Medical Centre in Harlesden responds to allegation they are breaking guidelines over charging for copies of patient records

 

The Kilburn Unemployed Workers Group has taken up what they see as over-charging by a Harlesden medical practice, Freuchen Medical Centre,  for printouts of people's medical records. It is difficult for people to access disability benefits, especially with an invisible illness, unless they have proof of their conditions. Claimants understand the importance of documentation and are forced to pay  the fee for a copy of their records.  KUWG say the practice is full of people who have no money at all and no understanding of the system, with a large immigrant and refugee client base, and to whom this illegal fee will be acting as a very effective barrier.

In the letter sent to the practice in December 2022, KUWG said: 

It is most surprising that your Data Protection Officer seems unaware of the provisions of the General Data Protection Regulation and Data Protection Act 2018 with regards to patients access to their medical records. Perhaps you might bring their attention to the BMA guidance on access to medical records, which is available in full as a PDF download from the BMA website at  www.bma.org.uk/advice-and-support/ethics/confidentiality-and-health-records/access-to-health-records

 

For your convenience, here is a copy of the relevant paragraphs:

 

4.8Can a fee be charged?

 

“Initial access must be provided free of charge (including postage costs) unless the request is ‘manifestly unfounded’ or ‘excessive’ – in which case a ‘reasonable’ fee can be charged. These circumstances are likely to be rare and should be assessed on a case by case basis.

 

The ICO has advised us that a request may be deemed ‘manifestly unfounded’ if the requestor makes it clear they are only requesting the information to cause disruption to the organisation or if the requestor makes completely unsubstantiated accusations against the controller. If however, the requestor has some form of genuine intention in obtaining their information, it is unlikely the request could be deemed as manifestly unfounded.

 

A request could be deemed as ‘excessive’ if an individual was to receive information via a subject access request (SAR), and then request a copy of the same information within a short period of time. In this scenario, the organisation could charge a reasonable fee based on the administrative costs of providing further copies or refuse the request.”

The KUWG had  not received a response so Wembley Matters yesterday asked Freuchen Medical Centre for a statement on the allegations. They responded:

With reference to youe allegations and information surrounding GDPR and Data Protecvtion 2018, subject access requests and patient access to medical records. We acknowledge these and are aware of these regulations. These are clearly documented and followed in our practice policy.

All patients have the right to access their medical records, whether electronically or in printer form. However, for patients who are deemed to have requsted excessively and wish to request printed copies, there is an administration fee associated with the service. The fee is necessary to cover the costs of printing paper and ink, as well as adminstrative time involved, as this is not covered by the NHS,

Our primary goal is to ensure that patients have convenient access to their medical information, and we encourage the use of electronic records as a more sustainable and cost-effective option. Nevertheless, we understand that some patients may have specific preferences or needs that require require physical copies.

Unfortunately, without further information surrounding the specific case it is difficult to comment further.

We are extremely mindful of the socio-economic deprivation prevalent in the area in which we operate, with multiple vulnerable groups. Charges for non-Nhs work which falls outside of our contractuak obligations are completed in order to help these  vulnerable groups, often without any charges being applied to them.

Commenting on the statement KUWG said

The fact that they have a reason for breaking the provisions of the Data Protection Act doesnt make it legal or correct. Anyone breaking a law will have a reason. The guidelines are clear.

 

In most GP practices if you ask for a copy of your summary care record it is done on demand at the click of a button by the receptionist and involves no more than 3 pages of printing. Even if they were allowed to charge a fee, £5 is exorbitant for a minute's work and between one and 3 pages of printing. 

 

Where people want a full printout of their records this can more be problematic for the surgery because there can be a great many pages, and many practices ask for the full amount of time given under the Data Protection Act ie 40 days. But the Act still says that this should be provided for free. We note the response from the practice states that the fee is only for people who 'prefer to receive printed copies' but nowhere on the price list is it stated that they are offering a free digital alternative. This is irrelevant but surprising. They do have a right to charge what they like for copies of any data that is not held elecronically and which needs to be scanned and printed by hand, like specialist reports from hospitals but that's all. They also have a right to charge for letters. But not for printouts of people's data.