Everything tagged with this theme. The country and profession filters at the top still apply.
An independent review found the scheme had "become too inward-looking, too fragmented, and too slow to respond to emerging risks and opportunities". Health Ministers accepted governance changes in May 2026 but deferred an integrated, risk-based framework for regulating all health professions.
Following Harry Cayton's inquiry, BC cut its health regulators from 20 to 6 and created an independent oversight office. The new Act came into force on 1 April 2026.
New Zealand's bill would let the Health Minister direct the health regulators on policy and let a ministerial committee overturn registration refusals. Parliament has since been dissolved for the November 2026 election.
No reforms for these filters.
Where the idea came from, what it actually says, how governments use it, and the strongest criticisms. A primer in plain English.
Nothing written for these filters.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the BMA's challenge to the GMC's use of the term 'medical professionals' for both doctors and physician and anaesthesia associates in Good Medical Practice. A separate judicial review by Anaesthetists United, seeking national limits on scope of practice, was dismissed by the High Court in September 2025.
Why it matters: The courts found the GMC acted lawfully on both terminology and scope of practice. In our view, change will have to come through policy, not litigation.
Harry Cayton, who developed right-touch regulation as chief executive of the UK's Professional Standards Authority, found the college met 17 of the 28 Standards of Good Regulation, and that many but not all of BC's health colleges showed 'a lack of relentless focus on the safety of patients'. He recommended fewer colleges, appointed boards and independent oversight.
Why it matters: Right-touch used to make regulators more accountable to the public, not to deregulate. It set off the reforms that led to BC's 2026 Act.
An opinion piece by Ian Powell, former executive director of ASMS, arguing New Zealand's HPCA Amendment Bill gives the Health Minister too much power over independent health regulators.
Why it matters: Captures what we see as the main criticism in New Zealand: political control of regulators, rather than lighter-touch regulation as such.
The New Zealand government's case for reform. It criticises 'unnecessarily high standards', long training and strict supervision, 'patch protection' and siloed regulators, and names associate psychologists among new professions it says regulators have been slow to adapt to, citing 'professional resistance or lack of direction from government'.
Why it matters: A strikingly direct statement of what the government believes is wrong with professional regulation. It mentions psychology once, naming associate psychologists as a new profession.
No library items for these filters.