UK government to set up small claims scheme for medical mishaps
http://www.100md.com
《英国医生杂志》
BMJ Clare Dyer legal correspondent
An NHS scheme to deal outside the legal process with "low monetary value" claims for clinical negligence will be brought forward in this parliamentary session, the government announced in the Queen抯 speech last week.
The redress scheme will be based largely on recommendations in the 2003 Making Amends report from the chief medical officer, Liam Donaldson (BMJ 2003;327:7), although it may include independent scrutiny of claims and provision for patients to have specialist representation when applying for redress, neither of which was included in the original proposals.
Action against Medical Accidents, a charity that supports victims of clinical negligence, believes it has persuaded the Department of Health to incorporate more independent scrutiny and an element of advocacy for patients.
The charity gave the announcement a "cautious welcome," saying the scheme could "either improve or impair access to justice, depending on the detail of the proposals."
Peter Walsh, the charity抯 chief executive, said: "The original proposals set out by the chief medical officer would have been unworkable and unfair to patients. However, we have done a lot of work with the Department of Health in the meantime, and if they accept our arguments for introducing specialist representation for patients seeking compensation through the scheme, and if there is an independent assessment of people抯 eligibility for compensation, it could be a viable alternative to litigation.
"We want a scheme which would get to the bottom of why the error occurred and offer explanations and assurances that things will be put right, as well as getting people quicker, less painful access to the compensation that they need and deserve."
The scheme, which would be overseen by the NHS Litigation Authority, could provide compensation without litigation for claims up to a value of ?0 000 ($55 000; �44 000), although the government could opt for a lower figure. Legal aid would probably not be available for low value claims, and claimants would instead be expected to go through the scheme.
Making Amends recommended that people accepting packages of care and compensation under the scheme would be required to waive their right to go to court.
David Lock, head of the healthcare practice at the law firm Mills & Reeve and a former Labour minister, said: "The key question is to what extent will legal aid funding no longer be available to bring claims which could be resolved using the NHS redress scheme. Ninety per cent of claims against the NHS are funded through legal aid.
"If the NHS redress scheme is available that would almost certainly provide a proper ground for not awarding legal aid, and that would effectively curtail a very significant number of negligence claims."
Making Amends also suggested a separate no fault compensation scheme for severely neurologically impaired babies, but that idea has now been shelved.
An NHS scheme to deal outside the legal process with "low monetary value" claims for clinical negligence will be brought forward in this parliamentary session, the government announced in the Queen抯 speech last week.
The redress scheme will be based largely on recommendations in the 2003 Making Amends report from the chief medical officer, Liam Donaldson (BMJ 2003;327:7), although it may include independent scrutiny of claims and provision for patients to have specialist representation when applying for redress, neither of which was included in the original proposals.
Action against Medical Accidents, a charity that supports victims of clinical negligence, believes it has persuaded the Department of Health to incorporate more independent scrutiny and an element of advocacy for patients.
The charity gave the announcement a "cautious welcome," saying the scheme could "either improve or impair access to justice, depending on the detail of the proposals."
Peter Walsh, the charity抯 chief executive, said: "The original proposals set out by the chief medical officer would have been unworkable and unfair to patients. However, we have done a lot of work with the Department of Health in the meantime, and if they accept our arguments for introducing specialist representation for patients seeking compensation through the scheme, and if there is an independent assessment of people抯 eligibility for compensation, it could be a viable alternative to litigation.
"We want a scheme which would get to the bottom of why the error occurred and offer explanations and assurances that things will be put right, as well as getting people quicker, less painful access to the compensation that they need and deserve."
The scheme, which would be overseen by the NHS Litigation Authority, could provide compensation without litigation for claims up to a value of ?0 000 ($55 000; �44 000), although the government could opt for a lower figure. Legal aid would probably not be available for low value claims, and claimants would instead be expected to go through the scheme.
Making Amends recommended that people accepting packages of care and compensation under the scheme would be required to waive their right to go to court.
David Lock, head of the healthcare practice at the law firm Mills & Reeve and a former Labour minister, said: "The key question is to what extent will legal aid funding no longer be available to bring claims which could be resolved using the NHS redress scheme. Ninety per cent of claims against the NHS are funded through legal aid.
"If the NHS redress scheme is available that would almost certainly provide a proper ground for not awarding legal aid, and that would effectively curtail a very significant number of negligence claims."
Making Amends also suggested a separate no fault compensation scheme for severely neurologically impaired babies, but that idea has now been shelved.