What impact will the introduction of electronic GP reports (GPRs) have on the protection market and will the service be well received?
Market views
Tony Jupp, Norwich Union
GPRs are a vital part of the underwriting assessment process with as many as one million reports being requested by the industry each year. Any innovation that will improve upon the current process is welcomed. We believe that by harnessing electronic technology, we are certain to see the emergence of quantifiable benefits to clients, GPs and insurers alike in a number of areas.
There would be a reduction in the overall time taken to assess an application and to issue acceptance terms. Consequently, this would lead to a reduction in progress chasing by brokers as well as a reduction in processing costs for insurers. It would also be less time consuming for the GP to complete and lead to the potential increase in take-up rates through speedier handling and decision making.
Undoubtedly the success of this initiative will depend heavily upon the interest shown by GPs in communicating electronically. The fact that GPs are already signing up to the website even before the system is 'live' is very encouraging. The NHS has given added impetus and support to this project by its own decision to provide internet access and e-mail facilities to all GPs in the UK.
It has taken a lot of hard work by a lot of people to reach this stage. We now have the technology in place to make the electronic GPR process a reality. In order to realise the benefits, all parties will need to work together and commit to the changes that will be necessary to make this happen.
Kevin Carr, LifeSearch
On average we find GPRs are requested on around one-third of protection applications. They are required either when the client has disclosed a previous medical issue, which requires further detail from the doctor's records, or where the client has requested a relatively high sum assured in relation to their age, which has exceeded the life office's automatic underwriting limits.
Such reports take an average of two to three weeks to be issued, completed and returned therefore creating notable delays in the process, especially for urgent mortgage-related cases.
For several reasons, in particular the sensitive and confidential nature of the information provided, these reports are issued and received in paper form and in extreme situations this can take months rather than weeks.
Electronic reports would therefore be a welcome addition to the underwriting process. The case in favour is a simple one: quicker and cheaper access to a client's medical records, with potential for a multiple access basis. Clients would be accepted and covered sooner, and for the life office, non-disclosure could be reduced as GPRs could be requested on more cases.
The cost of paper reports is increasing yearly, and with VAT soon to be added life offices will be considering the cost-effectiveness compared to newer developments, such as tele-underwriting.
The reasons we're not quite there yet are largely down to data protection and the logistics of integrating multiple systems. However, if a universally accepted system could be implemented this would no doubt benefit the industry, and the consumer.
Thom Van Every, PatientChoice
The introduction of electronic GPRs is a good thing for the protection industry. They provide a more easily searchable method of sourcing a patient's past medical history than cumbersome folders stuffed with pieces of paper. Ultimately, the time taken for information to be made available to insurers should decrease.
That is the theory. The replication of this in practice depends substantially on GPs putting useful information into electronic records in the first place. To their credit the Government's new GP contract – due to start this year – makes accurate recording imperative if GPs are to earn their 'quality points' on which part of their remuneration depends.
Practice should therefore begin to move towards theory and the protection industry, the reputation of which is partially built on timely claims handling, should benefit.
Peter Hamilton, Friends Provident
GPRs help determine the terms on which cover can be offered but they slow the process down. There are two aspects – how quickly a decision can be made that a GPR is needed, and secondly, how quickly the GPR is returned.
At Friends Provident we have looked to address the former by creating an on-line system, which identifies in the majority of cases whether a GPR is needed and where it is, allowing the IFA to print it off immediately and send it to the doctor. This can save days if not weeks. The system should also reduce the number of GPRs needed by as much as 10%.
Electronic GPRs address the second issue. For the customer and the adviser, once requested, an electronic GPR should be returned more quickly. Insurers will benefit from time saved in receiving the report but also in interpreting it.
For the GP, it should make life easier – filling out forms for insurance companies is not usually top of a busy GP's priorities. Now the practice manager should be able to perform the administration aspects simply and efficiently, although the GP remains responsible for the content.
Success will depend on take-up from GPs but there are clear benefits to them, so much so that I think the ABI will need to revisit the fees agreed with the BMA. It's not clear that £60 will still be an appropriate figure. The fees are high, are getting higher and have to be reflected in customer premium rates.
