Five legal reforms doctors need to see from Theresa May’s government

Legal costs reform

Fees charged by claimants’ solicitors are often disproportionate to the damages awarded to patients. In one recent Medical Defence Union (MDU) case, the patient received £4200 in compensation while the claimants’ lawyers’ fees were £70 000. Defendants, such as the NHS Litigation Authority and medical defence organisations, have no control over these charges yet have to pass the costs on to taxpayers or members. This is neither fair nor justifiable. The government should deliver on its promise to introduce fixed costs for lower value claims. Patients who believe that they have been negligently harmed must have access to justice, but fixed costs are fairer and would make claimants’ lawyers’ legal fees more affordable and proportionate.

Reducing claims against GPs

Clinical standards in primary care remain high, but indemnity costs continue to rise. The drivers of inflation are principally legal and economic, and they are outside GPs’ control. Yet GPs have to fund their own indemnity. The MDU welcomes the two year GP indemnity support recently promised. But the fact NHS England has had to step in to protect GPs from cost rises demonstrates the need for more permanent action. The only realistic solution—for GPs and the wider NHS—is to stem the cost and frequency of negligence claims. We encourage the government to take urgent action and to introduce legal reform.

Fairer ombudsman processes

In March 2015 the Cabinet Office consulted on proposals to create a single ombudsman to replace the many that currently investigate complaints about the NHS and other public bodies. The MDU supported the proposals in principle and believe that a new approach is needed: there is too much variation in the parliamentary and health service ombudsman’s investigations of primary care complaints.

We also said that ombudsmen shouldn’t be able to recommend financial redress payments by public bodies, such as general practices, because the law already provides a mechanism for patients seeking compensation. We would like the government to move ahead with a joint public service ombudsman and to ensure that new powers expressly prohibit the setting up of a parallel compensation system.

Faster, fairer GMC fitness to practise investigations

Although there have already been some positive steps, more needs to be done to make the General Medical Council’s fitness to practise investigation process fairer for doctors, without compromising patient safety. The GMC’s provisional enquiries scheme is aimed at speeding up initial assessment of complaints so that it can identify and close cases that are never going to amount to impaired fitness to practise, even if the facts are proved. It has been successful and was recently expanded to include cases arising from one-off clinical errors.

However—so it can deal with cases more efficiently and proportionately—the GMC needs new legal powers. We believe that the government should give the GMC greater autonomy so that it can make necessary reforms when they are needed and without delay.