SAYNOTO0870.COM
https://www.saynoto0870.com/cgi-bin/forum/YaBB.cgi
Main Forum >> Government and Public Sector >> GP contract revised - "expensive" numbers banned
https://www.saynoto0870.com/cgi-bin/forum/YaBB.cgi?num=1272309035

Message started by SilentCallsVictim on Apr 26th, 2010 at 8:10pm

Title: GP contract revised - "expensive" numbers banned
Post by SilentCallsVictim on Apr 26th, 2010 at 8:10pm
I have started this new thread as, following the consultation and the petition, the campaign against GPs using revenue sharing numbers has entered a new phase (at least in England).

After doubt and delay, the Department of Health has now issued the contract revisions (for existing contractors) and the revised standard contract. This is covered on this page with links to the various documents.

Individual variation notices will be sent out by PCTs for acknowledgement by the GP.

Further briefings will be issued to the media and to every PCT referring to unofficial guidance on how to understand what numbers are subject to charges greater than that for "calls to a geographic number". These briefings will also confirm that long term contracts for the provision of telephone service allow migration from 084 to 034 numbers. Copies will be posted to my blogs.

There is nothing in what I am doing that should make any difference whatsoever to action that others may wish to take on a local basis with GPs, PCTs parliamentary candidates and local media. Likewise on a national level there is no formal campaign group that is briefing the media.

I will also be briefing the governments and media in Wales and Scotland. Those based there may wish to draw attention to the fact that on this issue relating to the principles of the NHS, it is England that is taking the lead.

This is also the time to remind NHS bodies using these "expensive" numbers that they only have until December to change their arrangements. Furthermore, any failure to announce their intention to change is likely to impede the process of getting GPs to do so.


P.S. If anyone wishes to use this thread to point out how easy it may be for GPs to avoid complying with the ban, or perhaps to encourage the media to put out stories indicating that GPs do not have to change, then that is their right. There is no question that the terms of the contract revisions could have been clearer or stronger. I believe however that they can be made to work and it is my intention to do all I can to see that they do.

Title: Re: GP contract revised - "expensive" numbers bann
Post by idb on May 4th, 2010 at 1:25am
http://www.healthcarerepublic.com/news/1000619/GMS-contract-revision-bans-use-premium-rate-numbers/

GMS contract revision bans use of premium rate numbers

Susie Sell, healthcarerepublic.com,
04 May 2010

<<
GPs using telephone numbers that cost more to call than a geographical number must change their arrangements, after the DoH revised the GMS contract.

The changes to the GMS contract, which came into effect on 1 April, makes clear that GP practices will no longer be able to use premium rate numbers.

Campaigner David Hickson said this would mean that the GPs who use 0844 numbers provided by Talk Talk will have to arrange migration to an alternative number, such as an 0344 number.

He said: ‘This is probably a better option for them than incurring the charges that would be levied if the contract for the telephone system that relies on this service were to be terminated early.'

A spokeswoman for the DoH said: ‘As announced in September 2009 the use of phone numbers that charge the public or patients a premium rate to contact the NHS were to be banned.

‘The department worked with the BMA's GP Committee to integrate the legislative changes into the GP contracts. This came into force on 1 April and the NHS will be reminded of this shortly.'
>>

Title: Re: GP contract revised - "expensive" numbers bann
Post by SilentCallsVictim on May 4th, 2010 at 2:53am

idb wrote on May 4th, 2010 at 1:25am:
http://www.healthcarerepublic.com/news/1000619/GMS-contract-revision-bans-use-premium-rate-numbers/

Quote:
... the NHS will be reminded of this shortly.'

I hope that fellow campaigners will join in the efforts to "remind" all NHS bodies and contractors of the fact that formal Directions and contract revisions are now in force.

The point about Talk Talk and 0344 is simply to clarify the fact that there is no need to wait until the end of any existing contract. A move away from a revenue sharing number is always possible.

(The full text of the quoted media release is published in the relevant blog.)

