Should I think twice about private healthcare?

Weakened; broken; crumbling – these are just some of the ways the NHS is currently being described by the public. The state of the overstretched health service makes for gloomy reading.

It is therefore no surprise to also read more and more people are turning to private healthcare.

If you have ever been to a private hospital you will know they are often quite nice; tea and coffee in the corner; comfortable chairs in the waiting room; smiling staff that clearly have the chance to take a breath between patients.

But what happens when things go wrong in the private healthcare sector? Unlike the NHS hospitals, private hospitals are disjointed beasts.

NHS vs private healthcare compensation claims

When you enter an NHS hospital everyone there is under the banner of the NHS. If your treatment includes care from a nurse, an anaesthetist and a surgeon they are all employed by the NHS.

If they all provide you with negligent care, one claim can be made against the one Trust they were all employed by with compensation paid from NHS England (assuming treatment was in England).

Unlike conventional insurance, NHS England does not have an indemnity limit meaning when harm occurs it can compensate even the most severely injured of people whose claims might run into tens of millions of pounds.

The same does not happen in a private hospital.

The nurse is probably employed by the hospital; a private company with its own public liability insurance. This insurance is probably limited in value, likely to be in the millions of pounds, but that doesn’t guarantee it will be enough to cover the compensation needed by a patient.

In the private sector the question of whether the private hospital would be responsible for the actions of practioners like consultants and anaesthetists is much less clear cut at present, and patients bringing claims can find themselves in situations where the private hospitals refuse to take responsibility for the actions of their consultants.

In this situation the patient has to sue the doctor directly. The doctor should have insurance but again it will be for a limited amount and subject to the usual terms and conditions that come with all policies – such as requirements to be honest and transparent. Which means if the doctor hasn’t complied with their obligations, insurers may refuse to provide cover – meaning a patient is left to sue the doctor personally and hope they have enough money and assets to meet a claim.

So in the above scenario where you were negligently treated privately by a nurse, a doctor and an anaesthetist you are suddenly in a position where you may have to bring three claims against three different insurers who all have a financial interest in pointing the finger at the other.

That is of course assuming all insurers agree to indemnify. Frankly, it is a very grim situation to be in.

Another aspect of private care to give consideration to is the lack of communication between private and NHS hospitals when it comes to concerns raised about a doctor or treating practitioner.

My family has personal experience of this.

Several years ago, a family member underwent a routine procedure to check for cancer at a private hospital. He was told it had all gone well and was discharged. Imagine his surprise when a year later he got a letter from the hospital asking him to undergo the procedure again because it had come to light that at the time of the tests the doctor in question had been stopped from carrying out the procedure within the NHS due to concern over his competency.

How, you might ask, can a doctor be stopped from performing procedures in the NHS but be permitted to carry them out in the private sector?

Well in this scenario the NHS had been proactive in sending an email flagging their concerns but no one at the private hospital had acted upon it and in the intervening 12 months, the doctor himself didn’t raise it and no further checks had been carried out.

A catalogue of errors.

The doctor was eventually struck off as a result of his actions during this time but the harm was already done. In this case, whilst there was no missed cancer but the worry, the repeated invasive procedure and the feeling of being let down all took their toll.

What needs to happen to private healthcare

So what is the answer?

As more and more people are turning to the private sector, it cannot be acceptable they accept a greater risk. We need statutory reform that provides those injured by uninsured doctors the same protections afforded to those injured by uninsured motorists.

If you are hit by a car with insurance but the driver was drinking, the insurers can invalidate the insurance but under statutory law they are obligated to insure the injured party. They cannot just turn their back.

Similarly, where there is no insurance at all there is an organisation called the Motor Insurer’s Bureau (MIB) and its role is to compensate people who are injured as a result of a car accident when there is no valid insurance. I do not see why the same rules shouldn’t apply in the case of medical negligence.

It should not be that if you incur a spinal injury as a result of being hit but an uninsured vehicle, you get compensated, but if you suffer a spinal injury as a result of spinal surgery by an uninsured doctor, you are not.