Dentists are unhappy at a 41-year-old legislation that requires them to have more than one annual practising certificates (APCs) if they want to work in more than one clinic.
Speaking on condition of anonymity, a senior dentist from Subang Jaya said that the APCs were becoming a burden to many dentists, especially the young ones.
“You see, when a dentist takes leave, they may ask for another dentist to do a locum for them in their absence.
“The problem is, even if the dentist already has an existing APC, they will be required to apply for another one just because they are going to work for a while at the new clinic,” said the dentist.
According to the Dental Act 1971, a dentist must obtain an APC from the Oral Health Division of the Health Ministry for a fee of RM50 and it is renewable every year. The licence would also indicate address of the clinic the dentist would be serving.
However, if the dentist was planning to serve in another clinic on top of the existing one, they would be required to apply for another APC with the new address and charged the same fee.
Calling it illogical, the dentist of over 20 years said the law affected mostly the young dentists, as they would normally do locums in various clinics before establishing their own private practice.
“They don’t have the resources to set up their own clinics. So they become locums first and serve in many clinics and they have to get APCs for each clinics they serve,” said the dentist.
The dentist added that it was time for the Malaysian Dental Council (MDC) to look into the matter and resolve the matter soon.
Another dentist from Puchong said that she herself owned eight APCs as she does locum for several clinics owned by her friends.
“I know dentists who have more than 20 APCs. Imagine how much money the ministry is getting from this,” said the dentist who also claimed anonymity.
Even specialists not spared
She likened it to someone taking a test for driver’s licence saying, “It’s like having to apply for licence for every type of car your drive. It’s ridiculous. Even specialists are not spared.”
On arguments that it was to monitor dentists’ conduct, she said that if an owner of a clinic hires a locum, the owner should be responsible if any problems arise.
“Besides, you can track down an errant dentist because he or she is registered with the MDC,” she said.
Another dentist Dr V Nedunchelian said that it would best if the ministy just added the additional clinic addresses into the APC at no cost.
He added that under the Private Healthcare Facilities and Services Act 2006, the owner of the clinic would be held responsible if any dentist hired gets entangled in a malpractice allegation.
“Besides, we renew our APC annually. Just add the name of the new clinic address on top of the existing one. No need to charge additional fee,” said Nedunchelian who himself has three APCs.
Whether anyone had lodged a complaint over the matter, all three dentists said no one had done so.
“We are afraid that the ministry may take action against us for highlighting the matter,” said the dentist from Subang Jaya.
Despite numerous attempts, FMT failed to reach Health Ministry director-general Hasan Abdul Rahman for comments.
.
