Health issues - Would I Pass medical?

[ClaireW]

Hi Ange - sorry for the delay - we haven't been on here for quite some time - basically ASA said you have to apply and wait and see because they judge every case individually - very helpful (not)

I'm just on here today trying to see if anyone else with a low kidney function has got through. I see people who have had transplants may have a chance but my husband is way too early for that yet!

Claire

[angedoon]

Thanks!

They have asked mum for MORE info, they have everything already! We have asked for more clarification as the 2nd letter is asking for the same as the first! I will let you know how she goes!

Ange

[micky38]

Hi,

No worries
Micky

[Gollywobbler]

Hi Ange - sorry for the delay - we haven't been on here for quite some time - basically ASA said you have to apply and wait and see because they judge every case individually - very helpful (not)

I'm just on here today trying to see if anyone else with a low kidney function has got through. I see people who have had transplants may have a chance but my husband is way too early for that yet!

Claire

Hi Claire

I did say some time ago that some agents claim to be experts on the workings of the Health requirement for Oz but when push comes to shove they actually don't know a thing and they haven't a clue about the meds either....

In your own case:

New Guidance Notes for the MOC are due to be finalised sometime in 2010. The existing Notes are incomplete and production of them was abandoned in the early 1990, plus the medical information is hopelessly out of date nearly 20 years later.

When the new Notes have been completed, they will contain two which are relevant to you. One of them is the General Principles for the MOC and the other is the specific Guidance Note on Nephropathy. Neither of the new Notes are available as yet, though.

Only 3 of the new Notes have been finalised and pubished so far. They are the three on HIV+, Opthalmology and some other condition which is not relevant to you, A fourth one that is about Mental Illness is ready for publication but it has not been published as yet.

DIAC have decided to hide these new Notes on Legendcom - which is absolutely typical of DIAC's utter lack of transparency about everything relating to Health. I've been in toucjh with Dr Paul Douglas, who is DIAC's Chief Medical Officer.

I don't think that Dr Douglas realises that "publishing" the new Notes on Legendcom is actually nothing but an exercise in hiding them. He will understand this very clearly by the time I have finished with him, though, I assure you.

Legendcom is only available on subcription if you are outside Australia:

LEGENDcom

If you are in Australia, apparently access to Legendcom is completely free if you access the site via the State Library in each State and it is also available for free in the Libraries at some of the Universities. Which is all a fat lot of good if you are not in Australia.

Registered Migration Agents are required to have professional libraries, though. Membership of Legendcom provides access to most of the documents required for the professional library, therefore most RMAs pay for an annual subscription to Legendcom. Whether they can work Legendcom is another matter but they do at least have access to it.

Dr Douglas is able to access Legendcom whenever he likes, completely for free, because he works for DIAC and DIAC are the biggest users of Legendcom. All the DIAC staff can access it for free, even if only some of them are used to doing so. Hence I don't think that Dr Douglas understands that publishing the Guidance Notes on Legendcom only will have the inevitable effect of making these notes invisible to the majority of visa applicants when the Notes ought to be available for free and ought to be in the public domain - ie on the DIAC website. I intend to keep hammering this point home with Dr Douglas and DIAC until DIAC quit their unseemly habit of trying to hide things from the public.

According to Dr Douglas, the remainder of the Guidance Notes - including the two that you need - should be available by July 2010.

You will almost certainly find that you have to explain all this to your agents and they will probably be too arrogant to believe you, but you will just have to make the mother and father of a fuss with them until they listen to you, I suggest.

Your OH's Consultant Nephrologist will need to see the two Notes that you particularly need, once they are available. In your shoes, I would consider it absolutely essential that he sees them.

To get this across to your Agents, please see as follows:

http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committe...lity/index.htm

PIC 4005 is the relevant legal provision and I have quoted it verbatim early in this thread. It treats a disease or medical condition in the same way, and in the same breath, as the way it treats a disability because in both cases, the legislation is only interested in what the visa applicant is likely to cost Australia if s/he is allowed to migrate.

DIAC have made a formal submission to the Inquiry. DIAC's contribution is below:

http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committe...ubs/sub066.pdf

Like every civil service Department, DIAC have ensured that there is plenty of obfuscation and far too many words in their Submission. They actually don't want the same things as the Inquiry wants. The Inquiry is considering whether or not to relax the current Health requirements for migration. That is what the Minister asked them to look into.

However DIAC have a different idea. DIAC's idea is that the Health Waiver, which is currently not available for skilled visa applications, should be extended so that it covers all applications for skilled visas. I think that the Inquiry Chairman is beady enough to realise that DIAC actually don't want that which he has been told to find out about, and that DIAC would like to do things in their own desired way, not his way.

