FOI-02320

##Request

The assessor’s name and GMC number were withheld for confidentiality reasons. This is not standard in healthcare settings and not transparent. I would like to ascertain if the individual is someone I may know. If so, the assessment would have been biased.

They obviously don’t understand the scientific evidence provided, the initial reviewer is not appropriately qualified or has been told to refuse the initial application for the purposes of making life as difficult as practicable for the claimant and for financial reasons.

Please provide this information

The NHS Business Services Authority (NHSBSA) received your request on 22 July 2024, and we have handled your request under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) 2000.  

##Our response

Please note that this response does not relate to a specific claim or claimant. The request is being answered more generally given requests under FOIA are requester-blind. This means the identity of the requester is not taken into account when considering a request for information under FOIA.

###Names and GMC numbers

I can confirm that we do hold information on the names/ General Medical Council (GMC) numbers for independent medical assessors. 

We consider the name and GMC number to be personal data under the Data Protection Act 2018. FOI responses are published and disclosure of medical assessors’ names or GMC numbers would result in the identification of the medical assessors when entered into the GMC public register.  

We have decided not to release the names and GMC numbers of the medical assessors as this information falls under the exemption in section 40, subsections 2 and 3(A)(a) of the FOIA. 

As the requested information would allow a medical assessor to be identified, I consider this information is exempt. This is because it would breach the first data protection principle as: 

a)	it is not fair to disclose medical assessors’ personal details to the world and is likely to cause damage or distress.

b)	these details are not of sufficient interest to the public to warrant an intrusion into the privacy of the medical assessor.

The requested information is exempt if disclosure would contravene any of the data protection principles. For disclosure to comply with the lawfulness, fairness, and transparency principle, we either need the consent of the data subject(s), or there must be a legitimate interest in disclosure. In addition, the disclosure must be necessary to meet the legitimate interest and finally, the disclosure must not cause unwarranted harm.

This means that the NHSBSA is therefore required to conduct a balancing exercise between the legitimate interest of the applicant in disclosure against the rights and freedoms of the medical assessor.

While I acknowledge that you have a legitimate interest in disclosure of the information, the disclosure of the requested information could cause unwarranted harm. 

Disclosure under FOIA is to the world, and therefore the NHSBSA must consider the overall impact of the disclosure and its duty of care. The expectation of the medical assessors is that they will remain anonymous and will therefore not be subject to contact or pressure from claimants or campaigning groups.

Given the certainty that the name and/or GMC number will identify the medical assessor there is a reasonable expectation that this information will not be disclosed under the FOIA. Disclosing this information would be unfair and as such this would breach the UK General Data Protection Regulation first data protection principle.

Please see the following link to view the section 40 exemption in full: 
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/36/section/40 

###Qualifications and experience

I have established that the NHSBSA does not hold this information. This is because the medical qualifications and experience of the medical assessors are the responsibility of the third-party medical assessment supplier, Crawford and Company. 

I hope, however, that the following information provides reassurance on this point:

•	All claims are assessed by the independent medical assessment company with a consistent approach. 

•	Each case is considered on its own merits, by an experienced independent medical assessor.

•	The contract with our supplier does not require them to tell us details of the qualifications of the medical assessors or their experience. 

•	The contract requires that all assessments carried out are undertaken by suitably qualified and experienced Registered Medical Practitioners. This includes being registered on the UK GMC register, with a licence to practise and meet or exceed the following requirements:

* they are a Registered Medical Practitioner with at least five years post graduate experience; and
* they have experience of the performance of medical and/ or disability assessment, addressing questions of causation and impact in the context of legislative or policy requirements to assist the decision maker

###Conflicts of Interest

Part of the contract between NHSBSA and Crawford and Company states ‘The Supplier [Crawford and Company] must take action to ensure that neither the Supplier nor the Supplier Staff are placed in the position of an actual or potential Conflict of Interest. The Supplier must promptly notify and provide details to [NHSBSA] if a Conflict of Interest happens or is expected to happen.’

Further to this, Crawford and Company have a conflict of interest policy in place. Suppliers of medical assessors are responsible for their own conflict of interest policies.

Tags: Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme, medical assessor
Organization: Freedom of Information Disclosure Log