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

Defence organisation launches campaign to bring down GP indemnity costs

The Medical Protection Society (MPS) has launched a campaign to bring down the cost of indemnity for GP members by reducing the overall NHS litigation bill.

MPS said this comes as almost nine-in-ten health professionals are concerned that if the cost of clinical negligence claims continues to increase at the same rate as currently, this will 'threaten the sustainability of the NHS'.

It notes that NHS clinical negligence costs have increased by 72% over last five years, on the back of a rising number of claims brought by patients, with costs on course to reach £2.6bn a year by 2022.

To illustrate the cost of litigation against the NHS, MPS points out that last year's £1.5bn bill alone could pay for the training of 6,500 new doctors.

And it says the annual bill to the NHS will be £1.2bn a year higher going forward, following the discount rate reduction announced by the Lord Chancellor in March, leading to a steep rise in payouts for patients with life-long care needs.

As an example, it says that a clinical negligence claim of £1m before 20 March - compromising £700,000 of future care costs and £300,000 of other costs - would now cost £2.3m. A similar £5m claim would increase to £12.8m.

In response, the MPS said it 'would strongly urge the Lord Chancellor to reform the methodology on which the rate is based'.

MPS further urges the Government to introduce a range of legal reforms to bring down costs, including introducing fixed recoverable costs for claims up £250,000 to stop lawyers charging disproportionate legal fees.

It also sets out a number of proposals to reduce the risk of claims, including commissioning research to better understand drivers behind clinical negligence and raising awareness among medical professionals of conditions which come with a high-value claims risk (including cauda equina syndrome, meningitis/encephalitis, missed cancers, peripheral ischaemia and chronic disease management).

According to MPS CEO Simon Kayll the organisation has been left with no choice but to impose the 'significant' increases to indemnity costs in recent yeas, because it has 'an obligation to ensure that we collect sufficient subscription income to meet the expected future costs of claims against our members'.

But he added: 'The Lord Chancellor’s decision to reduce the Personal Injury Discount Rate to minus 0.75% is going to make this situation even worse. This significant decision will cost the public purse an extra £1.2bn each year as the cost of claims will be substantially larger as a result.

'I know that increases in the cost of membership subscriptions are unwelcome, and have a significant impact on some. At MPS we share our members’ concerns and want to work with the Government and others to help stem these spiralling negligence claims costs.'

  • setting a limit on future care costs, in the form of a tariff for annual costs, dependent on injuries, with an overall cap;
  • consider a minimum threshold for cash compensation for pain, suffering and loss of amenity in clinical negligence claims;
  • regulate 'after the event insurance' which currently can mean the defendant (the NHS) has to pay unlimited costs for claimants' expert witnesses;
  • consider ways of reducing expert fees;
  • introduce a ten-year limit on the period between the date of an adverse clinical event and when a claim can be made;
  • send a larger proportion of low-value claims through the simpler 'small claims track', setting the limit at £5,000;
  • strengthen the rules for when a claimant can abandon their claim close to the court date at the expense of the NHS;
  • fixed recoverable costs for claims up £250,000 to stop lawyers charging disproportionate legal fees.

Source: MPS: The rising cost of clinical negligence - who pays the price?

Readers' comments (19)

  • Recover costs from vexatious litigants.At the moment it is a one sided now win no fee bet.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Could not agree more with Turn out the lights. There needs to be a way to recover costs and counter sue when vexatious claims are made.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • There should be a clause when every claim is filed that if claim is proved to be false and vexatious then person making the claim is liable for damages. Why should there be necessity to file another claim. This will only make lawyers all the more happy they will earn money both ways. Only way to stop vexatious claim is that other party is aware that if their claim is vexatious then they will have to face consequences.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Nice to see some positive moves and sound thinking. The other options is to allow the practice of medicine to become too unaffordable when we only receive basic NHS payment for the services we provide.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Patients should be required to pay an annual supplement - not for their medical care - but to cover the cost of indemnity insurance. Indemnity claims are pursued privately and payments are awarded directly to patients. The total cost per patient would be modest - in the order of £10 per year - but would offset the disproportionate loss of income to practitioners which is £10,000 per year and rising.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • A patient disregarding doctor advice or not attending an urgent appointment arranged for him should not have a right to claim against the doctor. In one instance, when I asked the patient who accused me of lack of care, why he was blaming me if I had arranged an urgent hosp appointment for him which he failed to attend, the patient just grinned shamelessly and retorted - That's what GPs are for, ain't they? I asked what he meant and he added -'To sue' with a sheepish grin. Should we not have the right to sue such patients when the case falls apart?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • It needs a seriously wealthy GP to (successfully) sue a patient for a vexatious claim for the cheats to be deterred - therein lies the problem.
    [Such a GP would need to be prepared to face stalking by the GMC/gutter press etc]

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • unfortunately we also have some members of the medical profession who are all too eager to buddy up with solicitors and support/create vexatious claims

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Nevertheless, not everybody is a loser:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08/23/bosses-of-unions-defending-doctors-accused-of-negligence-paid-al/

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I agree with sceptic..... the doctors not facing the public and not taking the risk are the ones reaping the financial reward......... we need a mutual. I love the rationalisation in the article referenced - 'we need to pay a comparable salary'. Fact of the matter is that there is NO correlation between pay and performance at the top of these organisations. There is NO evidence that FTSE 100 bosses are worth it. There is no evidence that defence body chiefs are worth it. Comparing themselves with each other could be rephrased with 'I want just as much money as the other boss as I'm just as greedy as them therefore I should get paid a huge salary' - the comparable is just that, its a comparison, of quantity not quality. There is no evidence presented of cost effectiveness of a high salary

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

View results 10 results per page20 results per page

Have your say