Surgeons of a major hospital have been accused of taking bribes linked to the sale of medical equipment worth $2.8 million raising a new review of procurement practices and conflict of interest throughout the health system.
Investigators say the doctors accepted improper payments and benefits from suppliers in return for steering purchasing decisions raising concerns about governance failures in publicly funded healthcare and whether patient care was compromised by commercial influence.
The claims relate to a number of equipment purchases over several years with the total value of the contracts put at $2.8 million.
Authorities say the deals involved surgical devices and related products routinely used in operating theaters.
The surgeons said to be involved have not been convicted and the allegations remain subject to ongoing inquiries.
According to information released by the enforcement agencies the suspected conduct included undisclosed financial relationships between clinicians and sales representatives.
Health department spokespeople stated, “These allegations have been taken seriously, and it’s being reviewed.”
A spokesperson for the department went on to say, “Hospitals operate on trust and transparency especially when medical staff make decisions concerning specialist equipment purchasing.”
This incident has reignited concerns about how conflicts of interest are managed at hospitals particularly where there is considerable leeway for surgeons when it comes to product choice.
While it is critical to have clinical inputs to guarantee product efficacy and safety it is also important to ensure that this independence is not undermined by inducements from suppliers.
Karen Willis of an Australian university specializing in health governance was of the view that the risks in purchasing are likely to increase if there is a lack of oversight.
While $2.8 million of sales may not be an abnormal figure to find in a major hospital concerns arise when it comes to whether rival products are being valued equally and whether taxpayers were being overcharged.
They operate with tight budgets at many public hospitals and small variations in prices can go on to have larger implications when considering services.
The hospital that is involved has not been named in certain public accounts because of litigation concerns.
The hospital has confirmed that it is fully cooperating with the authorities and has withdrawn staff who are involved when necessary while the inquiries are ongoing.
The concerned medical board has also been informed so that the surgeons may face certain disciplinary measures in that respect.
For their part, the patients seem not to be implied in the consideration of the safety of the surgeries they underwent nor the standard of the equipment used.
What the case implies is the possibility of the commercialization of medical decision making, a point that has been an issue in the past in Australia and in the world in general.
As of now, no timetable has been given by the investigators for concluding the case.
For the moment it is a wake up call that even trusted fields of occupation are not immune from inquiries when vast amounts of public funds are at stake.
