To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what restrictions apply to a doctor who is a member of one of his Department's medical board panels in respect of giving a medical decision about a patient contrary to that of the medical board.
Medical boards are a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member and a copy will be placed in the Library.
Letter from Mr. M. Bichard to Mr. Alan Milburn, dated 27 May 1993:
As Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency, it is my responsibility to answer questions about relevant operational matters. I am therefore replying to the points raised in your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security asking what restrictions apply to a doctor who is a member of one of his Department's medical board panels in respect of giving a medical decision about a patient contrary to that of the medical board.
A doctor who is a member of an Adjudicating Medical Authority (AMA) is there as an independent statutory authority and not as a representative of the Benefits Agency or any other organisation. If the medical board has two doctors, then although one of them is the Chairman, the Chairman does not have a casting vote. If the two doctors disagree, the case is adjourned and referred to an AMA consisting of three members. The AMA decision will be a majority decision.
Of course, a doctor is not permitted to be a member of an AMA if he is or may be affected directly by that case, or if he has taken any part in such case as a medical practitioner who has regularly attended the customer (Social Security (Adjudication) Regulation 33). In effect doctors are not permitted to sit on a board which involves making decisions on patients they have attended regularly.
I hope you find this reply helpful. A copy will appear in the Official Report. A copy will also be placed in the Library.