Patient-Centred Regulation? Ministry of Health Asks for Public Feedback: Due 30 April
Deadline: Wednesday, 30 April 2025, 11:59pm
We’re continually bombarded by government review processes. We may feel worn down, but we must continue to speak up and push back. The alternative is lack of choice and centralised control. Is this what we want for our future and that of our children?
The Ministry of Health’s consultation on modernising health workforce regulation could fundamentally alter how healthcare professionals work in New Zealand, potentially consolidating all healthcare professions under one regulator, including natural health care providers such as chiropractors and naturopaths. This could restrict healthcare freedom, limit patient choice, and further entrench corporate control over healthcare delivery.
What’s Happening
The Ministry of Health is conducting a consultation that could significantly change healthcare regulation in New Zealand. This consultation, titled “Putting Patients First: Modernising Health Workforce Regulation“, proposes creating a centralised regulatory system that would control everything from doctors to podiatrists, pulling 18 regulatory authorities into one.
The consultation frames these changes as improving efficiency and putting patients first. However, we need to question whether these changes are truly patient-centred or rather pharma- and big tech-centred. The reality is that the public is often used as a shield behind which regulatory bodies advance pharmaceutical and corporate agendas.
We at NZDSOS have experienced regulatory overreach by the Medical Council of New Zealand (MCNZ). We are thus concerned as it appears that this action would create a central regulator with significant power over all health care providers in the name of ‘patient safety’ to advance a government narrative at the expense of patient choice.
The MCNZ is intimately connected with the International Association of Medical Regulatory Authorities (IAMRA) through its CEO Joan Simeon who is also Chair of IAMRA.
We note that a goal of the MoU (Memorandum of Understanding) between IAMRA and the WHO in Feb 2024 was to strengthen health professional regulation.
We assume ‘strengthen’ means to ensure health professionals are aligned with big pharma objectives.
We are further aware of the negative effects of such a regulator in Australia, the Australian Health Practitioners Regulatory Authority (AHPRA) and its draconian actions against those it deems not following state guidelines.
Why This Matters
The proposed changes could fundamentally alter how healthcare is regulated in New Zealand. Centralising all professions under one regulator may seem efficient on paper, but in reality, it risks:
- Diluting the unique values and principles of holistic, natural, and cultural health systems
- Forcing all providers into a one-size-fits-all medical (pharmaceutical) model
- Allowing ministerial control over healthcare professionals, so that a single narrative can be enforced
- Enabling political interference in professional standards
- Paving the way for AI and algorithmic medicine to replace human practitioners
- Reducing consumer choice and removing dissenting voices in healthcare
- Damaging the human-to-human relationship that is essential to healing
Regulatory overreach often misses the subtleties of good healthcare and fails to account for the unique individuality of patients. Patients require the human touch and discernment that only a skilled practitioner can provide. There will always be people who don’t fit into prescriptive models, and regulatory systems tend to overlook these individuals and restrict practitioners’ ability to help them effectively.
The impact on small practitioners and holistic healthcare providers could be substantial. The proposed changes will disproportionately affect thousands of self-employed wellness professionals. Many health practitioners—including holistic, natural, and complementary therapists—already operate safely and effectively under their own professional associations. There is no widespread evidence of harm from these providers that would justify bringing them under a centralised regulatory regime. On the contrary, they often fill gaps in care, provide personalised support, and help reduce pressure on the public health system.
What You Can Do
The consultation asks for public input on several key areas:
- Patient-centred regulation: Should regulators be assessed for their independence in putting patients first?
- Streamlined regulation: Given the different approaches to health, is it important that health professions are regulated separately? Does combining regulation enable easier enforcement of a single narrative?
- Right-sized regulation: What should regulation of health professionals look like and who should be responsible for this? Should patients be involved directly?
- Future-proofed regulation: Should the Government be able to give regulators general directions or appoint members to regulatory boards?
When preparing your response, consider emphasising that more regulation is unlikely to be the answer to improving healthcare outcomes. Patient care can be achieved collaboratively, not coercively taking into account respect for diversity, patient choice, and the human element in healthcare delivery.
Key Points to Consider in Your Response
You might want to highlight that regulators can better serve patient needs by honouring choice, cultural values, and ethics in healthcare—rather than trying to standardise all care under one model. Key ways to improve patient-centred regulation include:
- Respecting and protecting patient autonomy. Patients must have the freedom to choose natural, holistic, or cultural therapies without interference or restriction from regulatory bodies.
- Including perspectives from all healthcare approaches in regulatory discussions. This includes consultation with rongoā Māori practitioners, naturopaths, and other non-medical health professionals.
- Ensuring regulation is proportionate to actual risk. Over-regulating low-risk practices limits access and choice, especially for those seeking preventative or non-invasive approaches.
- Avoiding medical monopolies where a single regulatory body defines what is or isn’t valid healthcare.
- Preserving the human factor in healthcare delivery. The essential human-to-human interaction that is core to healing should not be devalued or replaced by AI and algorithmic medicine.
How to Give Your Feedback
Feedback must be provided through the Online consultation portal on the Ministry of Health’s website: Putting Patients First: Modernising Health Workforce Regulation
Remember: Responses close Wednesday, 30 April 2025 at 11:59pm.
Our Perspective
NZDSOS has consistently advocated for medical freedom, informed consent, and the right of healthcare professionals to practise true patient-centred medicine. The current regulatory system already places significant restrictions on doctors’ ability to speak freely about treatment options and medical concerns.
During the covid response, a number of doctors faced disciplinary actions from the Medical Council of New Zealand. We were prevented from using approved medicines, were censored from advising patients about vaccine risks, had restrictions placed on annual practising certificates and were suspended from practising despite no evidence of patient harm.
We have repeatedly seen how increased regulation leads to decreased innovation, limited patient choice, and constraints on medical professionals’ ability to serve their patients. Maintaining separate regulators is vital for preserving patient choice, cultural integrity, and the future of integrative health in New Zealand.
There are legitimate concerns about novel treatments being pushed through without proper scrutiny when practitioners are silenced and subordinated to a single overarching regulatory framework. In this environment, the definition of “public safety” often becomes what the government determines it to be, rather than what truly benefits individuals. It’s also worth noting that the Ministry of Health itself has gradually shifted away from medical leadership, with fewer doctors and more pharmacists and nurses in key positions over the past decade.
We no longer trust that regulators, including the Medical Council, the Dental Council, the Pharmaceutical Council, Medsafe and specialist colleges such as the Royal New Zealand College of General Practitioners, are guided by the best interests of New Zealanders. These organisations have become unduly influenced by politics and industry rather than adhering to fundamental health principles.
We encourage all supporters of healthcare freedom to make their voices heard through this consultation process. All we need to do is stand true to established medical ethics, speak up for patient choice and informed consent, and defend the right of people to choose their health practitioners. As we’ve learned through our advocacy work, widespread public engagement is essential to influence policy and protect healthcare choices.
All hands on deck – your response could help shape the future of healthcare practitioner regulation in New Zealand.
