Nearly £50m of taxpayers’ money has been paid by the NHS to an outsourced firm assessing claims of medical harm caused by vaccines, the BBC has found.
The figure is eight times the amount originally estimated for the assessment work carried out by Crawford & Company Adjusters – and almost £20m more than the total so far awarded to those injured or bereaved as a result of Covid vaccines.
The firm’s five-year contract, initially estimated to be worth £6m, has more than a year left to run – however a new company will start taking over the work in the coming months.
The cost of the work by Crawford, and “level of contract spend”, is because the volume of claims “has exceeded the anticipated levels”, an NHS spokesperson told the BBC.
More than 22,000 claims related to Covid vaccines have been made so far, most of them relating to the jab manufactured by AstraZeneca – but only about 1% have resulted in compensation payouts.
They are handled by the UK-wide Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme (VDPS), for which Crawford has carried out medical assessments since March 2022.
One law professor told the BBC that “the nature of the [Crawford] contract was peculiar”, and that because of the “significant uncertainty” at the time it was drawn up, they would have expected to see a shorter one that had a cap on the number of claims processed.
Responding to questions as to why costs were allowed to spiral for so long, an NHS spokesperson said the length of time it takes public sector organisations to procure contracts “can vary”, and the nature of the contract was “complex”.
Crawford – whose parent company is based in the US – was approached for comment, but the firm referred the BBC to the NHS.
A surge in claims
The money paid to Crawford for providing medical assessments is separate from the money awarded to people who have suffered as a result of vaccine damage.
Created in 1979, the VDPS currently offers a one-off tax-free payment of £120,000 if it is medically proven that, on the balance of probability, a vaccine has caused severe disabilities.
The benefits of vaccination are well documented. The AstraZeneca Covid jab is credited with saving millions of lives. And yet for those who were harmed by the jab, the resulting injuries are devastating.
There have been more than three times the number of claims under the VDPS for Covid jabs than during the previous four decades for all the eligible vaccines combined.
Despite the increase, the number of successful claims has been small. As of mid-November last year, 249 people had received payouts for harm caused by Covid vaccinations.
The payments totalled £29.8m, funded by the UK government and paid separately from the Crawford contract.
Spiralling costs
Monthly NHS payments to Crawford escalated soon after it began the assessment work for the VDPS, BBC analysis shows.
The NHS appears to have begun scrutinising the agreement with the provider as costs spiralled because of the number of claims.
The estimated value of Crawford’s original five-year contract was £6m – however this figure was reached 14 months in, in May 2023.
The new contract with a different provider was only announced on 5 January this year.
Moves to look for a new provider started in September 2023, but in the interim, spending continued to rise.
Eighteen months later, Crawford was paid £5.9m for a single month – almost the same as the entire contract’s initial estimated value, the BBC has discovered.
Given the uncertainties around the potential number of claims, an expert has questioned why the NHS didn’t choose a contract that would have allowed it to “review the situation” once more reliable data was available.
“Using firm contracts in uncertain situations carries significant commercial risks,” says Albert Sanchez-Graells, a professor at the University of Bristol Law School who has been researching NHS contracts for more than 15 years.
When asked by the BBC about the formulation of the deal and whether mistakes had been made, an NHS spokesperson said there were “several factors which influence a procurement strategy and construct of the contract”, without elaborating further.
