Wellington, Oct 23 NZPA - The Health and Disability Commissioner has recommended a surgeon pay a dead patient's wife $5000 after giving him inadequate information about surgery costs.

The patient, named in the commissioner's report only as Mr B, was diagnosed with advanced colon cancer and consulted with the private hospital surgeon, Dr A, in November, 2007.

Dr A told Mr B his life expectancy was three to six months without treatment, and recommended an oncological treatment in which a surgically placed vascular access device was inserted to allow radiation to be directed to tumours in the liver.

Although Mr B and his wife had no health insurance, they opted for the surgery, which was only available privately and would cost between $35,000 and $45,000.

Dr A advised that in some cases a second treatment might be needed, which would cost between $18,000 and $20,000.

In June the following year, a CT scan showed more cancer on Mr B's liver, and, following a good response to the first oncological treatment, he decided to have it again.

Prior to the second treatment, the device inserted earlier was found to not be working, and the surgeon said a femoral artery catheter would have to be inserted to continue the treatment, increasing the cost by $5000-$7000.

Mr B went ahead with the second treatment.

In July, Mr B's wife wrote to the surgeon about her concerns about the cost of the second treatment.

"(My husband) and I both came away feeling quite disillusioned ... I understand that there will always be risks involved in any such treatment and we were prepared for these. However, we both felt that the extra $7000 on top of the original amount was unfair," she said.

Dr A wrote back, providing a breakdown of costs and saying he would meet $1000 of the costs, but that the hospital was unable to reduce them further.

"Periodically this is what happens and there is nothing we can do about it," he wrote.

Mr B died early the following year, aged 58.

In a complaint to the commissioner, Mr B said he was concerned with the "huge extra expense" for the catheter insertion.

"I was unaware of the potential for (the device) to fail, and of the consequences, both medically and expense-wise," he said.

"My concern is that this process has taken all my funds, and then some: extra costs have come unexpectedly ... and I am thinking I have been financially taken advantage of."

Dr A told the commissioner the possibility of the device failing was unlikely to have been discussed with Mr B prior to the surgery.

The commissioner's report found Dr A had breached the health and disability code by not giving Mr B adequate information about the medical and financial implications if the device failed.

"I consider that when repeat of the oncological treatment was raised and discussed with Mr B on 25 June and Mrs B on 30 June, Dr A should have discussed the possibility that the vascular access device might be blocked," Commissioner Ron Paterson said in his findings.

Mr Paterson recommended the doctor pay Mr B's wife $5000 towards the additional costs incurred.

He also recommended Dr A amend his patient information booklet to include specific information on the possibility of a malfunction of the device.

NZPA WGT ar kk nb