My campaign is bearing fruit.

Not sure if I can do this but I will do my best. The disease is progressing and today I have had my medication pushed up to 300 ml of Ketamine and 275ml of Fentanyl to cope with the increase in pain, but I have just received this press release from Kate Tullet and I am so pleased – the publicity generated by my story in the national newspapers has born fruit and here is the press release.

From: “Tullett, Kate” <>

Date: 13 July 2017 at 14:11:40 BST

To: “Tullett, Kate” <>

Subject: MPS comment on NHS Resolution 2016/17 report on clinical negligence costs

Commenting on the 2016/17 NHS Resolution annual report into the cost of clinical negligence to the NHS (just published) –

Emma Hallinan, Director of Claims at the Medical Protection Society (MPS), said:

“While there has been a small but welcome reduction in the number of new clinical negligence claims, the cost of claims to the NHS continues to spiral with £1.7bn paid out during 2016/17. This is up from £1.5bn in 2015/16, and since 2010/11 spend has increased by a worrying 98%.

“It is important that there is reasonable compensation for patients harmed following clinical negligence, but a balance must be struck against society’s ability to pay.  If the current trend continues the balance will tip too far and the cost risks becoming unsustainable.

“Legal reform is required to strike a balance between compensation that is reasonable, but also affordable – this includes the introduction of a limit on future care costs based on a tariff agreed by an expert group and fixed recoverable costs for claims up £250,000 to stop lawyers charging disproportionate fees. From the £1.7bn paid out in 2016/17, legal costs accounted for 37% of that bill.

“Given the pressure on the NHS and the change to the personal injury discount rate – which has significantly increased the NHS’ provisions for future clinical negligence costs – there has never been a more pressing time to tackle this issue, alongside continued work to enhance patient safety.”



Full NHS Resolution annual report:

Brief NHS news article:

MPS launched its Striking a Balance campaign in June, setting out a package of legal reforms to control the spiralling costs of clinical negligence and strike a balance between compensation that is reasonable, but also affordable. Find out more at

For further information about MPS contact: E: T: 0207 640 5290

About MPS:

The Medical Protection Society (“MPS”) is the world’s leading protection organisation for doctors, dentists and healthcare professionals. We protect and support the professional interests of more than 300,000 members around the world. Membership provides access to expert advice and support together with the right to request indemnity for complaints or claims arising from professional practice.   

Our philosophy is to support safe practice in medicine and dentistry by helping to avert problems in the first place. We do this by promoting risk management through our workshops, E-learning, clinical risk assessments, publications, conferences, lectures and presentations. MPS is not an insurance company. All the benefits of membership of MPS are discretionary as set out in the Memorandum and Articles of Association.

Kate Tullett

Media Relations Manager
Tel:            +44 (0) 20 7640 5290

Mob:          + 44 (0)7989 423667
Fax:           +44 (0) 20 7399 1371

Medical Protection Society  |  Level 19, 32 London Bridge Road  |  London SE1 9SG  |  UK



4 thoughts on “My campaign is bearing fruit.

  1. ““It is important that there is reasonable compensation for patients harmed following clinical negligence”

    Is it? No sorry, still not convinced and as soon as I hear the phrase ‘agreed by an expert group ‘ alarm bells start ringing. Pretty sure this is merely a pre-emptive move by the MPS which seeks to underlined how ‘important’ the idea of Med Neg Compo is to society and….

    …their own bottom line.


  2. I was unaware that compensation was to cover private care costs although it seems that is rarely used until you mentioned it, that seems wrong and I doubt most of the general public are aware of this. Also wrong that payment cannot be recovered when no longer needed, I can’t understand that at all. I remember a case where the child died not long after a huge award and the parents were allowed to keep the compensation, I think it went to court. Glad you are still making your presence felt Anna. Miss your blogs and you are always in my thoughts.
    Carol 42 xx

    Liked by 1 person

  3. The piece of legislation that dictates that care costs were calculated on the basis of private care costs, pre-dates the origins of the NHS in 1948. I other words, it was written at a time when there was no NHS and therefore assumed that patients ‘damaged’ by a Doctor would have to fund this future care privately. It has never been repealed.
    Re: your comments about a child dying and the parents keeping the award – of course – the award was made to the child and therefore becomes thier ‘property’. When the child dies, or anyone else who has had an award, the money goes into thier estate and onto to the cat’s home, or a charity, or the Monster Raving Looney Party – whoever they have made thier will out to. In the case of a child, they wouldn’t have made a will, so the money goes to thier next of kin.
    Please excsue my typing and spelling, I can barely see the letters.


  4. My view is different for the two heads of damages.


    This I feel should not be changed. Where some-one has suffered pain and distress owing to medical negligence, compensation ought to be available for that.

    Future Care

    To be furnished by the N.H.S.

    The presumption ought to be — as set out by Mme. Raccoon — that, where ever possible, care will be provided from N.H.S. resources. Only in the exceptional case of care’s not being available within the service ought care in the private sector to be funded.


    The absurd principle of tying trusts arising out of such settlements to bonds — especially since bond yields look likely to continue at trivial levels for years, if not decades, thanks to the mess created by the World’s central bankers — must be dropped and managers permitted to invest as fund managers in general do: even if only passively (sc. in tracker funds, those that merely shadow the market). Awards, where care must be provided otherwise that by the N.H.S., could then reflect the better returns typical of equities.

    Investing one’s entire wealth in bonds, even when yields were good, has never been anything but folly; stocks, properly chosen and managed, have been a sound means of wealth management for at least two centuries.

    Although, in response to Carol42’s implied suggestion, Madame states the legal position now — that an award becomes part of the recipient’s estate, remaining so on death — I believe it ought to be quite easy to alter the law so that so much of an award made against a public body such as the N.H.S. as is to provide for future care in the private sector became a determined trust, reverting to that body on the death of the successful plaintiff. (There would no longer be an award for care in the private sector in the normal run of things.)


    Liked by 1 person

Comments are closed.