8. Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) Link to this
to the Minister of Health
What reports has he received on doctors, pharmacists, rest home operators, and other health providers wrongly claiming public money, and what efforts are being made to recover this public money?
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) Link to this
I have received reports that a significant amount of public money that was misused has been repaid to the Ministry of Health as a result of comprehensive audit processes. The sanctions available to the district health boards and the Ministry of Health include prosecution and referral to professional bodies, but, often, genuine mistakes are made and can be resolved amicably.
Should providers who wrongly claim public money, either deliberately or inadvertently, be expected to pay it back; if so, why?
Generally, yes. However, the Ministry of Health is always careful to ensure that people who may be in breach of rules are judged solely on the rules that were in force at the time, not tighter rules drafted after the event.
Ann HartleyI am advised that since 1993 only 36 serious cases of fraud by health professionals have required prosecution. That is 36 cases in 13 years for a work force of around 100,000 people. Nearly everyone plays by the rules. The bad guys go to court.
If these people think they were following the rules and deny that they broke the rules, but the authorities say they did wrongly claim the money and it should be repaid, should not the Minister be requiring those people to repay the money that the authorities have said is owed?
Let me say to the member again that the Ministry of Health is always careful to ensure that people who may be in breach of rules are judged solely on the rules that were in force at that time, not tighter rules drafted after the event.
Does he stand by the report today: “ ‘We won’t repay,’ says Hodgson as Labour hits back at auditor”, and is he aware that many of the providers that his Government is requiring to repay the money were audited, and were given clean bills of health by their auditors and by the Ministry of Health, yet are still being required to pay the money; why are there two standards of obligation with this Government?
This Government operates one standard of obligation, and we are very careful that we not only obey the law but obey the spirit of the law—that is to say, we do not think it is a good idea to launder 92 percent of our election budget through a trust, by way of example.
Why does he think health providers who rip off the taxpayer have to pay it back, but does not think the New Zealand Labour Party has to pay it back?
Dr Jonathan Coleman Link to this
Is the Minister aware of the decision of the District Court that the withholding of public money from the compensation awarded to a Lake Alice Hospital second-round claimant by the Ministry of Health is unjust, does he not agree that the Government should pay back all other Lake Alice Hospital claimants who are in the same position, and does this jog his memory about any other debts he might have?