NHS facing £27bn bill for maternity failings in England
It comes after several hospital scandals caused hundreds of babies and women to die or suffer life-altering conditions sparking a record number of legal claims.
The potential bill for maternity negligence since 2019 is £27.4bn, according to an NHS Resolution report, the organisation that handles negligence claims for the NHS trusts in England.
Hospital scandals in England have prompted health secretary Wes Streeting to launch a national investigation into NHS maternity services.
The new rapid investigation will look at 'systemic' failures in maternity and neo-natal units 'up and down the country', which are leaving women and babies at a 'considerably higher' risk than they should be.
The probe will focus on the 10 'worst performing' maternity services in England in a bid to drive urgent improvements to safety for pregnant women and their babies, Mr Streeting said.
The NHS Resolution report which was published on Thursday revealed in 2024/25 the NHS paid out £3.1bn in compensation and associated costs overall.
But because claims take some time to be reported and settled, and some claims are settled with multi-year payments into the future as Periodical Payment Orders (PPOs), the estimated 'annual cost of harm' for NHS schemes was £4.9 billion.
This means almost £5 billion in compensation costs is currently incurred by the NHS in England each year for incidents that could be avoided.
The estimates cost of harm from maternity incidents in 2019/20 was £5.7bn, £5.1bn in 2020/21, £8.2bn in 2021/22, £3.4 in 2022/23 and £2.5bn in both 2023/24 and 4024/25, the Guardian reported.
This estimated cost is far higher than the NHS budget of £18bn for newborns over the past six years.
Jeremy Hunt, the former Conservative health secretary, told the Guardian: 'It should be a matter of national shame that we now spend more on maternity litigation than the total cost of running maternity services.'
However, compensation for maternity negligence only accounts for a fraction of the total £17.4bn sum, with a large share going towards legal costs.
Over the past six years £24.6m has been spent on legal fees for claims that did not result in damages.
Liberal Democrat hospitals spokesperson Jess Brown-Fuller said these figures show how much damage the crisis in maternity services is causing the NHS.
She told the newspaper: 'The crisis in our maternity services is being laid bare through the trauma that so many families have to deal with.'
A Department of Health and Social Care spokesperson said: 'This government inherited an unacceptable situation where too many families have suffered due to failures in maternity care and the NHS has been paying billions for its mistakes, rather than fixing them.
'We are committed to breaking that cycle and providing mothers and babies with safe, compassionate care once and for all. That is why we have announced a rapid national maternity investigation to identify where things are going wrong and identify solutions.'
A spokesperson also said it is setting up a National Maternity and Neonatal Taskforce, rolling out a digital system to better identify safety concerns, and a new training programme to help prevent avoidable injuries at childbirth.
An NHS England spokesperson said: "We recognise that too many women and families are not receiving the high-quality maternity care they deserve, and we are committed to changing this.
"We are taking immediate steps to strengthen maternity services, including closer oversight of underperforming trusts, and will work with the independent investigation to ensure we learn from its findings and deliver the comprehensive changes that women and families need and deserve.'
NHS Resolution said: 'The high cost of compensation arising in maternity comes from a small number of very serious incidents resulting in brain injury to a baby at birth. These incidents are devastating for families and reflect the need to make provision for life-long and complex care needs.
'NHS Resolution is committed to supporting the Government's action to drive improvements in maternal and neonatal safety.
'Our Early Notification Scheme enables an earlier investigation of compensation entitlement than has been possible in the past and for learning to be shared back more rapidly with NHS trusts. Additionally, our Maternity Incentive Scheme provides financial incentives to NHS trusts to embed safety standards. We continue to evaluate and enhance these programmes to improve outcomes for families and reduce preventable harm."
