Exclusive Legal action associated with the regulation of physician associates (PAs) has costed the GMC more than £55,000 so far, Pulse can reveal.
Freedom of Information (FOI) data obtained by Pulse showed that the regulator has spent £55,878 as of last month on legal cases associated with its regulation of PAs and anaesthesia associates (AA).
The GMC is facing legal action brough on by the BMA, arguing that the GMC’s approach to the regulation of PAs is ‘unlawful’.
As part of a judicial review claim launched last year, the doctors’ union is also challenging the GMC over its use of the term ‘medical professionals’ in relation to PAs and AAs, arguing that it should be used ‘only to refer to qualified doctors’ and that this risks ‘blurring the line’ between doctors and non-doctors.
In response to an FOI request, the GMC told Pulse that the total amount paid in fees and costs to external parties for this case was £39,816 as of 21 March.
Alongside the BMA, Anaesthetists United, an independent group of grassroots anaesthetists, are pursuing a separate but ‘complementary’ legal action, relating to the lack of any national regulation of scope of practice for PAs and AAs.
A High Court judge granted the group ‘permission’ to proceed to judicial review earlier this, and also ruled that the case should be ‘expedited’, with a hearing taking place on 13 May. The FOI revealed that the GMC has so far spent £16,062 on this case.
The GMC also told Pulse that ‘additional fees and costs’ will be invoiced and paid to external parties prior to completion of the litigation.
Doctors’ Association UK GP spokesperson Dr Steve Taylor told Pulse that figures suggest that a ‘huge’ amount of money is being spent to defend action resulting from patient safety concerns.
He said: ‘It represents the annual fees of 120 doctors and counting – this is poor use of money. Given that the GMC is funded by doctors it seems to be a huge amount of money to be spending, to defend action brought on the grounds of patient safety concerns.
‘It would have been more prudent to listen to concerns raised and work with doctors, not against them. This is not a good use of time or money.’
A GMC spokesperson told Pulse: ‘Defending a judicial review is never a decision we take lightly, but protecting the integrity of our processes is a fundamental part of our regulatory role and is vital to ensure that we meet our over-arching objective, which is the protection of the public. We always strive to keep legal costs to a minimum.’
The BMA has recently published over 600 reports from GPs and other doctors of ‘serious concerns’ about PAs working in the NHS.
Earlier this year, the union’s lawyers argued that PAs are ‘neither doctors nor medically qualified’, with the distinction ‘crucial’ to patient safety, and that a refusal to make a ‘clear’ distinction between associates and doctors will ‘undermine’ public confidence in the NHS.
A Government-commissioned review into the safety of PAs, known as the Leng review, is currently looking at their scope of practice, including if and when an ‘enhanced’ scope might be appropriate.
The FOI response in full
Pulse asked for the GMC’s total legal fees and costs so far associated with the High Court Case brought on by the BMA and total legal fees and costs so far associated with the High Court Case brought on by Anaesthetists United. This includes costs from the point at which the pre-action letter was received.
According to FOI data obtained by Pulse, as of 21 March, the total amount paid in fees/costs to external parties for each case is as follows:
- £39,816 for the case brought on by the BMA;
- £16,062 for the case brought on by the AU.
Source: FOI data
Pulse October survey
Take our April 2025 survey to potentially win £200 worth of tokens
Related Articles
READERS' COMMENTS [8]
Please note, only GPs are permitted to add comments to articles
The GMC is funded in whole or part by doctors. In such cases the doctors funding the GMC should in my view be asked their consent if they agree with the GMC using / or allegedly misusing GMC funds in this way . This is additional to their alleged non-consensual use of doctor originating GMC funds for private medical insurance for the benefit of their own employees .
If the overarching aim of the GMC is , ‘protecting the integrity of our processes is a fundamental part of our regulatory role and is vital to ensure that we meet our over-arching objective, which is the protection of the public’ , then additionally, in my opinion how does funding private medical insurance for personal benefit of GMC employees meet this objective?
