The Medical Registration (Amendment) Bill 2026 – what it means for you

03 Sep 2026
Dr. Pallavi Bradshaw
Dr. Pallavi BradshawMedical Director; Medical Protection
Dr. Pallavi Bradshaw
Dr. Pallavi Bradshaw Medical Director; Medical Protection
The Medical Registration (Amendment) Bill 2026 – what it means for you

In late June, the Hong Kong govern­ment unveiled the Medical Registra­tion (Amendment) Bill 2026, introduc­ing a series of reforms to the Medical Council of Hong Kong (MCHK). The wide-reaching proposals have been introduced following delays in several high-profile cases, and includes re­forms to complaint handling process­es and how the regulator responds to criminal convictions as well as updates to the composition of the MCHK.

Medical Protection assists mem­bers around the world throughout in­vestigation processes. When reforms are introduced, we aim to work with stakeholders to help ensure the chang­es enable a system of regulation that is proportionate and effective while also being compassionate to those under investigation. In this article, we take a closer look at the key takeaways.

Improving the complaint handling process
At their core, the changes seek to streamline the complaint procedure to create greater efficiency for medical prac­titioners and patients alike. We see first-hand from assisting members how being investigated by your regulator can be in­credibly stressful. Creating more efficient processes so they can be completed more quickly would therefore be positive.

This includes the intention to re­duce delays by requiring the MCHK to outline expected timeframes for spe­cific steps in the complaints process, provide directions on all aspects of inquiry proceedings for the parties in­volved, and set deadlines for the sub­mission of documents.

Other changes will see the role of lay members increased. Preliminary Investigation Committees are to be re­named Medical Investigation Commit­tees (MICs) and will be reduced from seven to five members, with three out of five members, including the deputy chairperson, being laypersons. A criti­cal revision here is that both the chair and deputy chair must agree before a complaint can be dismissed on the basis that it is groundless or frivolous.

Downsizing the investigation com­mittee should enable more MICs to serve at once and hopefully contribute to the complaints being progressed or dismissed more quickly.

Inquiry Panels will also be renamed Medical Tribunal Panels (MTPs) and will similarly require that three of the five members are independent as­sessors, with the chairperson of the MCHK unable to concurrently serve as the chair of an MTP. This should create separation between bodies and im­prove their independence.

The reforms aim to enhance efficiency by forcing the MCHK to outline expected timeframes for specific steps in the com­plaint handling process, provide directions on all aspects of inquiry proceedings for the parties involved, and set deadlines for the submission of documents. This is with the aim of ensuring that strict timelines are adhered to and delays are avoided.

In another change, where a court has reached a verdict on a criminal case, an MTP will need to consider the conviction and the facts leading to it as conclusive evidence in its investigations, except in exceptional circumstances. In practice, this provision means that if a doctor is convicted of a crime, the MCHK does not need to re-establish the crime during internal disciplinary hearings, eliminating the previous need for regulatory boards to independently verify facts already estab­lished by criminal courts. The proposed amendments offer additional routes for redress if complainants or medical prac­titioners are dissatisfied with the outcome of MTP hearings. Both parties would be granted the right to appeal to the MTP for review of its decision. The Secretary to the MCHK would also have the opportunity to lodge an appeal to the Court of Appeal if there are concerns about public interest not being met by a specific MTP decision.

Handling complaints against practitioners convicted of serious offences
The bill includes an automatic and irrevocable removal from the register of any medical practitioner who has been convicted of an offence endangering na­tional security and sentenced to 3 or more years of imprisonment. For sentences of less than 3 years, medical practitioners can apply for their registration to be rein­stated after 3 years and at the discretion of the Secretary for Health.

Additional changes are proposed for other offences, with those convicted of serious violent or sexual offences also being removed from the register and not eligible for readmission within 3 years, subject to the unanimous approval of all members of the MCHK. Those convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for any offence related to their medical practice will be suspended until the completion of disciplinary proceedings. This update to the MCHK’s powers serves as an import­ant reminder to doctors and other medi­cal professionals across Hong Kong that their conduct outside of their immediate profession can also have serious ramifica­tions for their ability to practice.

Reforming the MCHK
Another notable area of reform con­cerns the shape of the MCHK. The bill proposes an increase in the number and proportion of laypersons on the council by adding three lay members appointed direct­ly by the Chief Executive. These additional members will be registered healthcare pro­fessionals but, crucially, will not be medical practitioners. It is hoped that this will pro­mote greater multidisciplinary collaboration in the council and increase public trust.

Further to this, the proposals will add an additional three medical practitioner members appointed by the Chief Exec­utive and adjust the seat distribution of representatives elected by all practitioners – and those from the Hong Kong Medical Association (HKMA) – to a total of eight. Primary healthcare will also have a more prominent role, with the Commissioner for Primary Healthcare granted an ex-officio role, and the new Hong Kong Universi­ty of Science and Technology (HKUST) School of Medicine will also have two rep­resentatives. The government has stated that it hopes the increasing diversity of members will provide greater legitimacy to the MCHK and support efforts to increase its reputation amongst the medical com­munity in Hong Kong.

The reforms are also looking to update how the MCHK creates codes of practice for the medical profession by granting it direct legal power over codes that will be strengthened beyond advisory guidelines. Key to this is explicitly highlighting that a breach of the provisions of any code by the MCHK will be grounds for pursuing disciplinary sanctions.

What this means
The Medical Registration (Amend­ment) Bill 2026 represents a significant shift in Hong Kong's medical regula­tion. We support the overall objective to strengthen the MCHK's complaint han­dling and disciplinary procedures, ensur­ing it effectively discharges its duties to uphold justice, maintain professionalism, and protect the public.

Medical Protection is in the process of reviewing the amendment bill and will look at engaging with stakeholders as the leg­islative process progresses. Members with questions about these chang­es and what it could mean for them should reach out to Medical Protection for advice and more information.