In News

Follow this topic

Bookmark

Record learning outcomes

Questions are mounting for the Royal Pharmaceutical Society over the launch of what it claims is “comprehensive” insurance for its members as pharmacists express reservations about the level of protection it provides.

Pharmacists told Independent Community Pharmacist they are concerned the RPS has failed to provide clarity about its professional liability insurance, which insures its members for up to £10 million, on a range of issues.

An email sent by the RPS to one of its members, seen by ICP, says cover is provided for regulatory proceedings, coroner’s inquests and fatal accident inquiries, criminal prosecution and civil proceedings, contract disputes, product liability and a medico legal helpline.

Areas not covered include the “wilful maltreatment of patients, euthanasia, transmission of communicable diseases and work undertaken whilst under the influence of intoxicants or narcotics”.

The professional leadership body will update members’ monthly membership direct debits to include its professional liability insurance on July 23 for an additional fee; £48, £83 and £261 plus current annual membership fees for foundation trainees, employed pharmacists and self-employed pharmacists respectively.

The RPS said it is rolling out the insurance “in collaboration with” the insurance broker Aon who “manages the relationship with the underwriter". The RPS also said its "insurance policy is a group scheme policy and (its) individual members are the beneficiaries under this policy”.

If pharmacists want to continue membership without its insurance cover, the RPS said they can only opt out at the start of their new membership term, with a 14-day “cooling off period” allowing them to cancel their membership and receive a full refund.

RPS denies its insurance breaches Financial Conduct Authority regulations

However, one pharmacist, who wanted to remain anonymous, said they were concerned that members who do not want the insurance need to opt out before their membership is upgraded and questioned whether the RPS and Aon were breaching Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) regulations.

Under FCA rules, firms must not enter into an agreement with customers where a charge is, or may become, payable for an optional additional product, unless the customer has actively opted in. When asked if the RPS’s insurance offer breached its regulations, the FCA told ICP it does not comment on individual firms.

The pharmacist also said they were concerned the RPS had deliberately created a scheme that fell outside of FCA regulations and was worried the insurance certificate would not be in the pharmacist’s name and only briefly mention them on the policy.

The pharmacist said they feared that would ultimately leave them without the protections a regulated insurer would guarantee them.

In response, the RPS said: “(We are) working with Aon as the insurance broker to provide professional liability insurance. As such, RPS does not need to be regulated but the insurance broker Aon is regulated as the insurer. Members benefit from the protections offered by this FCA regulation.”

The RPS added: “The pharmacist is a beneficiary of the scheme but the benefit limits are individual to each member of the scheme. Each member will be issued a client information pack by Aon which will be in their name and have their unique identifier number on.”

Aon’s UK head of health, social care and risk consulting Mark Riley-Pitt told ICP there was “no requirement” for the RPS to “hold FCA authorisation” because its insurance was not being offered “for business purposes and the RPS makes no profit from the scheme”.

“The FCA permits groups and clubs to set up insurance benefits for their members where there is no direct financial benefit to the membership body,” he said.

How will locums know which insurance they are relying on?

Another pharmacist said they were concerned that because the RPS does not need to be regulated as insurers are, they can double insure someone. “What happens with double insurance when the insurers start arguing about who is liable?” the pharmacist told ICP.

“How can locums at any point know which insurance they are relying on – the employers' or their own?”

When asked if it will provide further clarity on this, the RPS said it has provided “additional information” for its members “through a membership portal which contains further detail about how the policy works”.

When asked how locums will know which insurance they are relying on, Aon said: “If you are self-employed for your locum work, you should take the self-employed grade RPS membership to ensure you are adequately protected.”

Concerns insurance allows employer to determine employee's defence strategy

The pharmacist said they were concerned the £83 insurance for employed pharmacists only works if insurance is not available from an employer when it comes to settling compensation claims, leaving the pharmacist relying on their employer to determine their defence strategy.

The RPS said: “Contingent cover handles a claim when your employer’s insurance does not respond, i.e. it is back-up protection for legal defence costs and damages. If you are employed, contingent cover is adequate as you should reasonably be able to rely on your employer’s insurance to protect you. Your employer should not be relying on you holding your own professional indemnity.

“This is because of the well-known legal doctrine of vicarious liability. Should this doctrine fail, you would have protection under contingent cover.”

Insisting its insurance policy supports members in cases that are handled by their employer if they are referred to the General Pharmaceutical Council (GPhC), the RPS added: “Taking full (self-employed level) cover if you are solely working in an employed capacity would effectively mean that you are dual indemnified.

“This can become problematic at the point of claim, as the two insurers will need to apportion liability between them, which can cause delays and added stress. It would also mean that you would be paying for insurance that you are unlikely to ever use.”

Does RPS insurance enable pharmacists to satisfy GPhC declaration?

The pharmacist also questioned whether the policy allows them to fulfil the GPhC's requirement that they declare they have appropriate indemnity cover in place. The RPS said it “provides the insurance cover required for GPhC registration”.

Another pharmacist said they were unsure if the RPS’s insurance covered specific roles such as prescribing and vaccinating or the drugs a pharmacist prescribes.

“Prescribing and vaccinating are covered as standard where these are part of a member’s normal scope of practice,” the RPS said, adding it has provided specific information “about the limits and exclusions of the cover” in its FAQs and membership portal.

The pharmacist also said it was unclear what checks are required before individuals get cover under the RPS’s liability insurance.

Aon said members needed to provide details of their insurance claims and regulatory proceedings history “as part of their application/renewal which is subsequently considered by the underwriter before the policy is approved”.

“All members are also subject to standard satisfactory sanctions checks by the underwriter before the policy is approved,” Aon added.

Helpline operated by law firm that pursues pharmacists for compensation claims

The RPS said its liability insurance policy includes “access to a medicolegal helpline” so pharmacists can “speak to a lawyer” if they have any concerns.

However, ICP understands that helpline is operated by a law firm called DAC Beachcroft, which is believed to pursue pharmacists for compensation claims on behalf of patients.

When asked if DAC Beachcroft’s operation of the advice line conflicted with its pursuit of pharmacists over claims, the RPS referred ICP to DAC Beachcroft. When contacted, DAC Beachcroft did not respond.

When asked if charging its members an additional fee for insurance was at odds with its desire to become a royal college, the RPS said it “makes no money from this benefit”.

“RPS believes a workforce that is appropriately indemnified helps pharmacy staff demonstrate their professionalism, work more confidently in their practice and so benefit the public,” it said.

Insisting other royal colleges, such as the Royal College of Paramedics and Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists, provide indemnity insurance for its members, the RPS said its scheme “will provide recompense to patients if they are found to have a valid claim”.

It also said it will “use the insights and data from insurance claims to help educate the profession and wider system about reducing risk and mitigating further incidents, which is of benefit to patients and the public”.