Cookie policy notice

By continuing to use this site you agree to our cookies policy below:
Since 26 May 2011, the law now states that cookies on websites can ony be used with your specific consent. Cookies allow us to ensure that you enjoy the best browsing experience.

This site is intended for health professionals only

At the heart of general practice since 1960

BMA pushes for indemnity discount for GPs working out of hours

Exclusive The BMA is to meet with medical defence organisations after reports that ‘steep rises’ in indemnity fees are putting GPs off working out-of-hours shifts.

The move comes after some GPs reported some medical defence bodies demanding rises of up to a third in fees, with one locum provider saying this penalises those who only wish to take on a small number of shifts.

But the medical defence bodies said that they had to collect sufficient income from fees to cover their costs, and that some of their largest payouts were for GPs doing out-of-hours shifts.

The BMA’s intervention comes at the same time as GPs are bracing themselves to take on responsibility for the out-of-hours care of patients under controversial Government plans.

Pulse revealed earlier this year that in-hours subscriptions rose four times the rate of inflation in 2013, but one GP contacted us saying they had an increase in medical defence fees from the Medical Protection Society of 33%.

The MPS confirmed that figure was correct, but stressed that this was based on 14 sessions a week with a significant proportion out of hours and declined to give any figures on the average rise for GPs working out-of-hours shifts.

A salaried GP who works two out-of-hours shifts a week told Pulse they had a 15% fee hike in their MDU subscription from 1 April. The Medical Defence Union refused to confirm if the figures were representative of the average increase in fees.

The MDDUS said it had increased its fees by 10% across the board.

A BMA spokesperson said: ‘Many GPs across the UK are facing steep rises in their medical indemnity costs, especially those who are undertaking occasional or out of hours shifts.’

‘The BMA will be raising this issue directly with the [MDOs]. We are particularly keen to discuss whether there are potential reforms to the current fee system that could alleviate some of the pressure on those undertaking occasional and out-of-hours shifts.’

But MDU professional services director Dr Matthew Lee said GP subs took into account the different type of work GPs do, but that those only working one or two sessions out of hours per week would not typically see fees rise as a result.

He said: ‘Those with significantly greater involvement in out-of-hours work, or who work primarily out-of-hours, are exposed to an increased risk of facing complaints and claims and this is reflected in our calculation of their individual subscription.’

He added: ‘Some of the largest claims we have settled have stemmed from care provided, or in some cases not provided, by GPs working out of hours.’

Dr Stephanie Bown, director of policy and communications at the Medical Protection Society told Pulse they would be ‘happy’ to meet the BMA on the issue.

Dr David Bailey, a GPC negotiator and chair of GPC Wales, said they were looking at subsidising or getting ‘group bookings’ for GPs facing increased fees from ‘just doing a little bit of out of hours’.

He said: ‘They are financial organisations, so it is a question of whether or not we can come to something which works for both sides.

‘But what we can’t have is a situation where if you want to go and do just one or two out-of-hours session the entire fees for doing that get eaten up in increased insurance costs. That simply doesn’t work as it means out of hours is not an attractive prospect.’

Dr Sarabjit Singh Chandan, an out-of-hours locum GP who also runs his own 450-member locum agency in the Midlands region, commented: ‘Locum rates are higher than they should be for out of hours. The rates are not fair because most MDOs don’t distinguish between what out-of-hours work you do, between triage and face-to-face contact.

‘I think those doctors that work mainly out of hours are committed to doing so but the [deciding factor] for a GP to take on just a few shifts out of hours would probably depend on what the provider paid.’

 

Related images

  • Dr David Bailey, GPC Wales chair


Readers' comments (4)

  • This is a very short sighted attack on the defence organisations, its not their fault.
    the real scandal is the type of cases being shoved into GP rooms as 'suitable to see the GP', this is encouraged by the tickbox culture used to win contracts.
    My local provider has recently pledged 50% A&E footfall will be seen by GPs. A nonsense target causing hugely risky majors type cases to be seen by a GP, oh did I mention they then also set a target of 5 consultations per hour on these cases.
    As a result of this nonsense, I stopped doing any OOH sessions at my local hospital about 18 months ago. Not worth the risk and I have no intention of returning.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • You raised an interesting point which is basically over performance target which encourages doctor to unsafe practices , this was attempted by some OOH provider by benchmarking clinician's speed , this turned out to be so dangerous and created such a stir that it was abandoned.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • It's overdue for GPs indemnity to be paid mainly by the government similar to hospital doctors, an arrangement reached some time ago to prevent spiraling costs and damage to patient access. This would ensure the government are incentivized to proactively manage the medico-legal industry which has been out of control for a while now.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • 3:59

    You are absolutely correct

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say