Title: Re: GP contract revised - "expensive" numbers bann
Post by kasg on May 6th, 2010 at 3:12pm

idb wrote on May 4th, 2010 at 1:25am:
http://www.healthcarerepublic.com/news/1000619/GMS-contract-revision-bans-use-premium-rate-numbers/
Shame about the two ignorant comments that have been posted on the article. Any healthcare professionals hear care to correct them?

Title: Re: GP contract revised - "expensive" numbers bann
Post by SilentCallsVictim on May 6th, 2010 at 3:52pm

kasg wrote on May 6th, 2010 at 3:12pm:
Shame about the two ignorant comments that have been posted on the article. Any healthcare professionals hear care to correct them?
We all have our areas of expertise. GPs cannot be expected to know that 03 numbers cost the same as ordinary numbers when called from mobiles and that migration from 084 to a 034 number is a quite normal practice within the term of a contract for supply of telephone service on a non-geographic number.

We have until next April for the message to be put across, taken on board and followed-up. It could have been quicker, but there are strong vested interests protecting their position.

Title: Re: GP contract revised - "expensive" numbers bann
Post by sherbert on May 6th, 2010 at 4:08pm

SilentCallsVictim wrote on May 6th, 2010 at 3:52pm:
GPs cannot be expected to know that 03 numbers cost the same as ordinary numbers when called from mobiles



Why not?  Everyone else (well almost) knows so why not them? I bet they know this when using  their personal 'phones

Title: Re: GP contract revised - "expensive" numbers bann
Post by SilentCallsVictim on May 6th, 2010 at 5:01pm

sherbert wrote on May 6th, 2010 at 4:08pm:

SilentCallsVictim wrote on May 6th, 2010 at 3:52pm:
GPs cannot be expected to know that 03 numbers cost the same as ordinary numbers when called from mobiles

Why not?  Everyone else (well almost) knows so why not them? I bet they know this when using  their personal 'phones

I personally think that this is an over-generous view of the extent of public understanding of telephone charges. Until quite recently the BBC was repeatedly declaring that 03 numbers cost more from mobiles, but not from landlines, in its standard message about its own 03 numbers. I understand that it was not bombarded with complaints about this misinformation.

We are also aware of organisations who deliberately promote misunderstanding about these difficult issues. I am reluctant to accept that nobody gets taken in by these efforts.

I strongly believe that there is much to be gained by simply informing people of the truth of the situation regarding 084 and 03 numbers. If all perpetrators and all victims of the misuse of revenue sharing numbers are fully aware of what is going on, then there is little that we can do to help to fully rectify the situation. I do not believe that this is the case; I hope that the information in the published article was helpful to some and I am inclined to accept that the question asked was a genuine expression of doubt.

Title: Re: GP contract revised - "expensive" numbers bann
Post by sherbert on May 6th, 2010 at 5:45pm

SilentCallsVictim wrote on May 6th, 2010 at 5:01pm:
If all perpetrators and all victims of the misuse of revenue sharing numbers are fully aware of what is going on, then there is little that we can do to help to fully rectify the situation. I do not believe that this is the case;


I believe that the perpetrators are fully aware of what is going on.

Title: Re: GP contract revised - "expensive" numbers bann
Post by SilentCallsVictim on May 18th, 2010 at 6:21pm
It is now confirmed that the revised GP contracts, with a variation prohibiting use of "expensive" numbers, are now being issued to NHS GPs.

A briefing sent to PCTs and a media release have been published.


The new Minister of State (Health Services), replacing Mike O'Brien, is Simon Burns MP. His constituency includes a GP practice that adopted a 0844 number in October 2009.

Mr Burns has confirmed his support for a taxation funded NHS and has campaigned against excessive car parking charges (although not the 0844 telephone number) at the local hospital.

Title: Re: GP contract revised - "expensive" numbers bann
Post by SilentCallsVictim on Jun 8th, 2010 at 10:44pm
Another interesting blog from elitetelecom  - Another Fuss About The NHS.

It would be interesting to know if anyone can trace the radio broadcast referred to.

Title: Re: GP contract revised - "expensive" numbers bann
Post by SilentCallsVictim on Jun 27th, 2010 at 2:13am
An interesting article in the Leicester Mercury - Higher-rate calls to GPs set to stay - Friday, 25 June 2010.

