Subject access requests and online technology have opened the debate over GP reports. Ian Smart asks if this could remove a perennial insurance bugbear.
The GP is also only asked to provide the information that the insurer would normally request. The big difference seems to come down to the fact that for an SAR, a GP can charge only a maximum of either £10 (if all records are held electronically) or £50 (if records are held in a manual filing system or a combination of both). This is a significant saving for the insurer against the previously agreed figure of £97, but is there any other benefit?
There is the argument that the GP does not have to do as much to fulfil an SAR as they would for a GP report. That is because many patient records today are held electronically and can be printed. Even where records are still held manually, in the majority of cases this should be a simple photocopying exercise.
There is also a strong argument that by providing the full records, the underwriting decision and claims should be made quicker as there should be no need to go back to the GP for clarification on any points.
There is, however, still the issue of removing information that insurers have agreed not to ask for and information about third parties that may be contained in the patient’s record.
So, while in many cases nothing will need to be redacted, every request will need to be checked to make sure that only the information needed is actually sent. But GPs should have procedures in place to handle SARs from patients at any time. Therefore, the whole exercise should not be too onerous for them to perform.
SURGICAL SPIRIT
It is understandable GPs may feel somewhat aggrieved that, while the work they need to do may have been cut slightly (though GPs would probably argue this is not actually the case), the fee for performing that work has, at best, been halved and, at worst, been cut by almost 90%.
There is a danger that GPs will be even more reluctant to place any sort of importance on ensuring these requests are met – other than within the 40-day time limit – to avoid a complaint to the Information Commissioner. GPs have been advised to comply with the requirements of the Data Protection Act by sending the full records to the client rather than the insurer.
Any reference to third-party information and anything they feel that could harm the client will have been removed. Further advice could also be given to the client about other information they may wish to remove before sending their records onto the insurer. This obviously introduces a risk that what the insurer actually receives is not the full medical history they were looking for.
The British Medical Association is already taking legal advice on scrapping the agreement with the ABI over medical fees as it feels it is in the public interest that the agreement exists. Combined with this move, it seems inevitable that we are in for a turbulent time.
While most would agree that something needs to be done to both speed up the process and manage costs, this seems a somewhat confrontational approach to take if all insurers choose to adopt it.
