This site is intended for health professionals only

At the heart of general practice since 1960

GPs demand Government reimburses their indemnity fees in full

GPs from the BMA have voted to demand the Government agrees to reimburse in full their indemnity fees in the face of crippling rises in premiums.

Backing a motion put by Cleveland LMC, delegates at the annual LMCs conference in Edinburgh called for direct reimbursement of full costs to individual GPs.

Proposing the motion on behalf of the Agenda Committe, Dr Rachel McMahon said the GPC had ‘done good work’ in securing the Government’s contribution to cover rises in indemnity costs over the next two years, but that this was insufficient and that sharing it out across practices was ‘inequitable’.

Dr McMahon said: ‘We would like to see a centralised reimbursement system, so every GP gets their fees covered directly.’

GPC workforce lead Dr Krishna Kasaraneni said securing full reimbursement as the BMA had for CQC fees in this year’s negotiations was ‘the only way’ to solve the problem.

Urging delegates to support the motion, Dr Kasaraneni said: ‘The point about complete reimbursement of costs is this is the only way this can be done.’

He added: ‘Unless we get an equivalent arrangement for indemnity reimbursement as we have with CQC we will struggle next year to keep our surgeries open.’

Motion - carried in full 

Conference, regarding medical indemnity for GPs:

(i) Welcomes the contribution towards rising costs recently in England

(ii) Believes that the contractual uplift to some practices in England has been insufficient to cover the actual rise in indemnity costs

(iii) Believes that direct reimbursement of direct costs would be preferable to reimbursement via practices based on list size

(iv) Insists on the negotiation of full reimbursement of all indemnity costs

(v) Demands that any future reimbursement schemes are extended to include all

Readers' comments (4)

  • Agree completely! Further rises in medical indemnity would be unaffordable. I still have to understand why we have to pay the GMC, rather than this being funded by the Government. We already have to pay the medical indemnity to stand against the GMC. The GMC is made up for patients, so should be funded by the government and ultimately by the general public through taxation! We (GPs) pay both the solicitors who prosecute us and the ones who stand for us. How is this at all possible?? Does this maky ANY SENSE????

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • GPs from the BMA have voted to demand the Government agrees to reimburse in full their indemnity fees in the face of crippling rises in premiums.

    Nice idea, but you may just as well ask them to give us all a unicorn and crock of gold at the same time for all the likelihood that this will actually happen.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Expect everyone will agree. I wonder what the MDOs think, however, they would have to give one large group discount to the NHS. Guess the argument is for crown indemnity

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • There's no point 'asking' for them to pay indemnity, as soon as half the surgeries close and the media make it front page news that NHS GPs are made to pay £9000 to be allowed to work, then they will beg us to come back to work with a 'golden hello'. Would ambulance drivers go to work if they had to insure the ambulance fully out of their own pay? Of course not. Some countries respect their doctors and have a strong union, like the AMA in Australia. I remember when in Australia doctors were arguing over 'Provider Numbers' a type of work license that restricted them. They only needed to print the T-shirts 'AMA-Doctor on Strike' and the Minister of Health went on TV, immediately apologised and begged forgiveness and said he would comply with all demands. That cross-eyed Jeremy Hunt needs to be put in his place in the same way. Is there not a Union in the UK? I've never found one. We are the most important workforce of any profession and the government gets away with telling patients they can demand anything and get away with insulting us and suing us on a 'no win no fee basis!' And when a patient complains even our indemnity organisation costing more than a new car each year tells us to say sorry even of the complaint is malicious instead of warning the patient they may be liable to be pay damages for defamation.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say