Medical reporting sits at the intersection of patient information, professional judgement and practice administration. It can generate legitimate fee income, but it can also absorb staff time through incomplete requests, chasing, redaction, review and payment reconciliation. A practice considering Lalu or iGPR should therefore compare the whole process, not simply whether either supplier promises to reduce paperwork.
The first decision is whether to buy software for an in-house team or commission a managed service. The second is which provider and contract fit the practice. Combining those questions into a single brand comparison makes it harder to identify what work will actually leave the building.
What the providers currently describe
Lalu Care, formerly associated with the Medi2data name, offers ReportSure in managed-service and self-service forms. Its published proposition includes medical-reporting and subject-access workflows. That establishes a choice between external operational support and technology used by the practice itself.
iGPR Classic describes request management, redaction support and digital delivery. The separate iGPR Managed Service advertises outsourced processing. As checked on 18 October 2026, its published administration charge is GBP21 plus VAT per report processed, with the practice setting and retaining the report fee. Confirm the scope and current terms before relying on that figure.
The existence of both models means the most useful comparison is like-for-like: managed service against managed service, or in-house workflow against in-house workflow.
Separate subject access from commissioned reports
A request for access to personal information is not automatically a paid medical opinion. The ICO's right-of-access guidance explains the general position that organisations cannot usually charge for responding to a subject access request, subject to defined exceptions.
Do not put every incoming request into a revenue forecast. Identify the request's purpose, authority and appropriate route before deciding whether a fee applies. Outsourcing costs do not themselves create a right to charge the patient or requester.
A supplier may support several request types within one dashboard, but the practice should preserve the distinctions in its procedures, patient information and accounting. Administrative convenience should not blur different legal and professional responsibilities.
Map what remains with the practice
Ask each provider to demonstrate request receipt, identity and authority checks, record preparation, review, delivery, corrections and payment. For every stage, record who performs the task, who makes decisions and who handles exceptions.
Pay particular attention to requests that need clinical judgement rather than routine extraction. Ask how ambiguity, conflicting information and questions outside the original scope are escalated. A managed service can perform substantial work without eliminating every responsibility of the practice or individual doctor.
The GMC's guidance on employment, insurance and similar disclosures is relevant to the professional framework. The contract should translate the applicable duties into a clear workflow rather than rely on a broad compliance assurance.
Evaluate redaction and review as a process
Automated assistance can make review more efficient, but the demonstration should include difficult records, not just obvious third-party names. Ask how the system flags uncertainty, records amendments and distinguishes information relevant to the request from material that should not be disclosed.
Clarify what human review is included and the qualifications or role of the reviewer. Establish when a GP review is required, optional or requested by the practice. Do not interpret a supplier's general description as permission to stop reviewing all categories without considering the specific arrangement.
Use authorised test cases and a documented acceptance process. Do not upload a sample patient record into an unapproved sales demonstration merely to obtain a more realistic presentation.
Calculate the retained contribution properly
Compare the fee collected with supplier charges, internal staff time, clinical review and rework. Where VAT is charged, establish its treatment with the practice's accountant rather than assuming it is recoverable.
For a fictional example, a GBP100 fee less a GBP25 processing cost and GBP30 of remaining internal work leaves GBP45 before other overheads and tax. An in-house process costing GBP40 leaves GBP60, but may occupy capacity that the practice needs elsewhere. These invented figures illustrate the method, not either supplier's actual economics.
Keeping the report fee is not the same as retaining the entire amount as profit. Conversely, a service that reduces contribution per report may still be worthwhile if it reliably removes a significant operational bottleneck.
Distinguish released time from financial savings
Ask staff to record the present workload before implementation. Include chasing requesters, clarifying consent, managing corrections and reconciling fees. A narrow measure of document-preparation time may miss much of the burden.
Then state how released time will be used. Avoided overtime or reduced external support may produce a cash saving. More time for existing patient-facing work may improve service capacity without changing the bank balance immediately. Both can be valuable, but they are different outcomes.
For a broader method, see the guide to medical-report profitability. A purchasing decision should be grounded in the practice's actual request mix rather than a supplier's average testimonial.
Review visibility, turnaround and exceptions
Ask what the dashboard shows about requests awaiting information, reports awaiting approval and items already sent. Agree how delays are escalated and how the practice can identify a request that has become stuck between organisations.
Check whether quoted turnaround begins when the request first arrives or only after all documentation is complete. That distinction affects what reception can tell a patient and whether the service will reduce chasing calls in practice.
Clarify arrangements for urgent queries, complaints, corrections and supplier absence. A service-level commitment is more useful when it explains exception handling than when it simply presents a headline number without its conditions.
Include a specific handover test before expanding the arrangement: can a different authorised member of staff identify the request, understand the outstanding action and locate the approval history without asking the original operator? This tests whether the service has reduced dependence on individuals or merely moved it elsewhere. Document the outcome alongside the financial evaluation.
Implement with a controlled pilot
Choose a defined request category and time period, subject to appropriate contractual and governance approval. Establish baseline volume, time, costs and errors. Train reception so that incoming requests are routed correctly and patients receive consistent information.
Review a sample of completed outputs and reconcile the financial results. Ask the team whether work has genuinely disappeared or shifted into a new set of oversight tasks. Expand only when the process is understood and the evidence supports it.
Lalu and iGPR both deserve consideration, but the best choice may be a hybrid arrangement rather than complete outsourcing. The practice should retain a named owner, a clear exception route and a workable exit plan whichever model it adopts.
FAQs
Does outsourcing medical reporting remove the GP practice's responsibilities?
No. The allocation of work and responsibility must be understood for each request type. Review the contract, professional duties and data-protection arrangements rather than assuming all obligations transfer.
Can a practice charge patients to recover the cost of processing subject access requests?
Not simply because it has incurred a supplier cost. Subject-access charging follows its own rules, and the general position is that a response is free, subject to defined exceptions.
Should the practice choose the lowest processing fee?
Compare total retained contribution, remaining internal work, quality, visibility and service reliability. A low fee can be poor value if it leaves substantial chasing or correction work behind.
Support your team's clinical knowledge and professional learning with iatroX Academy.