I see that some apposite comments, including promotion for saynoto0870, have been added to the article.


I am happy to contribute to and promote discussion in this forum. I do however provide a series of feeds of all items I find (including the above) and my own commentaries on this topic and other topics on which I campaign.

These feeds are available for (free) subscription by rss or by email, at this link.

It would perhaps be better for members of the forum who are interested in this material to subscribe to the appropriate feed, so that they can bring items which they individually think worthy of comment into the discussion forum. I do not believe that it is for me to set the agenda for this forum.

N.B. I have no personal commercial interest in subscriptions to my feeds, nor in the viewing of my blogs or websites.

Title: Re: GP contract revised - "expensive" numbers bann
Post by Heinz on Jun 27th, 2010 at 4:15pm
Unfortunately, the lack of understanding and/or research by the writer means nonsense like that highlighted below was published:


Quote:
Patients are still paying hefty phone charges to call GPs because doctors are tied in to expensive contracts.

Doctors said they were "not comfortable" about patients paying up to 40p a minute to ring 0844 numbers but that it was costly to buy out deals with phone companies.

At least 30 surgeries in Leicestershire use 0844 numbers.

BT now includes such numbers in its land line packages, which means some people are not now charged.

However, David Hickson's comments more than adequately covered that error.

Title: Re: GP contract revised - "expensive" numbers bann
Post by Grump on Jul 29th, 2010 at 9:46pm
29th July 2010

Bradford Primary Care Trust still deny any knowledge of receiving any documents later than December 2009/ January 2010 regarding the use of 0844. Therefore they are doing nothing to end the use of that type telephone number in the Bradford area. So much for the end of the use of 0844 by Gps.

Title: Re: GP contract revised - "expensive" numbers bann
Post by SilentCallsVictim on Jul 29th, 2010 at 11:17pm

Grump wrote on Jul 29th, 2010 at 9:46pm:
Bradford Primary Care Trust still deny any knowledge of receiving any documents later than December 2009/ January 2010 regarding the use of 0844. Therefore they are doing nothing to end the use of that type telephone number in the Bradford area. So much for the end of the use of 0844 by Gps.

Officers of Bradford PCT may be directed to this page of the Department of Health website -
http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/DH_116299.

I understand that the relevant issue of "The Week" (the weekly circular from the DH to PCTs) covered this item.
This cannot be verified because the document was not being published generally at that time, as it normally is, because a change of government was taking place.

Bradford PCT is in serious breach of its duties if it has not issued the relevant contract revisions to its GPs, using the standard form published at http://www.dh.gov.uk/prod_consum_dh/groups/dh_digitalassets/@dh/@en/@ps/documents/digitalasset/dh_116305.pdf.

A copy of this briefing was sent to Simon Morritt - Chief Executive - Bradford and Airedale Teaching PCT<simon.morritt@bradford.nhs.uk> (simon.morritt@bradford.nhs.uk)
at 12:46 on Monday 17 May 2010 - it was not returned as undeliverable.

I will be happy to help further with this and any other similar case. I am already dealing with a number of the 152 PCTs. I may be contacted using the links below.

The important point is to get the PCT to recognise that referring to false information issued by NEG and the BMA does not amount to a proper determination about the costs incurred by patients in calling 084 telephone numbers. The Department of Health DOES NOT endorse the NEG / BMA view.

The most effective approach (if possible) is to provide PCTs with copies of patients' telephone bills showing the cost of calls to the surgery alongside the cost (possibly zero) of equivalent calls to geographic numbers. The same can be achieved (although with more difficulty) by showing published tariff tables that relate to the telephone services used by patients.

It is a disgrace that the DH refuses to provide more complete guidance, as there is no difference in telephone charges between any one part of the country and another (except in Kingston upon Hull, where all "local" calls are generally free). It is ridiculous that every PCT, indeed every GP, has to go through exactly the same exercise - however that is what the previous government wanted, or perhaps was persuaded by the BMA to accept. The new government intends to make it much easier - we will not have to worry about having a National health service at all.

