Nigel Teasdale, Head of Motor, Fraud, Costs and Claimant Teams at DWF Law and a Director of MedcoIt is fair to say that MedCo has had a bumpy time since it was established, but I think that it has achieved more than most people realise since its formation was announced at the beginning of last year.
MedCo was not set up to act as a regulator , but it must deal with unregulated MROs, as well as claimant solicitors and medical experts who each have their own regulator. Despite these challenges, particularly with users constantly finding ways to avoid the partially randomised selection, we have shown our determined approach by suspending or warning 177 entities for various breaches, in addition to the audits which we have carried out.
There is evidence of changing behaviours of users following MedCo interventions in the form of restricting the making of multiple searches to obtain the expert of choice, preventing medical examinations by skype, and encouraging greater uploading of data.
The introduction of the MedCo feedback form has been a real success. This enables all users to report bad behaviour, which are then reviewed by MedCo and where appropriate sanctions taken. Medical experts can report when they have been asked to change their prognosis period for no reason.
While we accept that there are currently limited sanctions available to MedCo, at least action can now be taken, whereas before there was no answer to unacceptable practices. MedCo was introduced to bring independence to the obtaining of medical evidence in personal injury cases and to improve the quality of that evidence. Rightly, MedCo continues to have government support.
I believe that the next step is to focus on the quality of the expert reports. The data that has been received and which continues to be uploaded will be key. This shows which solicitors are instructing which MROs to obtain reports and from which experts. Where MedCo sees evidence of attempts to circumvent the process, investigations will be undertaken. As more data is uploaded it will be a valuable tool in monitoring behaviours and prognosis periods, to analyse outliers and understand the reason for those outlying opinions.
Perhaps the most important role that MedCo has played so far has been to highlight the dysfunctional way in which part of this market behaves and to show this to government. The efforts that some have gone to challenge or circumvent MedCo have been highlighted regularly to the Ministry of Justice, who can also see for themselves as observers at MedCo board meetings.
While MedCo is not the only factor, this evidence has surely been influential in persuading the MOJ and in turn government that the Autumn Statement reforms that were announced nearly a year ago are necessary to correct a market in which dysfunctional behaviours have been rife.
MedCo’s role, post implementation of the proposed reforms in respect of minor whiplash claims will I think be even more significant. If the reforms pivot on the length of prognosis periods, then MedCo will be well placed to monitor whether any “prognosis inflation” occurs, especially as it will have access to a couple of years’ worth of data by the time the reforms are in place.
If the government chooses to adopt a treatment in place of a compensation model, then, depending on how that regime is set up, the same principles of independence, accreditation, audit and sanctions will equally apply in respect of the system of obtaining treatment. MedCo could fulfil a similar role in relation to those treatment providers as it currently does for medical experts, in order to ensure that current links with certain treatment providers are broken so that treatment is provided where needed, as opposed to where it is driven by commercial business models for profit.
Nigel Teasdale is Head of Motor, Fraud, Costs and Claimant Teams at DWF Law and a Director of Medco.