At the same time as wanting control of the Health Waiver, DIAC also plan to persuade the Minister for Immi that the threshold of $21,000 is too low (it is a figure that was introduced in the late 1990s, so it is indeed far too low by now.) DIAC want the threshold increased to $100,000 - which does make far more sense and would decrease the increasing numbers of applicants who are deemed not to meet PIC 4005 simply because looking after them is likely to cost $10,000 a year for the first 5 years rather than the measly sum of just over $4,000 a year.

At the top of Page 8 of their Submission, DIAC explain that the legislation does not distinguish between an existing disease (eg cancer) or a condition which might develop into a disease (eg HIV+) or a condition which is simply a disability (eg Down Syndrome.) For this reason, the Inquiry cannot simply be ignored by any competent firm of RMAs, whatever they might imagine, and it definitely cannot be ignored by RMAs whose advertising burble claims that they are "experts" on the workings of the Health criteria for migration.

Page 9 is relevant to you, your OH's Nephrologist and your agents as well.

The bottom of Page 10 may be crucial to convincing your agents that DIAC are not simply talking about "disability" in the narrow sense. Nobody who is disabled needs an organ transplant, but the need for the transplant might make the person incapacitated for work, at least until after the transplant is done. DIAC are not talking solely about somebody who is "disabled" because on of their legs has been amputated or something.

The other thing which is relevant to you are a couple of the Public Hearings:

http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committe...y/hearings.htm

Dr Douglas gave evidence to the Committee at the Hearings in Canberra on Feb 24th and March 17th 2010. Don't take too much notice of Mr Torkington's contributions on 17th March. Half the time, he did not understand the Inquiry's questions but he is only a junior honcho and he only attended in order to be Dr Douglas' minder. What Dr Douglas says is important, though.

At the first Hearing on 24th Feb 2010, Mr Vardos and Mr Kennedy were the minders for Dr Douglas. Both of those DIAC Officers (Messrs Vardos and Kennedy) know what they are talking about and they know when to butt out instead of waffling. What they say is worth reading, as well as what Dr Douglas said in the first Hearing.

One of the questions I plan to grill Dr Douglas about is whether or not the Panel Doctors in the UK are:
1. Going to be told about the existence of the new Guidance Notes; and
2. Given on-line access to them so that the Panel Doctors can receive the promised annual updates of the Notes etc.

If the current Plan does not include telling the Panel Doctors about them, then the Plan should be changed and they should be told and they should also have the Notes made available to them.

The other thing that I think you should do is to consider the Panel Doctors in the UK because Dr Douglas has recently cut the number of those so dramatically that some people are having to travel many miles in order to get to the nearest one, who may not be the best one.

United Kingdom – Panel Doctors

Heathrow are due to be axed soon, apparently, in which case the nearest PDs to Heathrow are likely to be the doctors in central London por the ones at the Bridge Clinic in Maidenhead.

Dr Ray Million of the Manchester Medical Centre is said to be very good.

Dr Helen Bryden of the Spire Clinic in Edimburgh is known to be a genuine expert at dealing with visa applicants where she can see that the person is perfectly OK but it would be easy for the MOC in Australia - who never meets the patient - to form a negative view of the patient/visa applicant based on the papers alone.

Which visa have you been advised to apply for/have you applied for/do you intend to apply for, please? If you have been advised to apply for a State sponsored sc 176 visa, which State is providing the sponsorship? (This is important because of the right to appeal to the Migration Review Tribunal if the visa is refused on medical grounds. It is not possible to appeal to the MRT in this situation unless the State concerned is seen to front the appeal. Most of them won't do so when there has been a refusal on medical grounds but some of the States might be more amenable to some wheedling than others.)

Cheers

Gill

[Gollywobbler]

Hi,
I am the main applicant for a 175 visa and i have diabetes in remission , should i be afraid of not getting the visa?

Micky

Hi Micky

How old are you, please? That is important to what you should do. Please see the thread below:

http://www.pomsinoz.com/forum/migrat...y-changes.html

Cheers

Gill

[micky38]

Hi Gill,

Thanks,
Micky

[Gollywobbler]

Thanks!

They have asked mum for MORE info, they have everything already! We have asked for more clarification as the 2nd letter is asking for the same as the first! I will let you know how she goes!

Ange

Hi Ange

If you are sure that DIAC's MOC is asking for exactly the same information as the first time, provided by the same sort of specialist doctor, then in your shoes I would be querying the situation as well.

