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

NHS indemnity is welcome, but the burden of compensation remains

Dr Michael Devlin, head of professional standards and liaison at the Medical Defence Union (MDU), explains the problem of growing liabilities for NHS clinical negligence claims in England remains, despite GPs no longer paying for their own indemnity

On 1st April 2019, a collective sigh of relief was breathed in GP surgeries, as a state-backed indemnity scheme for existing clinical negligence claims liabilities was rolled out in England and Wales.

It followed years of unsustainable inflation in clinical negligence awards that in turn led to increasingly unaffordable indemnity subscriptions. The new schemes are welcome, but it’s important to recognise that they don’t address the underlying causes of the burgeoning compensation awards in clinical negligence claims.

NHS Resolution, the body which provides indemnity schemes to NHS trusts in England, and which now includes GPs, reported total estimated liabilities of over £83 billion in its latest annual report. This figure comprises claims paid in the year to April 2019; those settled in the past but where regular future payments will be made; and those where actuaries estimate the value of future claims that have not yet been made relating to past incidents.

These are real figures with a significant impact – NHS money which would ideally go straight to patient care will have to fund compensation awards instead.

The particularly worrying thing is that the £83 billion figure will grow each year, and substantially. Claims inflation is running at almost 10% per year, which suggests that by 2026 total liabilities could amount to £165 billion. To give that figure some context, the running costs for the NHS in England in 2018/19 was £129 billion.

Patients must be compensated for the cost of having all future care provided privately

The massive bill is principally a reflection of the high costs of future care in cases where the patient is seriously damaged and not a reflection of the standard of care. A GMC report in 2018 described health and social care being at a ‘critical juncture’, but doctors were ’still delivering good care in very trying circumstances’.

And GPs are at the forefront of providing good care: despite delivering 1.22 million appointments per day last year, in often challenging conditions, Pulse reported that 96% of patients report confidence in their GP.

The absence of an empirical link between clinical standards and the spiralling increase in the cost of claims is important to emphasise. It’s right to relentlessly pursue the highest standards in patient safety and the new national patient safety syllabus aims to achieve just that. But it’s wrong to assume that advances in patient safety will lead to significant savings in the amount paid out each year in clinical negligence claims.

Control of compensation costs is needed, but that requires legal reform. For example, a 1948 law forces judges to ignore the availability of NHS care when assessing damages.

Patients must be compensated for the cost of having all future care provided privately. If defendants such as NHS Resolution and the MDU were allowed to pay the NHS to look after patients damaged by negligence, they would still get the care they needed and others would also benefit from the boost to NHS funding. Reform of that particular law is long overdue.

Your voice is important and if you’re interested in calling for the types of changes that we say are needed, get involved

Dr Michael Devlin is head of professional standards and liaison at the MDU, and a former GP

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 (13)

  • Knowledge is Porridge

    Wow, so simple and so sensible. Count me in.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • follow New Zealands lead....... you can't sue a doctor there.... the is a no fault system.......everyone pays into a compensation scheme.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Couldn’t agree more. It’s madness. We all have to accept that to accept health care is to accept a degree of risk. The risks are not being reduced by extortionate payouts. There needs to be root and branch reform, particularly in hospitals. Spend the money on anonymous surveying of doctors on patient safety matters, and an independent patient safety team in every hospital.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Why are doctors and nurses expected to cope and work with uncertainty but the general public aren't and are even given money when their expectations of the uncertain don't materialize as expected??!!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I'll tell you why because this government refuses to lay down its fist for what the tax payer should and should not expect from the NHS.

    Until the public is disciplined nothing will change for the NHS. The alternative to discipline is population control.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Yes there is a staffing crisis at all levels amongst multiple specialties but HMG can only make a career choice attractive to a certain limit.

    Once that limit is reached it can't conscript people into the jobs and the general public will have to be told like the children they are; what they can and cannot demand compensation, if any at all, for!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Do doctors who get wrongfully suspended or erased get compensated?

    No.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Law needs urgent changing :
    otherwise HMG will continue with it's popualtion control approach, encouraging Doctors, Nurses, etc to leave the country at a massive rate!
    closing rural services, hospitals, retreating from flooding, closing rail and road services, etc

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • when the compensation bill is greater than the cost of providing the NHS economically it would be better for the UK to close the NHS altogether and let patients go privately. it would save tax payers money. people then would pay the full cost of their healthcare and some. The money saved could be used for tax cuts in compensation and pay towards social care. You may not like it but the tax system cannot continue to pay ever increasing payouts and provide a functioning NHS at the same time. either you have a no fault scheme to which only those who contribute to have access to or you decimate the current NHS to its knees and end up with no service at all. The latter is the current system. you reap what you sow.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • If I was wronged, I would expect adequate compensation. This should be at the level of private care, as you can’t rely or predict that the NHS will be able to look after you. I wouldn’t want to wait on a trolly for 4 hours or six months for an appointment, from the service that caused the harm in the first place.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

View results 10 results per page20 results per page

Have your say