ACC to review hundreds of declined mesh claims

Hundreds of men and women suffering life-long pain and disability from mesh surgery and turned down for ACC cover will have their claims reviewed.

ACC made the announcement following a report released by the Ministry of Health yesterday, detailing stories from more than 600 people with severe physical and mental trauma resulting from surgical mesh complications.

The report, by a Victoria University restorative justice unit, said many with permanent injuries contemplated ending their life due to the pain, trauma and lack of support from health professionals and ACC. ‘‘Many told of pursuing costly legal processes over a number of years to get help because ‘It’s not just the surgeons, my battle with ACC is worse’.’’

One woman said she had to ‘‘fight ACC for 10 years’’. ‘‘ACC did everything in their power to prevent me getting the mesh out.’’ A mesh-injured man attributed suicide attempts and a sixweek stay in a mental health unit to ‘‘the two years of pain ACC put me through’’.

Worldwide, the use of mesh devices has been highly controversial as thousands of patients have found themselves with injuries including chronic pain, infection, mesh erosion, nerve damage

Julie Anne Genter Associate Minister of Health

and major mental illness. Investigations in recent years have uncovered inadequate vetting by regulatory authorities and aggressive marketing of products to surgeons despite insufficient evidence of safety.

Since 2005 ACC has accepted 1110 claims for surgical mesh complications and declined 357. As of December 5, the corporation had spent over $27 million on mesh injury claims since July 1, 2005.

ACC chief customer officer Emma Powell said the report was ‘‘confronting’’. ‘‘We recognise the severity of the harm it’s caused and we’re taking the issue seriously.’’ ACC was working with advocacy group Mesh Down Under on a way to ‘‘look back through declined surgical mesh claims’’, Powell said. ‘‘Claims outcomes may not change, however this aims to ensure past decisions are consistent with the latest understanding of mesh injuries ...’’

Powell said ACC would be supporting the Ministry of Health’s development of credentialing for surgeons and delivery of specialist multi-disciplinary mesh centres.

Mesh Down Under commended the restorative justice process for ‘‘finally giving the mesh-injured community the opportunity to share their lived experiences of what has been going on behind the scenes’’. The group has been calling for action since 2012 and wanted to see concrete action from ACC and the Government.

In the restorative justice process the injured said they wanted a meaningful apology acknowledging harm and compensation; practical support from interdisciplinary mesh services; proactive monitoring of surgery; dedicated advocates and treatment of ACC mesh claims with more sensitivity.

The Urological Society of Australia and New Zealand (USANZ) said surgeons currently performing mesh procedures needed to have their competency checked ‘‘with urgency’’. Australasian guidelines in place for implantation of mesh by New Zealand surgeons were robust but there was no system to check the requirements were being met. But USANZ President Dr Stephen Mark said there was no need to halt all surgeries while the auditing systems were set up because the guidelines were clear.

Associate Minister of Health Julie Anne Genter said the report ‘‘made for heart-breaking and confronting reading’’. The government had restricted surgical mesh for pelvic organ prolapse and stress urinary incontinence.

‘‘Heart-breaking and confronting reading.’’