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Times
an hour ago
- Times
Striking doctors claiming to care about patients? It's a sick joke
The British Medical Association confirmed that a five-day NHS strike would go ahead from Friday VUK VALCIC/SOPA IMAGES/LIGHTROCKET VIA GETTY IMAGES W hen hospital doctors strike they routinely trot out the claim that they are doing it for the patients. Their desire for generous pay awards (to add to pensions that are the envy of the private sector) is billed as almost incidental to their mission to save the National Health Service. Failure to award them a double-digit pay rise, they explain, will result in catastrophe for the health service. And why? Because, says the British Medical Association, the professional body for doctors turned militant trade union, young medics would be 'forced' to hightail it to sunny Australia to line their pockets. They wouldn't be able to help themselves. The activists in the BMA fomenting a new and scarcely believable round of strikes, beginning on Friday with a five-day stoppage, should stop insulting the public's intelligence with this offensive cant, wipe away their crocodile tears and admit that it's all about the cash. The price: thousands of patients will end up in more pain and for longer, or die earlier, because of their grotesque selfishness. The NHS, which these wreckers always claim to revere, will be plunged into chaos again, just as it is recovering from 44 days of strikes in 2023-24. And what is the BMA's latest pay claim? Resident doctors — hospital doctors who are not consultants, previously known as junior doctors — want 29 per cent. Yes, really. That is on top of a 22 per cent rise last year. After the Labour government's capitulation to the BMA in 2024, it is trying to return to relative normality this year with an above-inflation offer of 5.4 per cent, in line with the pay review body recommendation and the most generous offer in the public sector. Wes Streeting, the health secretary, is trying to talk sense into the strike leaders, offering the olive branch of reduced student debt. But having shown weakness once Mr Streeting finds himself in the all-too-predictable position of facing an emboldened opponent confident in its power. The good news is that Sir Jim Mackey, chief executive of NHS England, has refused to play the BMA's game and is insisting that routine operations carry on. Tom Dolphin, chair of the BMA council, and Emma Runswick, his deputy, have called for all non-urgent procedures to be cancelled, claiming that doing otherwise would 'put patients at risk'. Their hypocrisy is nauseating: it is the BMA that is placing patients in peril. The BMA's cynicism does not end there. When resident doctors strike it falls to consultants to fill the gaps. These aristocrats of the NHS, enjoying basic salaries up to £140,000, not including private work and overtime, are being advised by the union to charge £313 an hour for strike night cover. This is rampant profiteering. Only 26,800 BMA resident doctors voted to strike out of 53,800. Some 22,000 resident doctors are not in the BMA. So just a third of all resident doctors voted yes to misery. The silent majority should back the NHS. Medical graduates start their professional training on £36,000; by their early thirties they are earning £70,000. From then on it is a staircase to comfort. NHS doctors enjoy a super-perk they prefer not to highlight: generous, index-linked defined benefit pensions resulting in retirement incomes greater than most salaries. The public needs to understand how much it is paying for the retirements of these arrogant, entitled, callous strikers. The BMA is now in danger of overreaching itself, of forfeiting public respect. A 29 per cent pay claim, following a 22 per cent one, is a sick joke.
BBC News
2 hours ago
- BBC News
Castle Hill: 'Hospital gave us two death certificates for dad to cover up their mistake'
The family of a man who was issued with two death certificates after he died following a heart procedure says the hospital covered up what happened to Holmes died at Castle Hill Hospital, near Hull, which the BBC last month revealed was at the centre of a police investigation into several deaths. The hospital revised its statement of cause of death to remove reference to the operation. His daughter Lisa Jones said she believes medics had done so "to cover up what really happened".The NHS trust that runs the hospital said it could not comment on individual cases, but added "it is not uncommon for a death certificate to be amended following a discussion with the coroner's officer". There were 11 deaths at Castle Hill following TAVI procedures between 2019 and 2023, including Mr Holmes. The BBC understands a further six people have died there since last July after undergoing the hospital's mortality rate is above the national instead of open-heart surgery, a TAVI – or Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implant – involves inserting a new valve via a plastic tube through a blood vessel, often in the groin. The tube guides the new valve to the heart and replaces the damaged procedure, which typically lasts between one and two hours, is usually carried out under local anaesthetic and is mainly performed on older patients. Last month, the BBC disclosed Humberside Police were investigating the TAVI service at Castle Hill amid evidence that patients had died following medical complications which had been kept from their Holmes, an army veteran, went to Castle Hill in 2019 to undergo a TAVI."He thought it would make a new man of him," his wife Susan, 74, told the BBC. However, the procedure went wrong."They told us that the TAVI had got stuck, and then my husband ended up going into theatre and having a heart bypass. Then he haemorrhaged, and he ended up going back into theatre again. He was fighting for his life," she was a fight the 73-year-old unfortunately