PA legal challenge doctors raise £80k to pursue GMC – but ‘need £500k’

A group of doctors seeking a legal challenge against the GMC over physician associate (PA) regulation has raised nearly £80,000 – but they say they will need £500,000.

Earlier this year, Anaesthetists United – a group representing anaesthetists of all grades – said it was commencing a legal case against the GMC as it believes the regulation process for PAs and anaesthetist associates (AAs) is ‘blurring the distinction’ between doctors and associate professions.

It wants to achieve ‘clear and enforceable guidance’ from the GMC on the ‘privileges of members’ admitted to associate practice, ‘defining what they can and cannot do’.

The group’s lawyer’s have now written to the GMC to state an intention to seek a judicial review. The letter, which the GMC legally must respond to within two weeks, argues that the regulator has ‘acted unlawfully’ during the regulation process.

However, following this, there is ‘a lot more preparation to do’ before the case can go to court, Anaesthetists United said in an update. According to the group, the costs of the challenge are ‘considerable’ and they will need £500,000 to bring the case forward.

The group said: ‘We hear of PAs in general practice working unsupervised. We hear patients saying they were seen by an unsupervised associate, when they thought they were seeing a doctor. AA and PA regulation was introduced because of universal concerns about the lack of boundaries on their roles and accountability.

‘It was expected, and made clear in multiple consultation processes, that the GMC was supposed to be setting national standards to change all this. This was the justification for statutory regulation.  But astonishingly the GMC has failed to set the standards that are most needed.’ 

The group said the legal arguments ‘are complicated’, and getting a ‘thorough understanding of the history and the multitude of organisations involved’ has been difficult for their legal team.

‘Thanks to donations so far we now feel they have a solid measure and understanding of the case, but the ongoing court costs are going to be significant,’ it added.

The group estimated that the work undertaken so far will cost over £50,000 and the work necessary to get the case issued and moving forward in the judicial review process will bring the costs to £94,000.

‘After that, our advice has been that we will need at least a further £400k unless we get a Cost Capping Order capping both the costs we can recover if we win and those the GMC can recover if we don’t,’ they added.

A GMC spokesperson said: ‘We have received correspondence from Anaesthetists United Ltd’s lawyers informing us of their intention to seek a judicial review. We are considering their claims and will respond in due course.’

The BMA is also launching a judicial review claim against the GMC over its use of the term ‘medical professionals’ in its materials to ‘describe all of its future registrants’, including both doctors and associates.

The union is arguing that the term ‘should only ever be used to refer to qualified doctors’.

However, the GMC rejected the BMA’s plans for legal action on PA regulation, claiming the grounds for a judicial review are ‘not even arguable’.

Earlier this year, Pulse reported that the DAUK was also considering a legal challenge of the PA regulation plans.

Pulse’s recent investigation into the rise of physician associates in general practice looked at GP concerns about their clinical responsibilities, and particularly whether they are safe to see undifferentiated patients.

This week the BMA said that GP supervision of PAs must take place immediately after each patient and before they leave the surgery.