Source: General Practice Owners Association (GenPro)
GenPro will continue to expose the gross unfairness of contracts imposed on general practices by Health New Zealand.
Wanting to force change to address the primary healthcare crisis, the General Practice Owners Association last year lodged a formal complaint that Health New Zealand is breaching the Fair Trading Act.
GenPro’s complaint to the Commerce Commission said general practices were effectively excluded from decisions crucial to achieving the best outcomes for the primary, urgent and mental health of New Zealanders.
However, the Commission decided that after a preliminary investigation it would take no further action, saying the majority of primary health organisation contracts fall out of its unfair contract term regime.
“While the Commission’s decision is disappointing, it doesn’t alter the fundamental issue which affects GenPro members and the healthcare of all New Zealanders,” says GenPro Chair Dr Angus Chambers.
“An unfair term is an unfair term regardless of the numbers of businesses affected. And the contracts imposed on us with minimal input are unfair. General practices are forced to accept funding levels with no negotiation by Health New Zealand and primary health organisations (PHOs).”
Dr Chambers acknowledged the Commission’s decision, which concluded that it couldn’t take further action because only approximately 80 general practice contracts with PHOs involve a sales turnover below $250,000 a year, which is the maximum threshold for small trade contracts in the Fair Trading Act.
“Ironically, if we’d been selling bananas rather than providing primary, urgent and mental health services, then most of our contracts would have been captured in the regime – the threshold for groceries is four times higher. This shows the folly of the very low ceiling in the Fair Trading Act for most businesses.
“GenPro is taking legal advice on next steps, noting it has limited options. We took this action because it is unfair, and ask the Commission to review its decision, which is to not investigate the unfairness affecting approximately 80 practices,” Dr Chambers says.
“We’re seeking advice because we believe that the Commission’s decision is based also on inaccurate assumptions – that the unfair terms are ‘required or expressly permitted’ by law.”
