MedCo Framework Review: Call for Evidence

Closed 4 Sep 2015

Opened 16 Jul 2015

Contact

0203 334 3157

whiplashcondoc@justice.gsi.gov.uk

Results updated 25 Oct 2016

Revised criteria October 2016

Following on from the publication of the MedCo review outcomes on 29 March, the MoJ has today published a revised set of Qualifying Criteria for MROs. The revised criteria have been amended to provide greater clarity, and now include a definition of an MRO to demonstrate the types of MRO model acceptable for the purposes of providing medical reports via the MedCo system.

Under the definition, organisations set up purely as a ‘shell’ to gather instructions and forward them on to a ‘parent’ or other related organisation are not allowed. For information, the new criteria applies:

  • immediately for all new MROs registering on MedCo and for any MROs applying to be reclassified as a high volume national MRO;
  • from 8 November 2016 for all existing shell companies; and
  • for all other MROs the criteria will be implemented three months following the publication of the new criteria.

Further guidance on the interpretation and application of these criteria will be published on the MedCo website.

Files:

Overview

This paper sets out a Call for Evidence relating to the operation of the MedCo Portal. The purpose of the paper is to set out the issues on which the Government is seeking evidence from stakeholders.
 
Guide questions are provided to assist stakeholders in identifying evidence relevant to those parts of the system that are under review. It would assist the analysis of the evidence provided if respondents could follow the guide questions wherever possible.
 
There is an opportunity to provide comments on other issues related to these reforms in response to the final question included in this paper.
 
This Call for Evidence is aimed at anyone that uses the MedCo Portal as well as all other interested stakeholders in England and Wales.
 
 
 Copies of the Call for Evidence are being sent to:
  •  Medco Registration Solutions
  •  House of Commons Transport Committee
  •  Motor Insurance Bureau
  •  The Law Society
  •  Personal Injury Bar Association
  •  Forum of Insurance Lawyers
  •  Motor Accident Solicitors Society
  •  Association of Personal Injury Lawyers
  •  British Medical Association
  •  Chartered Society of Physiotherapy
  •  Association of Medical Reporting Organisations
  •  British Insurance Brokers Association
  •  Royal Colleges of General Practitioners
  •  Institute of Expert Witnesses
  •  British Orthopaedic Association
  •  Association of District Judges
  •  MedCo Framework Review - Call for Evidence
  •  Council of HM Circuit Judges
  •  Civil Justice Council
  •  Civil Procedure Rule Committee
 
However, this list is not meant to be exhaustive or exclusive and responses are welcomed from anyone with an interest in or views on the subject covered by this paper.
 
 

Outcomes of the MedCo Review
 

On 16 July the government issued a public Call for Evidence to enable all stakeholders to make submissions in relation to what we refer to as the ‘offer’ (i.e. the number and mix of MROs presented to the user following a search on MedCo), the qualifying criteria for MROs and the declaration of financial links. It was made clear that the principle of random allocation was out of scope of the review.

The Call for Evidence closed on 4 September 2015 with a total of 93 responses received from insurers, claimant and defendant solicitors, medical experts, MROs, physiotherapists, trade unions and alternative business structures.

A number of open stakeholder workshops were also held in Manchester, Birmingham and London to hear directly from stakeholders operating in the sector. Finally, an analysis of the relevant MedCo management information was also undertaken.

The key outcomes of the review are outlined in the document below.

Outcomes of the MedCo Review (PDF)

Audiences

  • Businesses
  • Claims management services
  • Litigants
  • Government departments
  • Legal professionals
  • Judiciary
  • Legal professional bodies
  • Public listed company
  • Public sector
  • Academics
  • UK politicians

Interests

  • Compensation
  • Damages
  • Courts
  • Claims management
  • Access to justice
  • UK Law