Current offers for the two products are structured differently, and therefore comparisons need to state assumptions and workings.
NOTE: With GP Forward View funding available to from April 2017, prices have changed for English CCGs. Please see askmygp.uk
For other situations and to the best of our knowledge the calculations below apply.
Both claim to offer online or e-consultations as the principle feature, and therefore the comparison made is between the cost per submitted consultation. Other factors also affect efficiency, such as the time taken to understand and respond, the disposition to other clinicians or staff and so on, but no comparable data is available.
Example: 10,000 patient practice over one year of use.
Weekly demand, typically 6.5% of list for GP and 3.5% other enquiries, total 10%, for 50 weeks/year, ie 50,000 demands per year potentially made online.
|Price per registered patient per year||63p||50p|
|Price per submission||None||45p|
|Annual subscription||If zero submissions, annual cost||£6,300||£5,000|
|% demand shift, based on best published evidence||1%||40%|
|Cost of submissions||None||£9,000|
|If both shift 5% of demand|
|Submissions||NB no published evidence of this rate from webGP||2,500||2,500|
|Cost of submissions||None||£1,125|
The cost per submission is less for webGP only if % channel shift is greater than 5%. However, evidence from the suppliers is not one fifth of this at less than 1% shift and from other published sources still less.
Many practices offering one or the other system have seen very little usage by patients, a handful each month, as patients are not encouraged to use it. In these cases the investment is all but wasted, and if practices or CCGs insist on offering this service then annual cost is key.