Thank you Bernard. This is an excellent development. I am a retired lawyer who practised primarily in the defence of professional negligence claims for 39 years. The level of wilful malpractice in this area of ‘ medicine’ is extraordinary and may well justify the award of exemplary damages over and above ordinary damages in recognition of the egregious disregard of the rights of these children. I am not surprised that gender transition now been identified by an experienced insurer as an obvious source of future catastrophic financial loss. In applying the exclusion and transferring the financial risks back to professionals responsible for this disaster, the insurer may have successfully achieved the deterrent so needed to bring this shameful episode to an end. Jennifer O’Brien
This is fantastic news. The only way out of this obscenity is through the logic of the markets. Cold hard cash or rather the likelihood of losing a lot of it is the only thing that will snap a self-deluded/opportunistic profession out of this madness. I never thought I’d celebrate the work of actuaries but right now I’m immensely pleased they exist.
It's amazing that any US state would require insurers to cover a treatment that is supported only by non-evidence based recommendations (in your work and in the excellent peer reviewed investigative report by Block in BMJ, "Gender dysphoria in young people is rising—and so is professional disagreement").
Understood, Guy. The non-activist clinicians who see difficulty with RCTs are assuming hormonal interventions still available as routine treatment as well as access to these drugs from online providers.
The MDA’s decision to withdraw insurance coverage for family doctors and specialists in private practice involved in recommendation and/or hormonal treatment of gender dysphoria in individuals under the age of 18 years is not surprising. The availability of ‘Insurance’, in its many forms, is based on the perceived risk.
It is interesting to ponder the outlined complex and time consuming requirements prior to the licensing of a new life-saving cancer therapy. Yet no such scrutiny prior to otherwise healthy children and young people undergoing irreversible sterilising and mutilating surgical interventions because of a possibly transient belief that they were "born in the wrong body".
Perhaps this move from a professional indemnity firm may encourage, say AHPRA , or even appropriate specialist colleges, to approach legislators to introduce laws to ban medical intervention in minors. Such an approach , to protect future vulnerable children, may be relied upon to reduce their exposure in future class actions. Those bodies’ inactions , to date, may well invoke claims for reparations from not just State governments, but professional bodies whose duty of care could be deemed as compromised to date by their inaction
If the Tavistock Trust is the body to be the subject of UK class actions, does that not translate to State governments here in Australia becoming the recipients? If so, surely colluding bodies like the colleges and AHPRA ( that will be something of a delicious irony) could expect to be targeted?
A few reactions in the medical community in recent days, including a strong one from from the head of MDA, who has held prominent national positions before this role:
from this article: "AusPATH had been reassured by two other major insurers, Avant and Medical Indemnity Protection Society (MIPs), that they would continue to cover GPs prescribing hormones to transgender patients under 18."
"Dr Owen Bradfield, chief medical officer for Medical Indemnity Protection Society, told TMR via email that MIPS covered its members for gender-affirming care provided to adolescents.
“However, this is subject to a general requirement in the MIPS’ Indemnity Insurance Policy that all members must have the appropriate training, qualifications, and experience in relation to any healthcare services they provide, and that they adhere to the Medical Board of Australia’s Code of Conduct,” he said.
“This requirement applies to all members providing any healthcare, not just those providing gender-affirming healthcare.”
MIPS had no current plans to remove this cover from its members, Dr Bradfield said."
Thanks to all who have been advocating in this important space. It is having a major impact amongst my peers; the hardcore ideologues will double down, others will be sobered and review their involvement. Keep it up
Just to clarify - any new treatments ("any initial prescribing") will not be covered (including for doctors in hospitals) but ongoing prescription of current treatment plan is?
Thank you Bernard. This is an excellent development. I am a retired lawyer who practised primarily in the defence of professional negligence claims for 39 years. The level of wilful malpractice in this area of ‘ medicine’ is extraordinary and may well justify the award of exemplary damages over and above ordinary damages in recognition of the egregious disregard of the rights of these children. I am not surprised that gender transition now been identified by an experienced insurer as an obvious source of future catastrophic financial loss. In applying the exclusion and transferring the financial risks back to professionals responsible for this disaster, the insurer may have successfully achieved the deterrent so needed to bring this shameful episode to an end. Jennifer O’Brien
I wish medical ethics not risk of being sued for medical harm was driving this decision. However, a win for protecting children is a win.
