The MYRO Briefing
Independent Healthcare Intelligence
Do You Really Know What Your Indemnity Covers?
Doctors who hold a licence to practise and are practising medicine in the UK are required by law to have “adequate and appropriate” indemnity or insurance covering the full scope of their practice. It is a condition of holding a licence — and failure to maintain appropriate cover may place a doctor’s registration and licence to practise at risk, including regulatory action. Yet in practice, the arrangements that doctors rely on vary enormously, and each type carries limitations that are poorly understood until something goes wrong.
Section 44C of the Medical Act 1983 requires that a licensed practitioner must have in force an indemnity arrangement providing “appropriate cover… having regard to the nature and extent of the risks of practising as such.” The GMC’s updated Good Medical Practice (2024) reinforces this, requiring doctors to ensure their cover extends to the “full scope” of their practice and to keep it under “regular review.” What the GMC does not do — deliberately — is prescribe a minimum level of cover in pounds. The test is contextual and risk-based, which places the burden squarely on the individual doctor to assess their own position.
Medical Defence Organisations — Discretionary, Not Contractual
The three main MDOs — the Medical Protection Society, the Medical Defence Union and the Medical and Dental Defence Union of Scotland — provide what is technically discretionary indemnity, not insurance. Unlike an insurance policy, which creates a contractual obligation to pay claims that fall within the policy terms, MDO membership provides assistance on a discretionary basis rather than as a contractual entitlement. That distinction can become critical where issues arise around eligibility for support.
MDOs are not insurers, although associated entities may undertake limited FCA-regulated activities. The discretionary nature of assistance is not theoretical: in Hussain v Medical Defence Union (2020), a surgeon’s assistance was withdrawn after under-declared earnings were identified. In 2017, the MDU withdrew support for certain categories of private spinal surgery. Doctors restored to the register after erasure may also find it difficult to obtain discretionary support, depending on the circumstances.
Commercial Insurance — Contractual, But How Much Is Enough?
A doctor who holds their own commercial indemnity policy has a contractual entitlement to cover within the policy terms. These policies are FCA-regulated, with defined policy wording and limits. Cover is typically available in bands — £1 million, £5 million, £10 million per claim — and the doctor selects a level based on their risk profile. The difficulty is that no regulator publishes definitive guidance on what level constitutes “adequate and appropriate.” Policy terms also require careful scrutiny, including exclusions, notification requirements, and conditions affecting the scope of cover.
NHS Indemnity — Narrower Than Most Doctors Realise
Doctors who work in the NHS, or whose organisations carry out NHS work, may be covered by NHS Resolution schemes such as the Clinical Negligence Scheme for Trusts. This covers clinical negligence liabilities arising from NHS work — and is not a comprehensive medico-legal protection scheme.
The gaps are often misunderstood. NHS indemnity does not provide general cover for GMC fitness to practise proceedings, criminal matters, or employer disciplinary processes. It does not extend to private practice, even where this is undertaken on NHS premises. Nor does it cover “Category 2 work” — including reports for courts or third parties, cremation forms, and other non-NHS services — for which separate indemnity arrangements are typically required. Doctors should not assume that representation at inquests or similar proceedings is comprehensively covered, as this may be limited or context-specific.
Company Policies — The Condition Precedent Trap
A significant risk arises where a doctor relies on their employer’s corporate indemnity policy. The scenario is common in the independent sector: a doctor joins a private clinic, is told they are covered by the company’s insurance, and gives it no further thought. The difficulty is that some corporate policies contain conditions requiring individual practitioners to maintain their own separate professional indemnity. These provisions are often found only in the full policy wording, rather than in summary documents. Where such a condition is not met, it may affect the availability of cover when a claim arises.
What Should Doctors Do?
Every doctor should be able to answer four questions about their indemnity position:
- 1.What type of cover do I have — discretionary indemnity, contractual insurance, NHS indemnity, or employer cover?
- 2.Does my cover extend to everything I do — including private work, medico-legal work, and any other activity outside my primary employment?
- 3.What does my cover exclude — and do I have separate arrangements for GMC proceedings, inquests, and criminal matters?
- 4.If I rely on my employer’s policy, have I reviewed the full policy wording and confirmed whether any additional personal cover is required?
If the answer to any of these is uncertain, the time to resolve it is now — not when a claim arises.
Appraisal & Revalidation
Policy & Guidance Updates
GMC Regulation Reform — What It Could Mean for Revalidation
The Department of Health and Social Care has launched a three-month consultation on the draft General Medical Council Order 2026, which would replace the GMC’s current legislative framework — the most significant reform since the Medical Act 1983. Among its implications: the current legislation governing revalidation is acknowledged as overly prescriptive, and the draft Order aims to give the GMC greater flexibility in how it manages the revalidation process. For responsible officers and designated bodies, this could mean changes to the requirements placed on them in the years ahead. The consultation closes on 23 June 2026, and responses from designated bodies would carry particular weight given their frontline role in the system.
Read the consultation →CPD for Independent Practitioners — Meeting GMC Requirements Without NHS Infrastructure
For doctors working primarily in the independent sector, meeting the GMC’s continuing professional development requirements can feel more challenging than it needs to be. NHS-employed doctors benefit from structured training programmes, mandatory study leave, and institutional systems that track and evidence CPD activity. Independent practitioners have to build that infrastructure themselves — and the GMC expects the same standard of evidence regardless of where you work.
