Other issues that the DHSC should consider as part of their licensing review in England

Other issues that the DHSC should consider as part of their Licensing Review in England

The DHSC should make sure that insurance requirements accord with one agreed national standard/set of principles and should not be differentiated between registered health practitioners and non-healthcare practitioners. All should be required to operate to the same standards.

Will the DHSC set down requirements for Insurers to publish their definitions of types of cover etc and codes of practice in ‘plain and simple English’ to ensure intelligibility for members of the pubic and for practitioners themselves?

Who will produce guidelines for insurers around standards, qualifications and CPD?

What provisions will policies need to have in place in relation to any supervision and oversight requirements for certain (defined) practitioners under a license?

Make sure that insurance policies make provision (explicitly) for physical, psychological, and emotional issues that might arise as the result of aesthetic procedural practice. Procedural practice also includes consultation and advertising practices and is not just restricted to treatment interventions.

What role could (and should) insurers play in relation to educating practitioners and members the public of new insurance related licensing requirements in England?

The DHSC should conduct an equality and economic impact assessment to consider the cost impact on practitioners and insurers/underwriters of increasing liability insurance up to increased levels (e.g. £2 million as a base point, then £5 million and £10 million depending on the invasiveness/risk profile of the procedure).

Will prescribed levels of indemnity be proportionate to categories of patient safety risks as currently proposed for inclusion in the DHSC Practitioner License - green, amber, red.

How should the issue of employer liability be addressed as a standard requirement with the context of the new licensing scheme?