MDDUS responds to ‘dental indemnity crisis’

MDDUSFollowing the blog on by Neel Kothari on 22 August entitled ‘Is there a dental indemnity crisis?‘, Aubrey Craig, head of dental division at MDDUS, has responded.

We recognise that the rising cost of indemnity is an issue that is bound to cause concern but we cannot agree with some of the commentary in the article.

The system for devising subscriptions follows an extremely robust process.

Subscriptions are based on a detailed consideration of likely future costs – including the costs of claims, which have occurred but not yet been reported – based on our previous claims experience and incorporating expert actuarial and underwriting analysis.

Claims and complaints can affect any dentist so we do not seek to weight subscriptions against dentists who have had a claim.

Risk sharing across the profession is at the heart of what we do and the majority of our members support that position.

A claim against a dentist might arise many years after the incident has occurred.

MDDUS provides ‘occurrence-based’ indemnity with no limit on liability.

So a member can seek our assistance and indemnity for any claim that might arise, even if this is brought many years later, and even when the individual is no longer practising and has left membership.

This has to be the safer option – for professionals and patients alike.

We would be more than happy to discuss this in more detail to help ease any worries.

Comments (2)

So it’s strangely three times the cost for a Dentist to be indemnified in England, than Scotland, under the same GDC.

Can your Actuaries explain why they are predicting 300% times the claims/premiums needed please?

What is SO different/bad about England?

Presumably patients in Scotland are properly safe and protected, so what is the REAL cause of difference here?

Surely it is that which should be addressed with vigor in the public interest too ?!?

Yours clearly,

Tony Kilcoyne.

I am not a lawyer Tony but from my understanding (based on internet searches and reading NHS annual reports in Scotland), the law in Scotland is more robust surrounding the length of time negligence claims can go on for which reduces legal costs and means lawyers don’t want to take up as many cases since they can’t drag it on forever, and parasitic ‘no win no fee’ lawyers aren’t allowed to operate in the same way they do in England, so there’s far fewer claims.

Would be interesting to hear the response from MDDUS.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *