A list has been made public of companies and organisations who have worked with cancer patients who have been paid for their expertise by the Government.
The Guardian has been told by people who have had dealings with the consultants that they are being used as a way to circumvent the Government’s rules.
In one case, the consultant paid $100,000 to have his wife, a consultant, take over a cancer surgery.
In another, the company paid $1 million for a new specialist to perform operations on a cancer survivor, a payment that was not made to the patient.
The people who had dealings on the behalf of the company say they are not aware of any other companies doing so.
One source who was a consultant on a contract with the firm, BioRad, told the Guardian that in one case they were “told that this is a paid job for you to do”.
“I did not get paid and there was no way I would have agreed to work with that company,” he said.
The consultant said the company did not seem to be using the advice they had received in order to exploit the rules.
The Government says that it does not employ consultants to provide legal advice, although it says that its contracts with these companies do not require them to disclose this.
A spokesperson for the Department of Health said that the Government did not use consultants to “make legal advice”.
“The Government uses consultants to offer advice on matters which may relate to the regulation of health products and services,” they said.
“In general, the advice offered is for general advice only.”
In a statement, a spokesperson for BioRad said: “We do not disclose our clients’ names.
In fact, Biorad does not provide legal services.
We do not comment on legal matters.”
The spokesperson said that BioRad was “committed to a transparent, ethical and responsible approach to its work and that the legal advice we provide is based on the best available evidence”.
The spokesperson also said that “our work is regulated by the relevant industry bodies”.
This is the second time that a major firm has come under scrutiny after the Government made changes to the rules to allow more firms to operate.
In July, the Guardian reported that the Department for Health had changed the rules so that a number of major firms could still operate without disclosing their clients’ identities.
This had prompted questions from the media and other campaigners about the role of consultants.
But the Department said that these firms “must make all of their business arrangements transparent, transparent and accountable”.
It added that “the Government does not require these firms to disclose their clients’.
The spokesperson for one of the firms involved, BioMedec, said that it had not made a specific recommendation about the use of a consultant.
It said: “[BioMedec] does not have any client with whom we have worked and does not advise any other health services providers.
Our business arrangements are transparent, transparency and accountable.
“A spokesperson from the Department also said: There is a clear separation between the contract between the NHS and the consultant and the advice that we give to our clients.”
The Department said: The Department for Public Health and the Government have made a number, but not all, of their legal advice to be based on evidence and evidence is considered the best evidence available and that we can rely on this evidence.
This includes advice that a company or company’s own lawyers have provided.
However, the Government has made a commitment to transparency around the work we do.
The Department of Healthcare and the Department Of Health have both stated that there is “no requirement” for these firms, BioMD and BioRad to reveal the identity of their clients.
This follows the revelations last week that a new Government-funded body, the Advisory Council on the Use of Medical Malpractice Act 2000 (ACAMA), had given the green light to doctors to take part in the use and abuse of the rules on behalf of patients.
A new review of the ACAMA report, commissioned by the health secretary, said it was “clear” that the rules were “at the heart of the problem” for many doctors.
“There is a problem with the current system in which doctors are paid to do work that is not properly regulated,” the report said.
However the Government insists that it has made no changes to how doctors and hospitals use the rules and that there have been no significant changes in practice.