We’ve written before about the reward system that operates in New South Wales for health care professionals. This is another perfect illustration of it.
One of our readers was referred to the Urologist, Dr Andrew Brooks, by a Dr Chris Grant, (a GP who he’d been using for 5 or 6 years and whom he thought was quite good and trusted,) for help with a frequency problem – he was having to get up 2 or 3 times a night to urinate.
With Dr Brooks, right from the first moment, it was all about him trying to work out how he could get a $3,200 fee our of the reader for less than an hour’s work – he provided him with a diagnosis which was just fairly tale stuff, but he used it to talk him into having a TURP operation, an operation under a full anaesthetic – which didn’t help in any way, (Dr Brooks has admitted this in writing,) and which damaged him for life, it can’t be reversed. And he got his $3,200 fee for less than an hour’s work!
(Dr Brooks has been sent countless emails giving him the opportunity to tell his side of the story, but he’s never responded to any of them.)
Then, to complete the picture, a few months ago, we got a phone call from one of Dr Brook’s henchmen trying to get us to take down some of the stuff we’d been been putting up about him on our website and blogs about him. Our response, of course, was that we’d welcome his side of the story on anything at any time, and would be more than happy to pass what he had to say onto our readers. And, in the course of the phone call, it was mentioned that Dr Brooks made “contributions,” from time to time to GPs to help them in running their practices, (others might call them “bribes,”) which was described as a “norm for the industry.”
So Dr Grant was emailed asking him if he’d ever received one of Dr Brook’s “contributions?” He didn’t respond – we were left to draw our own conclusions.
So, get the picture? – a Urologist getting $3,200 fees for less than an hour’s work for carrying out procedures that don’t work, on patients referred to him by Chris Grants, of whom there may be many, for the “contributions” they receive from the Urologist “to help them in running their practices.”
Our reader has recently mentioned that he has since come across two other Urologists – Dr Paul Sved and Dr Vincent Tse – who he believes are two of the best and most honourable doctors he’s ever come across. In complete contrast, they say that the frequency problem which our reader had, and still has, was/is due to the fact that his bladder has become weaker, something that often happens in older men, so that during urination his bladder isn’t fully emptied, so that it takes less time before it’s full again – something for which very little can be done, certainly nothing that involves big fat fees.
So guess who makes the most money – the Andrew Brooks or the Paul Sved and the Vincent Tses? Obviously Andrew Brooks makes much much more. And, under the reward system that operates in New South Wales, this appears certain to just continue.
Our reader reports that he’s never made a complaint about Dr Brooks to Sue Dawson and her Health Care Complaints Commission, because, after having made complaints to her about 4 or 5 other doctors and got nowhere, he knows that it would only result in her and her people coming up with some way of finding that Dr Brooks was/is a perfectly good and honourable doctor – and in Dr Brooks having the last laugh.
Sue Dawson comes over as not caring about anything, least of all the reward system that operates for health care professionals in New South Wales – so long as she keeps getting her $500,000 a year. We’ve emailed her numerous times also, asking for her side of the story, but she doesn’t care enough to respond.
One of our readers reports that after a certain doctor had put him though a number of procedures which didn’t help him in any way, when he complained to the doctor, the doctor absolutely taunted him, saying, “You know you don’t have anything to complain about – otherwise you would have made a complaint to the Health Care Complaints Commission!” And when the attention of another doctor, a skin specialist, was drawn to the fact that it had been reported that she had told a patient that a problem she had WASN’T cancerous, when another skin specialist had told her, 8 days later, that it WAS, her response was, “Oh, the highly reputable Heath Care Complaints Commission cleared me over that.”
That’s how it is in New South Wales.