This site is intended for health professionals only

At the heart of general practice since 1960

pul jul aug2020 cover 80x101px
Read the latest issue online

Independents' Day

'Indemnity scheme is good news but the hard work begins now'

Dr Mark Sanford-Wood on the Government’s ‘state-backed’ indemnity scheme

Local Hero Dr Mark Sanford-Wood

Local Hero Dr Mark Sanford-Wood

General practice is fighting for its existence. A decade of underfunding coupled with rapid increases in both the volume and complexity of consultations has generated a workforce crisis of unprecedented magnitude. This has left a third of practices with permanently unfilled vacancies, and has seen the collapse of the services in localities around the country.

Numerous surveys have demonstrated beyond doubt that one of the prime factors in forcing people out of general practice, or at the very least limiting their activity, has been the spiralling cost of indemnity. When the new GMS contract was signed in 2003 the cost of indemnity for a full time GP was typically £3,000 per year. That was the funding that was transferred into the contract to cover that expense. Today a full-time partner doing a smattering of out-of-hours sessions will typically pay in excess of £15,000.

The five-fold increase in subscriptions was already forcing doctors to cut back their hours and in some cases to retire altogether. Then came the complete game changer. In March this year the Lord Chancellor announced a review of the Discount Rate (DR) which fell from 2.5% to -0.75%. The actuarial complexities of this are fascinating to those with a mathematical bent, but the take away headline is that medical negligence settlements are likely to double. As the main medical defence organisations (MDOs) work on a mutual basis this means that, in the very broadest of terms, subscriptions will need to double to provide sufficient funds for the MDOs to meet their obligations.

In addition to this future problem is the question of claims that have arisen before the DR change but which will be settled after it. This claims ’tail’ could potentially go back up to seven years and filling that deficit will require even higher subscriptions. It is estimated that in order to maintain the finances of MDOs their subscription rates would have to rise to somewhere in excess of £35,000 per year for a full time GP. This would be catastrophic. It would see mass resignations of GPs who would quite literally no longer be able to afford to work.

It was on this background that GPC embarked on a series of discussions with NHS England, the Department of Health (DH), the MDOs, the Royal College and indirectly the Treasury. A challenge of this scale does not lend itself to quick fixes. A £1Bn per year problem requires very careful consideration and discussion. All of the potential options needed to be examined and assessed, and it was acknowledged that the most appropriate solution may have looked different depending on one’s perspective or agenda.

It has been a difficult time for the profession, and many have been critical of the apparent lack of progress on this issue. However, the intense work behind the scenes has now paid off with the announcement today by Jeremy Hunt of the agreement in principle to establish a state-backed indemnity scheme for GPs. In the final analysis our argument has been heard that the only way of ensuring that government resources reach all GPs equitably and efficiently is via this option and we are pleased that this will be the basis on which we will move forward.

In many ways it is now that the hard work will begin. The exact nature of the scheme has yet to be defined, although coverage similar to the Litigation Authority protection for consultants is envisaged. Negotiations about how the scheme is funded will be key, and the BMA will continue to call for parity between GPs and consultants. Only when we remove the existing differential cost pressure represented by GP indemnity can we hope to attract young doctors into general practice.

These funding discussions between government and the BMA will no doubt been keen, but will run in parallel to the setting up of this new entity, which is likely to take many months to introduce. In the meantime MDOs have signalled their intention to maintain price stability.

This is good news for a beleaguered profession. We have taken a step towards a solution to the indemnity challenge that, if properly funded by government, will help to stabilise our workforce and might even attract people back to our ranks. There are many tough discussions and negotiations ahead as we consider the fine details that will determine success or failure. However, today’s announcement is an important step towards the help that LMCs and GPC has been demanding, and is therefore to be welcomed in our ongoing campaign to fight for the survival of NHS general practice.

Dr Mark Sanford-Wood is GPC deputy chair 

Rate this article  (5 average user rating)

Click to rate

  • 1 star out of 5
  • 2 stars out of 5
  • 3 stars out of 5
  • 4 stars out of 5
  • 5 stars out of 5

0 out of 5 stars

Readers' comments (4)

  • To be frank, having worked in the NHS for over 41 years, litigation itself is the issue. No matter about the cover, complaints about care are devastating. as evinced by a Coroner statement earlier this year, GPs are Human beings, he said, after the suicide of a GP, a mother of bereft children.
    Unless the culture of complaints change in this country, Medicine is not a great vocation for anybody, irrespective of the legal cover.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • is this a solution simply for England? , will Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales have any hope for help?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Vinci Ho

    As I wrote this morning, a 'solution' is not a solution until one sees positive outcome(s) which in this case , are far reaching as far as recruitment and retention of GPs are concerned. The high indemnity cost , as well as rising numbers of complaints and legal challenges, put off not just GPs in this country but also colleagues from abroad, who are the prime targets of the current government to reach the finishing line of 5000 GPs by 2020.
    For me , I only believe that if there is a political will , there is a political way , provided that the determination is sustained.
    Pessimistically optimistic.......

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I agree with Vinci. I am not convinced this is anything like good news.... taking steps is all very well... but in the end, all that counts is where those steps actually lead too. If we still end up paying the same levels of indemnity this is NOT going to help. A statute of limitations and cutting out solicitor fees would be good news. In black and white, signed, sealed and delivered a halving of our indemnity fees, would be welcomed.... I cannot jump for joy at the start of a process.... think Neville Chamberlain..... 'I have in my hand'.... its just pieces of paper for now..... the interesting aspect of this is what the MDOs will do fee wise for private work.... I predict private work coverage will rise sharply..... no sympathy from the public on that one...... interestingly indemnity could be used as a tool to force GPs in certain directions......there could be all sorts of catches here......Sorry Mark SW, it won't attract me back, my indemnity in Australia is a fraction of what I paid in the UK and my salary is more than twice what I earned in the UK...... if he was serious why didnt JH announce Crown Indemnity, and at the same time commence a process aimed at limiting solicitors fees and have it fast tracked through parliament.. he would likely have got cross bench support for this... he could choose to do it but doesn't, why not? Because theres a snag or manipulation of some sort coming.....

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say