If you need any help, please click on my user-name to the left of this post and please send me an e-mail, not a Private Message. I can give you the names, e-mail addresses and the direct dial contact numbers for a couple of the most senior DIAC staff at the Australian High Commission in the UK. Either of them are able to contact Dr Paul Douglas, who is DIAC's Chief Medical Officer. (I stress e-mail because the Poms in Oz software has been scrambled so that the PM system refuses to give the e-mail addresses for the DIAC officials unless I go to a heck of a lot of trouble in order to defeat the Poms in Oz filters! My e-mail at home comes without time-wasting complications, and an e-mail sent via the forum comes to me at home!.)

The Manager of the Parents Visa Centre can also contact Dr Douglas if he tries. Again, I have the direct contact details for the Manager of the PVC if you need it.

Cheers

Gill

[Gollywobbler]

Hi Gill,

I am 43, diagnosed with diabetes type 2 two years ago. I never needed medication , just a diet and weight loss.
Now my blood sugar is perfect. Should i even mention it?
Micky

Hi Micky

I know nothing about medical conditions. Doesn't diabetes show up as protein in urine or something?

As you are over 40, it seems that you do not have to leap through the hoop that is mentioned on the thread that I gave you the link to. I have no idea what that is all about, as you will have seen from the thread if you read it?

Apart from that, I think you should talk to your own GP because I don't know whether your "diabetes in remission" is something that you have cured yourself of and simply don't suffer from it, or quite what it is. Your GP would have far more idea than I have of what you should say on Form 26, which is here:

http://www.immi.gov.au/allforms/pdf/26.pdf

Cheers

Gill

[angedoon]

Hi Ange

If you are sure that DIAC's MOC is asking for exactly the same information as the first time, provided by the same sort of specialist doctor, then in your shoes I would be querying the situation as well.

If you need any help, please click on my user-name to the left of this post and please send me an e-mail, not a Private Message. I can give you the names, e-mail addresses and the direct dial contact numbers for a couple of the most senior DIAC staff at the Australian High Commission in the UK. Either of them are able to contact Dr Paul Douglas, who is DIAC's Chief Medical Officer. (I stress e-mail because the Poms in Oz software has been scrambled so that the PM system refuses to give the e-mail addresses for the DIAC officials unless I go to a heck of a lot of trouble in order to defeat the Poms in Oz filters! My e-mail at home comes without time-wasting complications, and an e-mail sent via the forum comes to me at home!.)

The Manager of the Parents Visa Centre can also contact Dr Douglas if he tries. Again, I have the direct contact details for the Manager of the PVC if you need it.

Cheers

Gill

Thanks so much Gill!

I will wait and see what the Health Operation Centre say when they email back this week, but it certainly seems very odd that this is going on for so long, is it that they are incapable of making a decision or is it that they want to be without reproach if something should go wrong with mum's health in the next five years?? Why didn't they ask for everything with the first letter? It's as though they don't expect eldery visa applicants, who lets face it are paying in excess of $34,000 plus $10,000 assurance of support to have any health problems whatsever, nevermind diabetes which is the fastest growing diease in the western world!
Where is the personal face of the visa process, it's beyond cruel what they are doing to us and plenty of others out there!
Thanks for the vent!
Ange

[Gollywobbler]

Thanks so much Gill!

I will wait and see what the Health Operation Centre say when they email back this week, but it certainly seems very odd that this is going on for so long, is it that they are incapable of making a decision or is it that they want to be without reproach if something should go wrong with mum's health in the next five years?? Why didn't they ask for everything with the first letter? It's as though they don't expect eldery visa applicants, who lets face it are paying in excess of $34,000 plus $10,000 assurance of support to have any health problems whatsever, nevermind diabetes which is the fastest growing diease in the western world!
Where is the personal face of the visa process, it's beyond cruel what they are doing to us and plenty of others out there!
Thanks for the vent!
Ange

Hi Ange

Why didn't they ask for everything with the first letter?

Are they asking for Mum to see a different type of specialist from the first time around?

Also, Dr Douglas is red hot on the idea that the Panel Doctor refers the visa applicant to Specialist Bloggs (chosen by the Panel Doctor) and Specialist Bloggs sends his/her report direct to the Panel Doctor, who sends it to the MOC.

Dr Douglas is dreaming about this and needs to be thumped into wakefulness because most of the Panel Doctors in the UK are bone firkin idle. Most of them work for the NHS in the UK and only do part-time Panel Doctoring. Most of them leave it to the visa applicant to do the lion's share of the work in finding Specialist Bloggs in the first place and the applicant's own, NHS, GP often finds Specialist Bloggs and refers the visa applicant to them to save time and hassle. Specialist Bloggs usually hangs out somewhere reasonably close to the visa applicant etc.

The Panel Doctors are not going to go to the trouble of finding a suitable specialist who is reasonably close to wherever the visa applicant lives. Dr Douglas doesn't care if the visa applicant has to make unnecessary journeys up and down the UK.