Title: Re: GP contract revised - "expensive" numbers bann
Post by CJT-80 on Sep 26th, 2010 at 3:40pm
Hello and sorry for resurecting this post,

I contacted my local MP regarding the use of 0844 Numbers in my area by local GP's including my own.  Here is my original e-mail:

"Dear Sir/Madam

I am e-mailing you in relation to a Local and in some ways National issue.  I obliviously understand you are only able to comment and deal with the local aspect of this issue.

The issue is as follows:

My local Dr's Surgery at Little Common at some point changed its contact number to an 0844 number, which I have to pay extra to call to.  To give you an idea of the cost I am with BT on an Unlimited Anytime Call plan, which offers me calls of up to 60 minutes to ANY 01/02/03 number anywhere in the UK for no additional cost.

However IF I call an 0844 number the cost is 5p per minute PLUS an initial cost of 9.9p (let's call that 10p), so my 1st minute costs me 15p and then 5p for every additional minute. Hopefully I haven't lost you so far.

My issue with this is very simple, I already pay for access to NHS services, including access to my local Dr, via my National Insurance Stamp. Why am I therefore expected to pay additional costs to call somewhere which is in the SAME dialling code?

This is NOT a business it's a service from the NHS!

Other local Dr’s Surgeries are using the same number, in fact out of nine local Dr’s only 3 use an 01424 number the remaining 6 use an 0844 number, the list is here: http://www.nhs.uk/Scorecard/Pages/Results.aspx?OrgType=1&Coords=1067%2c5716&TreatmentID=0&PageNumber=1&PageSize=0&TabId=0&SortType=1&LookupType=1&LocationType=1&SearchTerm=TN39+3AG&DistanceFrom=5&SortByMetric=0&TrustCode=&TrustName=&DisambiguatedSearchTerm=&LookupTypeWasSwitched=False&MatchedOrganisationPostcode=&MatchedOrganisationCoords=&ServiceIDs=&ScorecardTypeCode=&NoneEnglishCountry=&HasMultipleNames=False&OriginalLookupType=1&ServiceLaunchFrom=HomePage&Filters=&TopLevelFilters=

As you may or may not be aware this is becoming not only a local issue but one of National focus.  As a constituent in the area you cover, and a registered voter I am very very interested in your views on this, and what plans you have to voice my and others opinions to abolish the use of these numbers for access to NHS services.

Once again I appreciate you are only able to deal with local issues, but I hope you can take on board the general consensus and anger towards what is effectively your constituents being ripped off!

I look forward to your response and thank you for your time in reading this e-mail."

-------- response follows in next post ----------------

Title: Re: GP contract revised - "expensive" numbers bann
Post by CJT-80 on Sep 26th, 2010 at 3:45pm
reponse to my e-mail from previous post -------------

I recieved a response from Earl Howe - http://www.conservatives.com/People/Peers/Howe_Frederick.aspx

I edited the reponse to give the main point it advises as follows:

"my local practice has advised the PCT that it's patients should pay no more than the equivalent cost of a standard telephone call to a geographic number.. (that's helpful)

The PCT has confirmed the practice will review the options when it's contact with the current supplier is up for renewal... "

As per SCV's posts I now intend to reply giving the links and information regarding the DoH's own guidelines, and getting assurance they will be abided by on or before April 2011.

To SCV or anyone else, is there a specific link to details advising NEG/TalkTalk can and WILL provide an 0344 number as apposed to the 0844 number prior to the deadline?

Any help is greatfully appreciated.

Title: Re: GP contract revised - "expensive" numbers bann
Post by Dave on Sep 26th, 2010 at 4:12pm

CJT-80 wrote on Sep 26th, 2010 at 3:45pm:
The PCT has confirmed the practice will review the options when it's contact with the current supplier is up for renewal... "

Considering one's options is something which is worthwhile when any contract comes up for renewal.

Title: Re: GP contract revised - "expensive" numbers bann
Post by SilentCallsVictim on Sep 26th, 2010 at 6:08pm

CJT-80 wrote on Sep 26th, 2010 at 3:45pm:
Any help is greatfully appreciated.

