Hong Kong’s Legislative Council Bills Committee discussed the Medical Registration (Amendment) Bill 2026 on August 25, focusing on proposed changes to how complaints against doctors are assessed and investigated. The bill would reform the Medical Council’s composition and its complaint-handling mechanism as part of efforts to support professional standards and the supply of doctors.
The proposed changes include increasing the proportion of lay members on the Medical Council and giving the investigation panel power to appoint dedicated investigators for inquiries. The Health Bureau said the reform was not a minor or expedient amendment, but aimed to improve efficiency, transparency, patient protection and public confidence while preserving professional autonomy and procedural fairness.
Lawmakers said complaints that did not concern patients’ interests or were less serious should be screened into a different process, reducing the time and resources spent on them. The supplied reports do not set out the legal standards for making that assessment or explain how complaints screened out would subsequently be handled.
Secretary for Health Lo Chung-mau said a case would first be reviewed by the investigation panel chair on the basis of initial information. With the deputy chair’s agreement, cases that were wholly unrelated to doctors’ professional conduct or could consume substantial resources could then be excluded. The reports describe this as a proposed screening arrangement rather than a fully specified implementation framework.
Lawmakers also questioned why the bill did not state the qualifications and training required for inquiry investigators. Lo said investigators’ professional backgrounds would not be prescribed in the legislation, and that retired police officers or nurses could be considered, depending on the needs of the Medical Investigation Committee.
The projected time savings were described in different ways. One report said the preliminary screening period was expected to be cut by half, while Lo said average inquiry time could fall from three and a half years to two and a half years after trivial, frivolous or inadequately supported cases were excluded. The two estimates concern different stages of the process and cannot be directly compared on the information provided.
Questions still include the detailed criteria for screening complaints, whether excluded cases will have any review or appeal arrangements, and whether requirements for investigators’ qualifications, training, supervision and conflicts of interest will be set out in subsidiary legislation or guidance.