Last February, when personal injury claims against consultants were brought within the scope of the clinical indemnity scheme, concern was expressed that the cost of professional indemnity cover for consultants in private practice might become prohibitive. Due to the important role that the independent hospital sector plays in the provision of health care here the Government wanted to ensure that the cost of indemnity cover should remain affordable.
Particular concern was expressed that indemnity cover for consultant obstetricians in private practice might not be available at any price. The Government decided that a limit should be placed on the amount of cover the consultants were required to purchase. The limit was set at €500,000 for each and every claim taken against an individual consultant. In addition, an annual aggregate limit of €1.5 million per individual consultant was placed on the cover to be purchased. The State accepts responsibility for the cost of claims that exceed these limits. These arrangements are not a subsidy to any specific defence body. They have been put in place for the benefit of the consultants concerned, irrespective of which defence body they wish to join. Alternatively, there are no barriers to a commercial insurer taking advantage of them to offer an appropriate insurance policy to the doctors for whose benefit they have been put in place.
As far as my Department is aware the MPS is the only defence body or insurer that has offered indemnity cover to this group of doctors based on the existence of these arrangements. The annual subscription being charged to each doctor is €100,000. The MPS has indicated that the economic rate that it should charge is €350,000. At present, approximately ten doctors benefit from these arrangements and the notional subsidy to the group of practitioners is €2 million per annum. It is more difficult to estimate the likely future cost of this support as it depends on the number and value of future personal injury claims against them. The number of claims against them is unpredictable and likely to be random because of the small number of doctors involved.
In the case of other specialities a limit of €1 million in each and every case was placed on the professional indemnity cover that consultants in private practice need to purchase. The ultimate annual cost of providing the level of support to these specialities was estimated at €5 million per annum.
I am satisfied that these arrangements are a sensible and pragmatic response to a potentially serious problem that could have arisen if these doctors had been forced out of active practice by prohibitive indemnity costs.