lost, and he died several days later."As far as we knew, they had done everything right, and it was just one of those things," Mrs Holmes like the other families the BBC has spoken to in recent weeks about the hospital's TAVI service at Castle Hill, the Holmes' understanding of what happened was not accurate as the hospital had chosen not to disclose the details to them. The BBC has seen an unpublished Royal College of Physicians (RCP) review, commissioned by the hospital, into the 11 TAVI deaths. It is excoriating about the care Mr Holmes review graded his treatment plan and implementation as very poor care - the lowest grading - with all other phases of care rated as reads: "Poor clinical decision making occurred at every stage of the patient's pathway, the incorrect positioning of the TAVI that might have been avoided with better planning and the death certification failed to reflect accurately the factors that contributed to the patient's death."Instead of the TAVI getting stuck, as the family had been told, the review reveals it was inaccurately placed too high up. When the medics released the valve, it moved into the aorta, a blood vessel in the heart. Unsuccessful attempts were made to move the valve before it was decided to undertake emergency cardiac surgery, including the complete removal of the TAVI."Shocking, absolutely shocking," Mrs Holmes said, sitting in her garden in Hull, alongside her two daughters. "The hospital never told us any of this.""They've just covered everything up – they've not told us anything whatsoever," added Ms Jones, 48. After Mr Holmes died, the family went to register his death with the death certificate the hospital provided. However, there was a problem at the registry office – the family aren't clear what it was – and they were told they had to go back to Castle Hill. They were then issued with a second death certificate, which said the primary cause of his death was pneumonia and severe aortic stenosis, a blocked heart reviewers from the RCP saw the original death certificate, which said Mr Homes died of pneumonia and a failed review team did not consider the second death certificate, which did not mention the TAVI, "to have been an accurate description of the causes of this patient's death". There was no evidence of referral to the coroner, it Jones said the family did not spot the death certificates had changed until the BBC showed them the review."When it first happened, you can't think about it because you're grieving, so we just thought they'd done something wrong with the death certificate," she said. "[But] they've took it back because they knew what happened. " She accused the hospital of using the second one "to cover up what had really happened to my dad"."It's very upsetting to find out what's been going on," adds her sister, Marie Holmes, 52. "I've always known at the back of my mind that something wasn't right."The trust that runs Castle Hill hospital, Humber Health Partnership, said that while it would not comment on an individual case "it is not uncommon for a death certificate to be amended following a discussion with the coroner's officer".Following the BBC story last month, seven families have instructed a law firm, Hudgell Solicitors, to act on their firm said its first task was to understand what happened to each family, including whether inquests were held or needed to be re-opened."The hospital are saying lessons have been learned," Neil Hudgell said. "Well you've not disclosed the Royal College report, can you mark your own homework? How do we know you've learned your lessons?"Board papers published last month show that the hospital is dealing with "a cluster of further deaths" in the TAVI service. The BBC understands this refers to six deaths of patients who had undergone a TAVI procedure between July 2024 and March provided by the trust show its mortality rate for the whole of 2024 and the first six months of 2025 was 2.2%; the latest available UK-wide mortality figure is 1.3%. The NHS trust said "mortality data for any procedure at a local level varies constantly and can fluctuate".Both the Care Quality Commission and NHS England were aware of problems with the TAVI service at Castle CQC said "concerns about the TAVI service were known to us", while the trust has been the subject of enhanced surveillance by NHS what they had done to ensure families were informed of the problems, neither organisation provided any England said it "couldn't comment due to the police investigation", while the CQC said they had rated surgery at Castle Hill as inadequate for safety in 2022 "due to the significant patient safety concerns".
Rhyl Journal
3 hours ago
- Rhyl Journal
Row over NHS doctor strike deepens as poll suggests public support is waning
NHS Providers, which represents hospital trusts, hit back at BMA claims that health leaders were putting patients at risk, saying it was actually the 'costly' BMA strike that was risking patient care. It comes as Health Secretary Wes Streeting told the House of Commons he 'sincerely hopes the BMA will postpone' the 'unnecessary and irresponsible' strikes to continue talks with the Government, which he said had been 'constructive' in recent days. He said, however, the Government stands 'ready' and 'responsive' if the five-day strike by resident doctors, which is scheduled to start at 7am on Friday, does go ahead. Earlier, the BMA said NHS England plans for managing the strike could put patients at risk owing to the fact it has ordered hospitals to continue with as much pre-planned care as possible. We've written to NHS England with concerns about inadequate planning ahead of possible strike action later this week. Attempts to run non-urgent services with fewer doctors risk patient safety. It's imperative that Trusts postpone work to protect urgent and emergency care. — The BMA (@TheBMA) July 21, 2025 Previous strikes by health workers have seen hundreds of thousands of operations and appointments cancelled, but NHS England is taking a different approach this time to managing the strike. In a letter to hospital trust leaders, it urges the health system to focus on maintaining emergency care, maintaining the flow of patients and 'maintaining elective care to the fullest extent possible' as well as 'priority treatments' such as cancer care. 