The health insurance and protection market covered
'Foolish' GP requests dismay Bright Grey and Scot Prov
Bright Grey and Scottish Provident have warned that insurers could be “shooting themselves in the foot” by changing the way they request medical evidence from GPs.
The Royal London owned pair urged the industry to "take a step back" while suggesting the practice would worsen relations with doctors and hurt turnaround times.
As COVER previously reported, at least two insurers have been using Subject Access Requests (SARs) through the Data Protection Act to request complete medical histories of patients for just £10.
This is compared to the previous ABI and British Medical Association (BMA) agreed fee of £97.
It could also create confusion and leave clients caught between insurers and doctors as GPs must send the records to patients before they then relay the appropriate data to the insurer.
Roger Edwards, proposition director of Bright Grey and Scottish Provident, admitted the current process had problems but argued that change without considering the ramifications was foolish.
"While the current practice of requesting medical evidence through GP reports can at times seem clunky and costly, the insurance industry should take into consideration all the options before latching on to a new way of working that seemingly delivers what's required at a fraction of the price," he said.
"You may well agree that something has to change, but rushing in without thinking things through properly should be preserved for the foolish.
"As an industry we need to step back and think what is right, not only for customers, but also the potential damage to the goodwill and co-operation that has been built up with GP surgeries up and down the country," he added.
Edwards continued by warning that those continuing this practice were risking the entire industry's reputation and could sour relations with medical practitioners.
"Already the BMA is seeking legal advice," he warned.
"Of course there are instances when it hasn't gone smoothly, but let's take a step back and think about this for a moment.
"But put yourself in the GP's place, you've got a pile of requests through SARs which come with a £10 reward, which you've got to complete within 40 days, and a pile which reward you more fairly, that don't make you feel like someone's trying to pull a fast one.
"Which one are you more inclined to complete first and which would you leave till the last moment?
"Once you've answered that, consider whether this new approach may not result in slower turnarounds for everyone," he added.
Edwards concluded by urging the sector to work together to seek an effective solution.
"I think it's time we get together as an industry and think this situation through before we alienate the very people we're relying on to provide a service for us.
Email alert
Video
For all the latest news and views from COVER
Disease of the Month
Coffee Lounge
Advertisment
Email alert
Register for the COVER newsletter today
Stay up to date with all the latest news, product development and changes happening within the protection and health insurance market.
Print Edition
Cover - everything you need to know about the protection and health insurance market
All of the latest news and features on all aspects of the protection and health insurance market are available from our print edition.
IFAonline Jobs
IFAonlinejobs will open the right investment career path for you. Search hundreds of vacancies now.
Advertisment
Events
Visitor Comment
Add your comment
Add your comment
dilatory doctors
In 30 years' experience I have found most doctors are helpful. However, a large minority seem to think that providing these reports is beneath their dignity and their patients' personal and business needs are unimportant. They are very well paid for these reports, which in the era of computerised reports don't take too much effort. Perhaps the new method of obtaining these reports might ensure that reports are provided more quickly. I've known clients have to wait longer than 40 days for the request for information to be actioned.
Posted by: Dave Hedge | Dec 10 2011
I know its the silly season and the world is going mad ...
... but I can't belive a few things. Firstly the implication that an insurer has done this without thinking about it. Secondly the implication that a SARS is slower. Thirdly that an insurer is being criticised for introducing something that is potentiallly cheaper, quicker and more reliable. Most un-believable I am agreeing with Jerry over Roger. Dare I ask what's next?
Posted by: Jason Hurley | Dec 09 2011
about time
Dont agree im afraid... I wish all insurers would do the same, 40 days is about standard for a reply anyway and as the doctors people always say that the doctor is really busy we are saving him time... pull up the medical record and push print ...job done ... They dont even need the doctor to do it.
Posted by: Rob Waller | Dec 09 2011
and what do you get for a tenner?
Probably a wait, as is their right under the act of up to 40 days. If I was the purchaser of a property I sure as hell would not want to wait for a doctor to eek the reply out for 40 days. Get rid of the GPs and use best doctors or Harley Street Doctors instead!
Posted by: petrometro | Dec 09 2011
A bit of balance
Tend to agree with Jerry, though I can see your argument Roger. For years this has been a money making scheme for GPs. I suspect the two insurers' actions, though abrupt and challenging, is a response to high fees and poor performance. Perhaps they think that, even if they get poor performance as Roger suggests, they'd settle for one out of two i.e. cheap. For sure there has to be a better way forward. But it takes two...
Posted by: Andrew Howe | Dec 09 2011
Er working together, we've tried that...
Whilst I dont disagree with your sentiments Roger, we've tried the working together bit and it hasn't worked. Negotiations with the BMA have largely been win-lose for the industry for years. They demand more money, restrictions on questions and practices and do nothing to ensure the promised quality and turnaround improvements we have sought. Look at their actions now - seek legal advice not seek to engage with insurers. They are not acting in their patients interests but in the interests of their members pockets. There is a chance it will all end in tears but that is the way it was heading anyway but at a slower pace. And whose data do they hold? Their patients who like others have every right to access and utilise the information on their own medical history.
Posted by: Jerry Brown | Dec 09 2011
Add your comment