Single patient records can help guard against customer non-disclosure, but their introduction could also run the risk of insurers rejecting some claims.
This is according to advisers Health & Protection spoke to following the government’s introduction of its Health Bill to the House of Commons late last week which contains a proposal for single patient records.
Accurate disclosure
For Charlotte Rogers, protection specialist at Radcliffe and Co, anything which helps accurate disclosure through easy access to health records is welcomed.
“It is becoming increasingly common for customers to have health checks through work-based schemes, seek private GP or treatment options as well as the need to recall their NHS records,” Rogers told Health & Protection.
“During an application we encourage the customer to have access to their NHS app but this does not consider any records from other sources unless they have been explicitly shared with their GP.
“We still find some patient records are not complete on the NHS app and it can be unreasonable for a customer to remember exact dates for certain (more minor) appointments – this can lead to accidental non disclosure which of course has an impact on the claim.”
Less GP requests
Rogers added single patient record would present is far more accurate initial disclosures which will hopefully remove the need for some GP requests and additional information being sought.
“This would speed up the time from application to terms, getting more people covered quicker and less pipeline for advisers to keep an eye on, improving efficiency all round,” she continued. “The biggest benefit however is more accurate initial disclosure which would result in less declined claims.”
Real issue is fragmentation
But Kristian Breeze, director of healthcare at Ascend Health, maintained from his perspective, the real issue with single patient records is fragmentation.
“When records sit across GPs, hospitals, diagnostics and community care, the patient is too often left to join the dots, repeat their story and reconstruct a medical history that should already exist in one place,” Breeze said.
“That creates delay, duplication and avoidable uncertainty, and it becomes particularly problematic when people are expected to disclose accurately without having a complete view of their own record.
“To me, this is not just an administrative weakness. It is a structural problem that affects patient confidence, continuity of care and the quality of decision-making across the system.”
Unintentional disclosure
Though Breeze does think a single patient record could reduce a meaningful amount of non-disclosure, particularly the unintentional kind.
“In my view, many disclosure issues are not rooted in bad faith, but in confusion, poor recall and incomplete information,” he continued. “If people can see a clearer account of diagnoses, treatments, prescriptions and timelines, they are far more likely to disclose accurately and consistently.
“That said, better records will not remove the need for clear underwriting questions or better consumer understanding. It should improve the quality of disclosure, but it will not replace the need for judgement, explanation and proportionate interpretation.”
Clarity is biggest benefit
Breeze identified the biggest benefit of the plan to advisers as clarity.
“Better access to reliable health information should mean better disclosure conversations, fewer misunderstandings and less friction at application and claims stage,” he continued.
“Anything that reduces ambiguity is good for advisers, good for customers and good for trust in the process.
“Broadly, I do welcome the plan, because the direction of travel is clearly the right one. But I also think success will depend on execution rather than ambition alone. If safeguards, role-based access and audit trails are strong, this could be a genuinely useful reform. If trust is not built alongside the technology, the policy will struggle to deliver on its promise.”
Collating records
Elaborating on the challenges for advisers, Alan Knowles, co-managing director at Cura Financial Services, revealed one particular issue is around customers not having all of their medical records in one place tend to arise when they are under the care of a specialist.
“For example, someone living with HIV may have general medical information held by their GP, while the majority of their HIV notes sit with their specialist team,” Knowles said.
“For insurers, this means they often need to request information from both the GP and the specialist. As specialists are not as used to producing GP style medical reports, their responses usually take longer. This of course impacts the customer as their applications take longer.
“From a customer perspective, having all of their health information accessible in a single location could be incredibly helpful to help speed insurance applications up. It may also help reduce non disclosure by giving them a record they can cross reference when answering insurance questions.”
Potential pitfalls
Though single patient records are not without their potential pitfalls.
“One thing to note though. If a customer provides their entire medical record to an insurer, the insurer may see information that wasn’t relevant to the application questions,” Knowles noted.
“That introduces the possibility of over‑disclosure, where details that were never required could still influence underwriting decisions.
“Overall though, having a centralised and consolidated medical record, sounds like a positive for customers purchasing protection insurance.”
Lack of detail
And Alan Lakey, director at CIExpert and Highclere Financial Services, told Health & Protection he believes that there is a lack of detail from the government suggesting the proposal has not been fully thought through and is as much a “political” gesture as an actual initiative.
“Most clients are not able to access their medical records and when a surgery prints them out they are haphazard and difficult to piece together in a chronological way,” Lakey continued.
“This can create problems and I imagine many advisers have experienced clients remembering medical info days after an application has gone to the insurer.
“Patient access will certainly assist with accidental non-disclosure and will make the adviser’s task somewhat easier if the records are easily accessed. My fear is that like many previous initiatives it gets bogged down in the process of realisation.”