Just so as not to disappoint those who clasped their hands to their foreheads on seeing such a request being made of myself ;)

Unless the contract for telephone service ends before 31 March 2011, more prompt action will be necessary to remain in compliance with terms of the GMS contract.

It seems that the Minister, the MP, the PCT and (probably) the practice have been wickedly deceived.

There is no obligation whatsoever on any telephone service provider to charge "no more than the equivalent cost of a standard telephone call to a geographic number" to call a 0844 (call type g6) number. The "should" is nonsense.

BT is required to charge no more than 5p per minute (including VAT), but this regulation only applies to BT and its pence minute rate in absolute terms. The "call setup fee" that BT charges is unregulated, as are BT's rates for calling geographic numbers. Residential BT customers are served by Call Plans which offer calls to geographic numbers as inclusive for the times when one uses the telephone. Those who never make weekday daytime calls are best advised not to take the Anytime Call Plan, whereas those who do are unlikely to find it economic not to do so, especially after the price revisions coming into effect from 1 October.

BT however originates less that 30% of residential calls, according to Ofcom figures. It is possible that the all the patients of the practice in question (bar one) are most unusual, in that they all have BT landlines and the only weekday daytime calls they make are to the doctor (and they never call the doctor's number in the evening, at night or at weekends to access the out of hours service). If so, then they would find the cost of calling a 0844 number cheaper than the cost of a call to a geographic number at present. (The Ofcom proposals to be published in a consultation at the end of October are expected to include removal of the limitation on BT that creates this perverse effect.)

In all other cases the cost of calling the 0844 number is greater than that of calling a geographic number. This is only what would be expected when the additional cost of the revenue share has to be carried on top of a normal (un-prohibited) margin. Under the terms of the revised GMS contract, practices must consider "the arrangement as a whole", they cannot just consider one group of patients. The penalty charge imposed by one particular telephone company on those who make calls to geographic numbers outside the terms of their selected call plan cannot be considered as being a "standard charge". Furthermore, the uniquely regulated rates charged by one telephone company for calls to 0844 numbers cannot be considered typical.


During the time when the changes to 0870 were going through, Talk Talk (Opal Telecom) published a document outlining the option for customers with 087 and 084 numbers to migrate to 037 / 034 within the terms of their contract for telephone service. I referred to this, with links, in my blog posting - NHS GPs using 0844 numbers can change to 0344. The Opal website has subsequently been revamped and both the old news item and the associated booklet are no longer available. (I do not see this as being a "sinister cover-up", it is just that the big issue with 0870 has now passed.)

The telephone service used by Surgery Line customers is provided by Talk Talk (Opal) - the registered regulated provider, with NEG acting simply as an unregistered sales agent. The line and number through which the telephone service is provided is separate from the other services provided by NEG. It may be that the overall contract with NEG has many years to run, and that the surgery is obliged to take its telephone service from Talk Talk for this period. There is however no reason why the number change necessary for proper compliance with the terms of the contract with the NHS cannot be made.

If the number change could not be made, then the practice would be required to incur the enormous expense and inconvenience of calling back to almost every patient who wanted to make contact by telephone. That would be an absurd and ridiculous lowering of service standards and a waste of money. (I believe that this provision is in the GMS contract simply as a fall back because the NHS cannot compel practices to terminate existing arrangements with providers.)


The question of how NEG and Talk Talk would react to a specific request to change to the equivalent 0344 number has not yet been answered. I have not yet been successful in persuading a practice to make such a request formally and to discuss the response in public. I do have anecdotal evidence of Surgery Line customers moving back to geographic numbers, however I am not sufficiently clear on the full detail to warrant using these to prove some general point. I also have an email message from NEG confirming that all customers are offered the option of using a 03 number!

I see no point now in playing around with "what if's" and theoretical possibilities. We need to get someone to ask the direct question and be ready to publish the direct response. The March 2011 deadline is approaching and there will be plenty of other issues to discuss once the new Health Bill is published.