Would this decision exclude GP’s in Victorian schools from prescribing puberty blockers?
This is fantastic news. The only way out of this obscenity is through the logic of the markets. Cold hard cash or rather the likelihood of losing a lot of it is the only thing that will snap a self-deluded/opportunistic profession out of this madness. I never thought I’d celebrate the work of actuaries but right now I’m immensely pleased they exist.
It's amazing that any US state would require insurers to cover a treatment that is supported only by non-evidence based recommendations (in your work and in the excellent peer reviewed investigative report by Block in BMJ, "Gender dysphoria in young people is rising—and so is professional disagreement").
I guess RCH would have been told activist & safety offshore, chiefly the Dutch clinic & its publications.
Understood, Guy. The non-activist clinicians who see difficulty with RCTs are assuming hormonal interventions still available as routine treatment as well as access to these drugs from online providers.
The MDA’s decision to withdraw insurance coverage for family doctors and specialists in private practice involved in recommendation and/or hormonal treatment of gender dysphoria in individuals under the age of 18 years is not surprising. The availability of ‘Insurance’, in its many forms, is based on the perceived risk.
It is interesting to ponder the outlined complex and time consuming requirements prior to the licensing of a new life-saving cancer therapy. Yet no such scrutiny prior to otherwise healthy children and young people undergoing irreversible sterilising and mutilating surgical interventions because of a possibly transient belief that they were "born in the wrong body".
Perhaps this move from a professional indemnity firm may encourage, say AHPRA , or even appropriate specialist colleges, to approach legislators to introduce laws to ban medical intervention in minors. Such an approach , to protect future vulnerable children, may be relied upon to reduce their exposure in future class actions. Those bodies’ inactions , to date, may well invoke claims for reparations from not just State governments, but professional bodies whose duty of care could be deemed as compromised to date by their inaction
If the Tavistock Trust is the body to be the subject of UK class actions, does that not translate to State governments here in Australia becoming the recipients? If so, surely colluding bodies like the colleges and AHPRA ( that will be something of a delicious irony) could expect to be targeted?
A few reactions in the medical community in recent days, including a strong one from from the head of MDA, who has held prominent national positions before this role:
https://www1.racgp.org.au/newsgp/professional/insurance-cut-for-gender-affirming-care-sends-such
https://www.ausdoc.com.au/news/mdo-defends-restricting-cover-for-doctors-treating-kids-with-gender-dysphoria/
https://www.smh.com.au/healthcare/what-s-the-real-risk-gender-transition-insurance-cover-cut-for-gps-20230523-p5damx.html
from this article: "AusPATH had been reassured by two other major insurers, Avant and Medical Indemnity Protection Society (MIPs), that they would continue to cover GPs prescribing hormones to transgender patients under 18."
https://www.medicalrepublic.com.au/mdos-transphobic-move-on-gender-affirming-care/92277
with this comment:
"Dr Owen Bradfield, chief medical officer for Medical Indemnity Protection Society, told TMR via email that MIPS covered its members for gender-affirming care provided to adolescents.
“However, this is subject to a general requirement in the MIPS’ Indemnity Insurance Policy that all members must have the appropriate training, qualifications, and experience in relation to any healthcare services they provide, and that they adhere to the Medical Board of Australia’s Code of Conduct,” he said.
“This requirement applies to all members providing any healthcare, not just those providing gender-affirming healthcare.”
MIPS had no current plans to remove this cover from its members, Dr Bradfield said."
Thanks to all who have been advocating in this important space. It is having a major impact amongst my peers; the hardcore ideologues will double down, others will be sobered and review their involvement. Keep it up
Just to clarify - any new treatments ("any initial prescribing") will not be covered (including for doctors in hospitals) but ongoing prescription of current treatment plan is?
Great yarn
Included in the actions?