MEDICAL RECORDS

Ms PORTOLESI (Hartley) (15:32): I rise today to speak on the subject of medical records. Of course, I am aware that the legislation is before this parliament in another place with respect to a specific proposal. However, this afternoon I wish to speak more generally about this matter, which goes beyond the issues identified in the legislation. Today I wish to draw to the attention of this house the conduct of Dr Mark Utten regarding the handling of medical records that he owns. The Medical Board of South Australia has a guideline for patients: a document which commenced on November 2007 and which, according to my research, is scheduled for review in November 2008. I am unsure as to the genesis of the guidelines, but they are an attempt at transparency, and that can only be a good thing.

The guidelines make a number of important points. They describe the nature of the information that should be kept in medical records. They state that medical records should remain confidential between the patient and the medical practitioner, although staff of the medical practice may access the records. I have no argument with this. Importantly, they make it clear that the medical records are the property of the medical practitioner or practice that the patient attends. However, patients have the right to access the information contained in the records as provided under the commonwealth privacy legislation. Again, I accept that.

Now we come to the source of much of the angst in this debate, and that is the transfer of the medical records to a new medical practitioner. Importantly, the guidelines state that there is a professional obligation for a medical practitioner to provide the new treating doctor with all the information they need in order to take over the patient's care. They suggest that the new doctor arranges the transfer of the records from the previous treating doctor. This, of course, was the subject of the dispute in my electorate in relation to the Glynburn Road medical practice.

Nearly two weeks ago, I received a phone call from the lawyer of Mr Chraszcz, a constituent of the Attorney-General (I will not hold that against him) who is representing the landlord at the centre of this dispute. He was calling, rather strangely, to offer me the 10,000 medical records. It was very tempting, but why? It was because the building that housed the medical practice had been sold and settlement was anticipated within 24 hours. He now had these medical records in his possession that he no longer wanted, because a totally unrelated business was moving into the building. He had hoped that a medical practice would move into the building and he could have passed on the medical records.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

Ms PORTOLESI: Dr Portolesi; I will take your temperature later, Mr Attorney. I explained to him that the appropriate course of action was for him to forward the medical records to Dr Utten, who is now practising down south, and that former patients would be able to retrieve them from him—as is the case, I hope, in every other similar situation. Mr Chraszcz claimed that he tried to do this—and I have no reason to disbelieve him—but that Dr Utten placed a number of conditions on his acceptance of the records, including, for instance, that they be catalogued, ordered and boxed up in a particular way.

This was, of course, too hard and expensive for the landlord, and I suspect that is exactly the outcome Dr Utten wanted, because he has moved on from those patients and I suspect that he does not want to deal with them any more. Ironically, the landlord came to me for assistance and, through his lawyer, also approached the Department of Health and State Records. I am pleased to report that these records are now in the hands of the state government, basically because everyone else had bailed out.

I do not accept that in this case Dr Utten was upholding his professional obligation when he placed conditions on the acceptance of those files. The guidelines do not give doctors an out just because it is not convenient. This is the same Dr Utten, I believe, who, on 19 November 2007, in the middle of a fiery election campaign, presented Tony Abbott, former health minister, with a Most Innovative Health Minister award, which, of course, he is free to do.

Strangely, on the same day Tony Abbott announced that Dr Utten's Fountain Valley Medical Centre would become one of 25 family emergency medical centres planned across Australia, and that would attract $1.25 million in initial funding as well as $350,000 in recurrent funding if the government were re-elected. The final piece of the puzzle was the discovery shortly thereafter of the appointment of Kym Richardson to the role of CEO of the Fountain Valley Medical Centre.

I draw no conclusions about the connections of the events I have described; however, it looks to me like: Tony Abbott gets award from doctor; doctor's clinic gets an election promise of over $1 million; and failed Liberal member gets job. Win, win, win. One thing is very clear, though, and that is that Dr Utten should be spending a little less time ingratiating himself with his Liberal mates and a bit more time upholding his professional obligations to my constituents.