Declined Life Cover

Redfred237

weighty1 wrote: »

Personally, in a situation like this, especially were the OP has had a heart attack I think it is extremely beneficial to obtain a copy of the GPR (or Subject Access Request info) and forward this on to alternative providers as there are heart attacks and then there are HEART ATTACKS, so to speak.

Hi,
can you just explain what a GPR (or Subject Access Request info) would be to an average Joe.
Is it a General Practitioner Report or is that too obvious.

thanks.

weighty1_2

Redfred237 wrote: »

Hi,
can you just explain what a GPR (or Subject Access Request info) would be to an average Joe.
Is it a General Practitioner Report or is that too obvious.

thanks.

Yep, a GPR is a General Practitioners Report.

Legal & General no longer request these as many GP's used to miss bits of information off their reports resulting in letters going backwards and forwards. Instead, L&G request a Subject Access Request which allows them to request your full medical history via use of the Data Protection Act legislation. The surgery literally press print on your records or photocopy any paper records and send it all off without any input from the doctor themselves. The information is then left to L&G's own underwriters to interpret.

This is cheaper to obtain than a GPR, has legislation relating to how quickly it must be dealt with and also avoids the potential for doctors missing important bits of info off their own report.

The fact that L&G didn't even request a copy of your medical records is a bit of a c0ck up by LifeSearch. In more complex situations it is sometimes a case of making a blind guess as to which provider will offer the best terms, however, I try and always ensure that it is at least with a provider who will obtain a report so that if the first provider doesn't turn out to be favourable then a copy of the report can be obtained and this can be farmed out to other insurers so that they have access to a medically written report in black and white. I've found this dramatically reduces the chances of a client being declined more than once.

Redfred237

Thanks Weighty1.

starrystarry

weighty1 wrote: »

Yep, a GPR is a General Practitioners Report.

Legal & General no longer request these as many GP's used to miss bits of information off their reports resulting in letters going backwards and forwards. Instead, L&G request a Subject Access Request which allows them to request your full medical history via use of the Data Protection Act legislation. The surgery literally press print on your records or photocopy any paper records and send it all off without any input from the doctor themselves. The information is then left to L&G's own underwriters to interpret.

This is cheaper to obtain than a GPR, has legislation relating to how quickly it must be dealt with and also avoids the potential for doctors missing important bits of info off their own report.

Mental note not to apply for an underwriting job at L&G if/when I decide to move on. That must be a nightmare. I hate it when we occasionally get full medical records. They take forever to trawl though, pages and pages of irrelevant stuff but you have to read it all in case you miss something. Targeted reports are the way to go, much shorter and you generally get better quality info.

weighty1_2

starrystarry wrote: »

Mental note not to apply for an underwriting job at L&G if/when I decide to move on. That must be a nightmare. I hate it when we occasionally get full medical records. They take forever to trawl though, pages and pages of irrelevant stuff but you have to read it all in case you miss something. Targeted reports are the way to go, much shorter and you generally get better quality info.

This is the reason why I like them. Whilst it is important that a client is always open and honest with their disclosures an SAR does somewhat put the onus on the insurer as they are privy to the full medical records.

It doesn't seem to have extended the turn-around time for completion of the underwriting since they switched from GPR's to SAR's either.

starrystarry

weighty1 wrote: »

This is the reason why I like them. Whilst it is important that a client is always open and honest with their disclosures an SAR does somewhat put the onus on the insurer as they are privy to the full medical records.

It doesn't seem to have extended the turn-around time for completion of the underwriting since they switched from GPR's to SAR's either.

Undoubtedly it will have increased the resource needed to underwrite them within the previous turnaround times, so it'll probably have pushed costs up (underwriting being an expensive resource). I couldn't do that day in day out, it's mind-numbing having to read so much irrelevant stuff.