This site is intended for health professionals only

At the heart of general practice since 1960

Read the latest issue online

Gold, incentives and meh

GP indemnity claims to be under ‘discretion’ of the health secretary

GPs will not necessarily be guaranteed cover under the new NHS indemnity scheme in England because claims will be taken up at the ‘discretion’ of the health secretary.

New guidance on the scheme, which is introduced from 1 April, states the body running the programme, NHS Resolution, will in effect decide on behalf of the health secretary whether claims are defended. Though the Government has argued the body 'rarely' uses this power with doctors working in NHS trusts, where the scheme is already in place.

In addition, if there is a dispute over a claim, NHS Resolution will be able to decide whether to settle – regardless of whether the GP would like to see their case defended.

The guidance states that in these circumstance, NHS Resolution will have the authority to decide the amount of money to settle on.

GPs said they were disappointed the scheme would be discretionary - which marks no change from the indemnity cover currently offered to GPs through medical defence organisations.

They also said NHS Resolution’s ability to force claims to be settled ‘doesn’t do any favours to protect the GP’s reputation’.

The NHS Resolution guidance states: ‘All benefits available under the scheme are provided at the sole and absolute discretion of the administrator [NHS Resolution] (i.e. in the exercise of the secretary of state’s functions relating to the scheme) whose decision in these matters shall be final and binding.’

It later adds: ‘Where the eligible person wishes to defend but the administrator recommends that the claim is settled by agreement, the benefits available will be no more than those accruing from the amount recommended by the administrator to be offered to settle the claim.

‘Should the eligible person continue to pursue the defence of the claim and succeed the eligible person will be eligible for reimbursement of 100% of the unrecovered defence costs up to the value of, but not exceeding those benefits available under [the scenario above].’

GPC member Dr Preeti Shukla, a GP in Blackburn who has campaigned on indemnity, said: ‘We hoped it would be non discretionary.’

She added: ‘As with MDOs, the state scheme is also discretionary – and only based on the sole discretion of the secretary of state. This means that we will not necessarily be 100% protected and won’t be covered in all circumstances. This is disappointing.

‘In the event of a dispute, the administrator of the scheme can override the GP’s opinion and the benefit would only be “to the amount recommended by the administrator to be offered to settle the claim”. This doesn’t do any favours to protect the GP’s reputation.’

But the BMA, which negotiated the state-backed deal, stressed the new scheme would give GPs the same level of protection they currently have.

Dr Mark Sanford-Wood, BMA GP committee deputy chair, said: 'GPs should have full confidence that they will be covered in all situations – in the same way that they have confidence in their current MDO arrangements, which also affords for discretion only in exceptional circumstances.

'There is no discretion regarding membership and there is no discretion regarding a limit on settlements.'

He added: 'The BMA has discussed this at length with the Government and it has reiterated that outside of this exceptionality the clinical negligence scheme for general practice will be available to all GPs on the performers’ pist and will cover any claim in full.'

A spokesperson for the Department of Health and Social Care said: 'The new scheme mirrors arrangements in NHS trusts to bring significant benefits to general practice staff.

'NHS Resolution can exercise discretion in relation to that scheme but rarely, if ever, does so.'

The spokesperson added: 'NHS Resolution will work hand in hand with those who find themselves the subject of a claim and only settle cases where compensation is due. The clinical negligence scheme for general practice (CNSGP) is a comprehensive scheme available to all GPs whether in GMS, PMS, APMS and other settings and GPs should be confident they are fully covered just as clinicians in secondary care are.'

The DHSC England announced the state-backed scheme in October 2017 after acknowledging the cost of medical negligence cover was affecting GPs’ ability to work. Then health secretary Jeremy Hunt said at the time that it will be ‘more affordable and reliable’.

Under the scheme, GPs will no longer have to pay for cover for any clinical negligence claims relating to NHS work – however they will still be required to continue membership with a medical defence organisation to cover them for private work and professional regulation advice.

When the new GP contract was announced earlier this year, NHS England confirmed the scheme will apply to all general practice staff.

In Wales, GPs will also see a state-backed indemnity scheme introduced from 1 April, which will be aligned as far as possible to the plans announced in England.

 

Readers' comments (17)

  • Meanwhile Dr Vautrey is telling all and sundry what a great deal the BMA have negotiated, and the suckers continue to believe him and continue to pay the membership fees.
    Please, stop giving the BMA money, they are not our friends.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I've been in touch with MPS and despite the NHS indemnity scheme my membership has risen from £9k to £11K - as a result of the proprotion of private income. On top of which I'll loose some of our global sum which has been taken out to pay for the NHS indemnity scheme. Not thought through at all and yet again another cost back to the GP. I'll be ringing round the other providers to hopefully get a better deal.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • MPS and MDDUS are mutuals and their cover is discretionary too.Only MDU backed by Zurich covers you regardless.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • GPs are right to be sceptical. The usual smoke and mirrors, are you actually covered? The usual giving with the right and taking with the left applies. I am not going to see more patients or work any harder. It is not worth it and the system discourages the hardwork.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • not for the first time Pulse magazine has missed the point completely

    The main problem with the governments proposals is that the new scheme does not cover claims made before april 1. So that means that many gps will need to keep paying the bloodsucking MDOs if they want to carry on working.

    So what will the effect of this be?

    That GPs like me will say s** it and stop work and stop paying and what will the effect be on the workforce.

    And did the government think of this ? maybe they did and maybe they do want to destroy general practice - but more likely it is just the usual explanation - Cockup - not conspiracy.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Deciding to take a case on; settle it or fight it out in court all set off different trajectories and outcomes reputationally, moral wise and financial. Settling is about weighing the risk of losing and the cost implications - but as others have said when compensation has been made through a settlement it can be taken as meaning that those concerned where in total error - a fact that ultimately was never proven - hence the implications of any case management approach are wide crucial to the delivery of services

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • At the discretion of somebody? Sorry, this was supposed to be a no strings attached offer to retain GPs. I remember the power of discretionary sick leave given to NHSE - if you were coloured, you had a right uphill task to get any entitlement in Kent and Medway. Had to apply thrice over a year to get first ever sickness cover for 2 weeks. Anybody given power in this country abuses it, that is the main tragedy of today's Britain.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

View results 10 results per page20 results per page

Have your say