www.independent-practitioner-today.co.uk
May 2015 Issue 71
INDEPENDENT PRACTITIONER TODAY
The business journal for doctors in private practice
In this issue
More than a pretty face
How to prepare a marketing plan for setting up a practice in aesthetic medicine P10
Brainstorming time
Doctors aiming to get into business got a helping hand at a special event P23
PR PR IVA AC TE TICE
£12.50
Free guide
How to minimise your tax liability at each stage of a limited Yo ur company company. A guide to makin g your business more tax-efficient
Go to:
life cycle
Written by James
Gransby
www.independent-practitioner-today.co.uk
Ethical rules of the road
Readers’ questions about patients’ issues with the DVLA are tackled by an expert P36
Enter the ‘fees for all’ era By Robin Stride A landmark judgment from the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) paves the way for all consultants’ fees to be compulsorily published. Prices – and performance – will be shown alongside those of private hospitals they work from on a website databank run by the Private Healthcare Information Network (PHIN). Fee data is tipped to go live fol lowing the failure of an appeal by the Federation of Independent Prac titioners Organisations (FIPO) against rulings arising from the Competition and Markets Author ity’s long-running inquiry into alleged curbs in competition in pri vate healthcare. The CAT dismissed FIPO’s appeal on all seven grounds of its challenge. PHIN boss Matt James responded: ‘We’re glad this decision clears the way for the publication of fee infor mation alongside quality measures so that consumers have the full picture.’ He told Independent Practitioner Today: ‘Consumers considering pri vate healthcare want to find the best treatment and to know how much it will cost. If they’re insured, they want to know that their insur ance covers the treatment they’re looking for with the consultant they want to see. ‘That’s pretty simple. What is In association with
more complicated is making sure the publication of information rep resents all parties and options fairly, and that’s what PHIN will be work ing on, with FIPO and others, over the next couple of years.’ FIPO said it was ‘disappointed’ with CAT’s two-to-one majority judgment backing the CMA’s view that private medical insurers’ power had no adverse effect on competi tion. It would pursue ‘all options available’. Barrister Mr Aidan Robertson said FIPO could take the case further with permission from appeal authorities, but he told doctors at the BMA private practice committee conference it would have to show an error of law in the judgment and he saw no prospect of the case reopening. In a lengthy statement available on our website, FIPO welcomed a strong dissenting opinion from the tribunal’s non-lawyer member, economist Dermot Glynn. FIPO agreed with his conclusions ‘that because there is no real price competition between consultants vis à vis the policyholders, the imposition of a fee information remedy on consultants (the remedy adopted by the CMA) cannot do anything to improve the competi tive outcome. ‘Indeed, FIPO agrees that provid ing this information may well facili tate tacit collusion, encouraging
We’re glad this decision clears the way for the publication of fee information alongside quality measures so that consumers have the full picture
Matt James, PHIN chief executive smaller private medical insurers to follow the Bupa or AXA PPP benefit schedules, leading to further loss of competition between consultants.’ FIPO had also challenged the CMA’s view that there was an adverse effect on competition aris ing from the lack of independent publicly available performance and fee information on consultants. The CMA said this should be rem edied by requiring healthcare oper ators and consultants to publish information about specialists’ fees and other aspects of their practice – the ‘Information Remedy’. FIPO challenged the CMA’s ‘Private Medical Insurers’ Decision’ on six grounds and the ‘Information Remedy’ on one issue. There was no ruling on costs. The Independent Doctors Feder ation (IDF) was also disappointed at the ‘complex judgment’. Spokes man consultant physician Dr Brian
O’Connor said: ‘The dissenting opinion given by Dermot Glynn was highly critical of the CMA. Indeed, his rea sons for dissenting reflects the view of the IDF. ‘We have always said that fee capping and pre vention of flexible pricing restricts patients’ choice, leading to an adverse effect on com petition. Patients are not necessarily directed to the best available con sultant.’ He said the IDF, which sits on FIPO’s board, would be commenting more fully on behalf of members. n Turn to page 8 for the decisions on the seven grounds of appeal. For more on this story, see our website. Turn to page 5 for more on PHIN’s databank