He wants the UK system to be a clone of the system used in Oz as far as I can gather. He has taken pruning shears to the list of Panel Doctors in the UK with zero thought for the fact that you cannot fly around the UK by air as easily as you can in Oz, petrol is more expensive than in Oz, public transport is hopeless in the UK and it is often wet, windy and cold in the UK, unlike in Oz.

In Oz, people go to Medibank - that is compulsory:

Who we are - Medibank Health Solutions, Corporate Health, Injury Treatment, Injury Prevention, Flu Shots, Pre employment medicals. Health Assesment

This lot do quite a bit for the Ozzie Government and they don't do anything that the website does not mention. So they are not ordinary doctors, which the PDs in the UK nearly all are. Also, the Medibank doctors are paid a salary for working full time for Medibank and nothing else. PDs in the UK just make a bit of extra money on the side out of doing very little because they can see at a glance that most visa applicants do not have anything serious wrong with them.

I gather that if a Medibank doctor says, "You have diabetes" then you get sent to a diabetes expert chosen by the Medibank doctor, who makes the referral etc. However the Medibank doctor has actually clapped eyes on the visa applicant and the Medibank doctors make their own decisions about whether somebody meets the Health requirement or not. Dr Douglas is actually extremely vague about how the Medibank doctors work, considering that Dr Douglas is the only CMO that DIAC have.

http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committe...y/hearings.htm

Dr Douglas attended the Inquiry on Feb 24th and March 17th. Every word he said is in Hansard. I think it was 17th March when he told the Inquiry vaguely that he did vaguely think that the Medibank doctors do vaguely consult one another if there is a query about whether or not a particular visa applicant meets the Health criteria.

Plus everyone is shooting at Dr Douglas in the Inquiry, criticising DIAC's maladminstration of the Health requirement in every possible way. The Inquiry is by no means the easy ride that DIAC thought it would be because whilst DIAC only want one thing (which is that the Health Waiver should be extended to skilled visas and DIAC officers would decide whether or not to use it) everybody else has persuaded the Chairman of the Inquiry that the whole system needs a root and branch sort out, with DIAC potentially being chucked out of the room altogether as far as the Health requirement for migration is concerned.

DIAC admit that they are not medics. Quite right. So why are they interfering and why do they want to increase their own power to interfere, instead of backing right off? Lots of doctors work for DoHA so why aren't they dealing with the Health requirement for migration instead of DIAC?

In 2007, the Australian National Audit Office dropped into DIAC for a look at the maladminstration of the Health requirement for migration - and ripped it to shreds.

DIAC are also still smarting over the fact that the Dr Moeller case attracted so much flak for DIAC in Oz etc. The "remedy" suggested by DIAC now would not actually solve a Dr Moeller problem. If a medic wants to migrate to Oz from the UK on a sc 175 visa but the medic has a child who has Down Syndrome quite severely (which was the case with Dr Moeller's child) the chances are that the British medic will be rejected as well because DIAC are unlikely to exercise the Health Waiver that they say they want - they are likely to reject the British medic on the grounds of cost. Very belatedly, DIAC accept that the cost element should be increased from $21,000 to $100,000 but that will not solve any problems if the child with DS might end up on Disability Support Allowance all his life - the costs would certainly exceed $100K and would probably exceed $1 million AUD.

Historically, DIAC have been mauled whenever the Health requirement for migration has been mentioned. This occasion is merely the latest example.

According to Dr Douglas, they would be giving your mother every possible chance before making a decision. Are they, or are they looking for every possible way to refuse her without the risk of the Migration Review Tribunal reversing their decision? We only have Dr Douglas' word for it that he and the MOC team are super-generous. These days the public wants documentary proof of every word claimed by a civil servant, not vague assurances by Dr Douglas.

He told the Inquiry that the MOC's activities are now audited, sort-of. I asked since when? January 2010 according to Dr Douglas. So these audit arrangements haven't actually been running for long, then? Errrrrmmmmm - well, they do work very well! How does anyone know that after less than six months?

I think there are loads of people gunning for Dr Douglas - I'm only a flea biting minnow. There are some very serious players in the Inquiry in Oz, including the Royal Australasian College of Physicians, who have joined the throng in saying that the Health requirement itself is rubbish and that the way the MOC end of it works is rubbish as well. Since they are doctors, nobody will ignore what they say.

So I think that a whole mass of things are going on and that a LOT of visa applicants are caught up in it, with some really perverse decisions being made by the MOC in really too many cases.

Please let me know what the HOC say. Sometimes the MOC does back off when he is challenged.

Cheers

Gill