This scenario should incur sanctions and, in my opinion, its own investigation into the GMC management or potential mismanagement of finances. There is then of course, clearly a conflict of interest in my opinion, as the GMC will further profit from the introduction of PAs under their remit and why has this mammoth financial conflict of interest not been declared or investigated in its own right?
A poor way of using funds. The mismanagement. The CEO should take responsibility for messing this up.
By the way, with GMC staff having private medical insurance, does this circumvent GMC staff themselves needing to see PA or AAs s to some extent ? It would be helpful if Pulse kindly did an FOI on the private medical insurance costs of the GMC to see if this aligns with their statements of protecting the public in the same way they protect their employees with said insurance.
This lack of accountability to its members is scandalous.
Reminds me of HM government.
It appears to be illegal and unconstitutional for the gMC to use income from Doctors’ fees to pay the costs relating to it’s regulation of PAs and AAs.
GMC should use income from regulation of PAs and AAs to fund this legal costs.
Although it seems to me that the RCP was somewhat complicit along with DoH in causing the issues, so perhaps they should contribute also?
as for private medical insurance for GMC employees. As an NHS doctor myself I feel that is a severe conflict of interest ! GMC should be supporting the NHS that we have all contributed to!
I have no intention of sending this letter to our Health Minister—
Dear Health Minister
I am writing to express my deep concern regarding recent reports suggesting that funds collected by the General Medical Council (GMC) from doctors—under the guise of professional regulation—may be used to finance private health insurance for GMC members or staff.
As you are aware, every licensed doctor in the UK is required to pay a substantial annual fee to the GMC. These contributions are meant to support regulatory functions that protect patients and uphold professional standards, not to subsidise private healthcare for those employed by the regulator itself.
If accurate, such use of funds would raise serious questions about transparency, governance, and ethical stewardship of money taken from working doctors, many of whom are already under immense financial and professional pressure. At a time when frontline healthcare workers are struggling with resource shortages, workforce burnout, and rising living costs, any misuse of their compulsory fees for the benefit of a select few would be particularly troubling.
I would therefore be grateful if you could:
Clarify whether GMC funds are, in any form, being used to support private health insurance or similar benefits for its members or employees.
Confirm what oversight mechanisms exist to ensure responsible and transparent use of these funds.
Outline whether the Department of Health and Social Care intends to investigate this matter or take steps to prevent such practices, if found to be occurring.
The integrity of our healthcare regulators must be above reproach. I trust you will treat this issue with the seriousness it deserves and provide reassurance to the thousands of doctors whose trust—and money—sustain the GMC.
Yours sincerely
A poor Locum GP (in real)
To save others time but this has been going on for years – todays GMC website(easy enough to check under jobs on multiple adverts) ;
Education Quality Analyst
Midnight Monday 21st April 2025, late applications will not be accepted.
GMC Benefits – Why work for us
We work with doctors, physician associates (PAs), anaesthesia associates (AAs), those they care for and other stakeholders to support good, safe patient care across the UK. We set the standards doctors, PAs, AAs and their educators need to meet, and help them achieve them. If there are concerns these standards may not be met or that public confidence in doctors, PAs, or AAs may be at risk, we can investigate, and take action if needed.
You’ll benefit from being part of an organisation that is genuinely committed to its people with several excellent benefits including:
30 days holiday with the option to buy and sell more
Hybrid and flexible working
A generous employer pension contribution of 15%
Access to a range of learning and development opportunities designed to support your ongoing progression
Attractive salary that’s reviewed annually
Private medical insurance
Bike lockers and shower facilities
I think the comments above neglect to understand two things:
Firstly the GMC are only responding to legal action brought by doctors leaders( using your money and their statements against PAs bring massive legal peril to BMA/ RCGP in particular) Also GMC is paid for by PAs/ AAs now too- they deserve fairness/ representation just like doctors who pay don’t they?