The Pharmaceutical Journal
Vol 270 No 7230 p14
4 January 2003

This page
Reprint
Photocopy

PDF* 80K

  Locum pharmacy
  Period-of-treatment fee
  Community pharmacy
  Repeat prescribing
  Wholesaling
  PI insurance
  Genetic research
  PILs
  Public health
  The Profession
  Branch meetings

Letters to the Editor

PI insurance

Some may want own indemnity insurance

From Mr J. D’Arcy, MRPharmS

I write to clarify the benefits offered by the National Pharmaceutical Association following Mark Koziol's letter of 14 December 2002 (p844).

The indemnity and defence benefits provided by the NPA extend not only to our members but also to anyone employed or engaged by our members. Our benefits therefore extend to managers, locums and other pharmacy support staff.

Mr Koziol places great emphasis in his letter on out of court settlements and implies that such settlements are unusual and are synonymous with a tainting of professional reputation. In fact, going to court is an extremely expensive last resort and so few cases get there. The vast majority of cases settled out of court are clear cut: the pharmacist is at fault and a settlement follows an admission of liability. We look to settle these cases quickly because delay would do a huge disservice to an injured patient. Moreover, anything other than a speedy settlement will see the profession as being reluctant to face up to its responsibilities.

In cases where liability is an issue we will defend but, like any professional indemnity insurer, we need to take a view on the economics of running a case to trial. In most cases, it would be a poor use of precious resources and likely to lead to unnecessary stress for the affected pharmacist to drag out a case where there are not good prospects of success. There would also be a risk of a claimant involving the media, and potential damage to a pharmacist's reputation if it appeared we were dragging our feet over settlement. In those cases where liability is disputed, we would need to consider whether settling out of court is an appropriate way forward. But where this happens cases will always be settled on an ex gratia basis with no admission of liability.

There will always be cases where the professional reputation of an NPA member, an individual pharmacist or the profession is at stake. But where an issue is of sufficient importance we will take a case all the way. As an example I refer to one of our current cases which involves a coroner's inquest where certain findings, criticisms and observations were made against a pharmacist and a pharmacy company which were, in our view, wrong and unfair. In seeking a judicial review of the coroner's decision we are supporting both the member and the individual pharmacist and seeking to uphold the status of the profession.

Mr Koziol also makes reference to the conflict of interest where employer-led indemnity benefits are offered alongside an employee/engagee package. Where such conflicts arise they are easily managed in practice. However, in the event of there being any dispute between the employer and employee/engagee that cannot be resolved, we will ensure that each is provided with separate representation.

However, in this increasingly litigious and claim-conscious world, we recognise that some pharmacists will want the added security of their own indemnity insurance. This is, of course, their prerogative and many of them have already approached the NPA for an individual policy. In recognition of this demand we now offer, through an NPA subsidiary, an individual pharmacist indemnity package.

John D'Arcy
Chief Executive
National Pharmaceutical Association

Send your letter to The Editor

Previous Topic (Wholesaling)
Next Topic (Genetic research)