Doctor ‘gaming the system’
Dubbed “Robin Hood” for dishing out monthly special diet allowance forms to people on welfare, there’s no doubt Dr. Roland Wong was the gatekeeper between those with nutritional deficits and an extra $250 a month.
But just how heavy that gate should be was the question on the final day of submissions in Wong’s disciplinary hearing. He’s accused of “disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional” conduct for giving out more than 35,000 of these forms, allegedly without proper assessment or record-keeping.
The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario argues his lax standards duped the province out of millions. His lawyer says he should be praised for offering care.
“In a conflict between the role of gatekeeper and advocacy, advocacy wins,” lawyer Paul Rosenthal told the hearing Wednesday. The forms are for people on social assistance with medical conditions such as diabetes or allergies that make it impossible for them to eat properly on welfare of $599/month. Of the 130 patient forms reviewed for Wong’s hearing, 98 per cent listed four allergies (eggs, soya, milk and wheat) and chronic constipation, said college lawyer Carolyn Silver. This entitled them to the maximum allowance of $250. For filling out the forms at his clinics, Wong billed Ontario more than $1.8 million over four years. “It’s clear he knew he was gaming the system,” Silver said in her final submission. Wong didn’t make proper inquiries or get patients’ histories to confirm their ailments, Silver said. His case shouldn’t be about the adequacy of Ontario’s social programs but about how he failed to meet the standard of practice, she said. Regardless, she found no evidence he was trying to assist people. “He made a ton of money by engaging in intentional misrepresentation or certainly wilful blindness in filling out these forms,” she said. If Wong relaxed record-keeping at his clinic, it was necessary to serve the flood of people who had nowhere else to go, Rosenthal argued. There were no specific guidelines on filling out the forms and Wong simply gave patients the benefit of the doubt when they told him about their allergies, Rosenthal said. “In the context, the records were sufficient,” he said. The Income Security Advocacy Centre, which acted as an intervenor in the hearing, expressed con- cern that Wong’s case will make it more difficult for people with legitimate health issues to get help.
Wong provided an “important service” by creating a space where lowincome patients without family doctors could go, said advocacy centre lawyer Jackie Esmonde.
While his hearing should create a standard for filling out the forms, Esmonde added, it could have a “chilling effect” if doctors become reluctant to fill them for fear of discipline or cumbersome paperwork.
Outside his hearing, Wong said he was just a “humble doctor” doing what he could for the people. No matter what the panel decides, he said he “won long ago” by filling out these forms in the public interest.
No date is set for a decision.