Multi-source feedback. NHS doctors can access standardised MSF tools through their trust. Independent practitioners need to arrange their own — but the GMC does not mandate a specific tool. A structured questionnaire distributed to colleagues and patients, with results collated independently, meets the requirement. Your responsible officer can advise on suitable approaches.
Quality improvement activity. This does not require a formal QI project with institutional backing. An audit of your own practice — complication rates, patient satisfaction scores, prescribing patterns, consent processes — is quality improvement activity. Document what you measured, what you found, and what you changed as a result.
Keeping it current. CPD should be planned around your actual scope of practice, not accumulated opportunistically. If your practice has evolved — new procedures, a different patient demographic, a shift in the balance between NHS and private work — your CPD plan should reflect that.
Evidencing it. The most common problem at appraisal is not a lack of CPD activity but a failure to evidence it properly. Keep certificates, reflective notes, and a log of activity updated throughout the year. Assembling it retrospectively the week before your appraisal is both stressful and unconvincing.
The LCS Academy’s mandatory training bundle covers nine essential courses — 13.5 hours of verifiable CPD — and can form a solid foundation for your annual development plan.
Get Your Mandatory Training Sorted Now
All 9 courses for just £60 + VAT — 13.5 hours of verifiable CPD. Complete your compliance obligations and stay current with latest guidance.
Enrol Now →GMC Watch
Regulatory Updates
GMC Endorses “Long-Awaited” Regulation Reform
The GMC has publicly welcomed the DHSC’s consultation on the draft General Medical Council Order 2026, with Chief Executive Charlie Massey describing the current legislation as “outdated, too complex and overly prescriptive.” In a statement published the same day as the consultation launch, Massey said the reforms would enable the GMC to “respond more quickly and flexibly when patient safety is at risk” and make it easier for patients to navigate complaints and concerns processes. The GMC’s endorsement signals institutional confidence that the reforms will strengthen rather than diminish its regulatory capacity. The consultation implements recommendations from both the Mann Review and the Leng Review.
Read more →MPTS Cases — Cautions & Warnings
Fitness to Practise Outcomes
Dr Menatalla Elwan — Social Media, Free Speech, and the Limits of GMC Jurisdiction
Outcome: FACTS NOT PROVED
The MPTS has ruled that an NHS doctor’s social media posts about the Israel-Palestine conflict did not constitute professional misconduct. Dr Elwan, based in Liverpool, posted two comments on 7 October 2023. The GMC alleged the posts were “grossly offensive and objectively antisemitic.” The tribunal, concluding on 31 March 2026, found the relevant facts not proved — accepting the posts were “inappropriate, insensitive in their timing and in shockingly bad taste” but holding they were protected political free speech under Article 10 ECHR.
The case was one of the catalysts for Lord Mann’s review of antisemitism in the health service, which in turn informed the DHSC’s consultation on reforming the GMC’s legislative framework. For designated bodies, the practical takeaway is twofold: the MPTS has set a high bar for treating personal political expression as professional misconduct, but the legislative landscape may be about to shift under the draft GMC Order 2026.
Read the MPTS decision →Dr Keith Wolverson ERASURE
Erased from the medical register on 9–10 April 2026 following a misconduct review. Dr Wolverson, a GP who qualified in 1996, was first found guilty of serious misconduct in 2022 after the tribunal found he had recorded inappropriate comments about patients’ English language skills and had asked a patient to remove her face veil during a consultation in May 2018 despite being told she wore it for religious reasons. A subsequent tribunal in 2024 found he had worked locum shifts while suspended in breach of his suspension order. At this final review hearing, the tribunal noted that Dr Wolverson had not practised since 2022, had disengaged entirely from the GMC since May 2025, and was neither present nor represented. Postal correspondence had been returned “addressee gone away.” The tribunal concluded that the risk to public protection had increased, that no workable conditions could be formulated, and that further suspension would serve no useful purpose. Erasure was determined to be the only proportionate sanction.
Read the MPTS decision →Industry Intelligence
Independent Healthcare Sector
CQC Scraps Universal Framework — Four Sector-Specific Approaches Replace One
The CQC will replace its single assessment framework with four sector-specific approaches and remove numerical scoring from assessments entirely. The five key questions remain but will be supported by tailored key lines of enquiry. Some independent healthcare services may be exempt from ratings. Consultation runs until 12 June 2026.
Read more →Scottish Aesthetic Clinics Under Scrutiny — Clinic 45 and Forte Aesthetics Lead Compliance Failures
HIS published 11 independent clinic inspection reports in March–April 2026. Clinic 45 in Clydebank received nine formal requirements and 12 recommendations. Forte Aesthetics in Dundee followed with eight requirements. Three clinics achieved full compliance. Scottish-based designated bodies should review these reports.
Read more →Private DEXA Scanning Could Face New Regulatory Controls
The UK Government is consulting on whether to regulate non-medical DEXA scans for body composition assessment in private fitness, sports and wellness clinics. The consultation asks whether children and pregnant individuals should be excluded and whether to impose frequency limits. Respond before 1 June 2026.
Read more →The Biggest Overhaul of Doctor Regulation in 43 Years
The DHSC has launched a three-month consultation on draft legislation that would replace the GMC’s entire governing framework — the most significant reform since the Medical Act 1983. The draft GMC Order 2026 implements the Mann and Leng Review recommendations. Every designated body should consider responding. Closes 23 June 2026.
Read more →Subscribe to The MYRO Briefing
Delivered free to your inbox each month. Regulatory developments, MPTS decisions, and practical guidance for responsible officers and designated bodies.
Subscribe Free →