'It will be important for systems and trusts to try and maintain normal levels of booked activity…' it said, adding: 'Reducing volumes of bookings and rescheduling of appointments and other activity should only happen in exceptional circumstances to safeguard patient safety.' On Tuesday morning, BMA deputy chairwoman Dr Emma Runswick told BBC Radio 4's Today programme this plan risked patient safety. She said: 'We've had proven systems over the last decade that have made sure that where we have to take strike action, senior doctors cover urgency and critical care. 'This time round, NHS England are pushing for the continuation of non-urgent and scheduled care in a way that we think at best is confusing and will create on-the-day cancellations – and at worst could be risky and lead to harm in emergency departments and on wards, because senior doctors cannot physically be in two places at once. 'We think that a notional guidance from NHS England which is saying that basically all scheduled work should continue to go ahead has potential to be seriously risky for patients… 'Senior doctors are needed to be freed up in order to provide urgency and critical care. 'We think the vast majority of planned and unscheduled care should be shifted.' NHS Providers hit back at the BMA's claims, saying it was the strike itself that posed a risk to patients. Its chief executive, Daniel Elkeles, said: 'The NHS, not the BMA, is putting patients' interests first. 'Given that some patients will be caused undoubted harm if the short-notice strike goes ahead, NHS trusts are doing the responsible thing by not cancelling people's care while talks to avert the strike are ongoing. 'Now is a time for cool heads in the BMA because it's not too late to avoid a damaging, costly strike. NHS trust leaders hope for a breakthrough from talks between Government and the union. 'If the strike goes ahead then NHS trusts will do everything they can to avoid any harm to patients and are planning for as many patients as possible to be cared for.' It comes as a new YouGov poll showed about half (52%) of people in the UK either 'somewhat oppose' (20%) or 'strongly oppose' (32%) the idea of resident doctors going on strike over pay. Meanwhile, a third (34%) of the 4,954 adults surveyed either 'somewhat support' (23%) or 'strongly support' (11%) doctor strikes. YouGov said the proportion supporting the strike over pay has dropped five points since it last asked the question in May. Then, 48% opposed resident doctors striking, while 39% supported them taking action. Speaking in the Commons on Tuesday, Mr Streeting said that before he came into office, 'strikes were crippling the NHS'. He added: 'Costs ran to £1.7 billion in just one year, and patients saw 1.5 million appointments rescheduled. 'Strikes this week are not inevitable, and I sincerely hope the BMA will postpone this action to continue the constructive talks my team and I have had with them in recent days. 'Regardless, our priority is to keep patients safe, and we will do everything we can to mitigate the impacts of strikes on patients and the disruption that will follow should these totally unnecessary and avoidable strikes go ahead.' Quizzed by MPs, he said the 'approach we're taking is different from that taken in previous periods of strike action'. He added: 'NHS leaders have been clear to me that previous rounds of strike action caused much wider levels of harm than previously realised, and there is no reason why planned care in issues like cancer, for example, cancer appointments, as well as other conditions should be treated as somehow less important or second fiddle to other NHS services. 'That is why the chief executive of NHS England has written to NHS leaders asking them to keep routine operations going to the fullest extent possible, as well as continuing priority treatments. 'It will be for local leaders to determine what's possible given staffing levels. 'That's why it's really important that resident doctors do engage with their employers about their determination or not to turn up at work this week, and why again, I just spell out the serious consequences for patients that means that these avoidable and unnecessary strikes should not go ahead.' Consultants and SAS doctors in England – look out for your indicative ballot email from @TheBMA today! Wes Streeting called pay restoration "a journey, not an event" – so why have we stopped? Are you prepared to stand up to demand your value is recognised by the government? — Tom Dolphin🏳️🌈 🏳️⚧️ (@thomasdolphin) July 21, 2025 Elsewhere, the BMA has also issued strike guidance for consultants regarding the extra pay they can seek for covering work that is not in their contracts. The BMA 'rate card' says consultants can ask for £188 per hour on weekdays from 7am-7pm and £250 an hour from 7pm to 11pm. At weekends, the pay claim can rise to £250 per hour from 7am to 11am and £313 per hour for overnight work from 11pm to 7am. Resident doctors, formerly known as junior doctors, were awarded an average 5.4% pay increase this financial year, following a 22% rise over the previous two years. However, the BMA says real-terms pay has still fallen by around 20% since 2008, and is pushing for full 'pay restoration'. Resident doctors are qualified doctors in clinical training. They have completed a medical degree and can have up to nine years of working experience as a hospital doctor, depending on their specialty, or up to five years of working and gaining experience to become a GP.
