a media statement today.
“We take action when practitioners depart from the acceptable standards and also have the power to prosecute those who incite practitioners to do the wrong thing. Patient safety is our priority,” Mr Untersteiner said.
Related
AHPRA’s telehealth case studies of misconduct focused mainly on prescribers of medicinal cannabis and weight loss medications.
Examples included prescriptions sent via text, email, or online messaging platforms without sufficient patient information, and prescribing medicines the practitioner would profit from even if the patient’s history raised potential concerns.
While the national regulatory agency acknowledged conflicts of interest were not uncommon in healthcare, it advised employers against establishing incentives, objectives, or performance measures that would require practitioners to prioritise business interests over patient health and well-being.
“The financial benefit does not have to be money for a conflict of interest to occur. A financial benefit may be free training or education, travel or similar benefits that you would otherwise have had to pay for,” the interim guidance read.
Mitigating conflicts of interest included discussing a range of treatment options, including those not supplied by the practitioner or their organisation; recommending the best evidence-based treatment; thoroughly assessing patients before diagnosis or treatment; and referring patients to other practitioners when appropriate.
AHPRA said transparency and disclosure with each patient were also essential to informed consent. Declaring a conflict of interest on a website, in advertising or on social media was not enough.
RACGP president Dr Michael Wright told The Medical Republic this guidance was a “worthwhile” endeavour for newer prescribers and providers working in the “grey area” outside the MBS and PBS, who were often less regulated.
“It’s really helpful that AHPRA’s provided case studies that have highlighted where people are not doing the right thing – prescribing medications inappropriately or when [patients] haven’t had sufficient clinical assessment or [practitioners] are influenced financially. It’s really positive to see that they’ve also provided a pathway for us to provide feedback where there are problems,” he said.
“It really highlights to all of us [that] we really need to look at what other interests might be influencing our decisions.”
The announcement followed guidance issued last week on off-label prescribing and unapproved or compounded medicines, prompted by reports of harm from unapproved peptide products, including a patient who tore their oesophagus after taking a counterfeit peptide medicine.
TMR contacted corporate telehealth clinics Eucalyptus, Mosh, and Montu for comment but did not receive a response before deadline.
The post AHPRA’s ‘word of warning’ over commercial conflicts appeared first on Medical Republic.
Add Comment