Title: Re: GP contract revised - "expensive" numbers bann
Post by CJT-80 on Sep 26th, 2010 at 6:54pm
Thank you SCV,

It looks like I should start by directly e-mail my local practice, and see what their direct response to this situation is.

Any idea how to e-mail a Chief Exec at my local PCT or is it best to try e-mailing the PCT directly?

Just thought it a worth while venture based on that response from Earl Howe.

Thanks again for ALL the help provided by everyone.


Title: Re: GP contract revised - "expensive" numbers bann
Post by Dave on Nov 15th, 2010 at 7:33pm
An FOI response from Southward PCT has just been posted on WhatDoTheyKnow:

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/use_of_premium_cost_telephone_nu#incoming-126682

The request was for information in connection with GPs using 0844 phone numbers:


Quote:
1. any directives or guidelines issued to GP/dental surgeries regarding the abandonment of 0844 numbers for 020 or 03 numbers.

2. any list of non-complying surgeries maintained by or known to the Southwark PCT.

3. any documents maintained or generated by the Southwark PCT as to what penalties or sanctions will be imposed onto practices and surgeries that continue to violate the requirements.


The response acknowledges that surgeries are "locked into contracts using 08 numbers". Not sure if this means that the contracts lock them into using 08 numbers, or that it merely means that they are locked into contracts, which, at present, use 08 numbers to fulfil them but are not required as part of the contracts.

It goes on to say:

Quote:
It is evident from the information available that the cost of calling an 08 number  varies from provider to provider with only BT landlines incurring a true ‘lo call’ cost.  Costs increase when using other providers and increase significantly when using a  mobile (potentially up to 35p a minute).  Complaints and feedback from patients  focus on being unaware of the above, and question the information provided by  practices about the use and costs involved when calling an 08 number.

Based on the above information, Southwark PCT are requesting that practices inform their patients that they are using an 08 number and the cost implications if using a  provider other than a BT landline.  The message to be communicated needs to state:  

‘Please be aware that you are calling an 08 number.  Calls to this line are  charged at lo-call rate if using a BT landline, but costs vary and increase if  using another network provider.  Please be aware calls from a mobile phone  could potentially cost up to 35p per minute’.

The use of the term "lo call" has no place in any guidance on price. It was a BT trademark and in general usage can be taken to mean "local".

What's more, these three paragraphs do not explain the actual absolute cost from BT landlines.

They also say that it is providers other than BT that "increase" call costs, when it is in fact the other way around. Any "increase" occurs due to the financial support passed to practices for their phone systems. BT, by regulation, is only allowed to reflect the cost of that subsidy in its call rates, and so must offset its costs elsewhere.

The sooner that Ofcom changes the rules and drops this regulation the better. Then there will be nowhere at all for these fee-charging GPs to hide!

Title: Re: GP contract revised - "expensive" numbers bann
Post by SilentCallsVictim on Dec 11th, 2010 at 9:05am
Please see this posting for more information on this story.

A local radio piece on a hospital that has abandoned its 0844 numbers will move on to discuss the fact that NHS GPs must do the same. With Simon Burns, local MP and Minister of State for Health, contributing it is possible that something interesting may emerge.

Title: Re: GP contract revised - "expensive" numbers bann
Post by Dave on Dec 11th, 2010 at 3:29pm
Source: Essex Chronicle/Essex Gazette

http://www.thisistotalessex.co.uk/news/Patients-forced-ring-premium-phone-numbers/article-2984590-detail/article.html

NHS Patients still forced to ring premium-rate phone numbers
Thursday, December 09, 2010, 08:00

PATIENTS across Essex are still being forced to use extortionate premium phone numbers to call doctors and dentists – despite government recommendations that they be scrapped.

Last week the Chronicle revealed that the NHS Mid Essex Hospitals Trust scrapped 0844 lines after a catalogue of complaints from frustrated patients and reverted to local 01245 numbers.

But some GP and dental surgeries are still using the costly 084 numbers instead of the local area code.

Roger Collins, 68, of Broomfield Road, Chelmsford, said his doctor's surgery in Sunrise Avenue had recently changed their number from to one with an 0844 code.





What a disgrace, surgeries still switching to these numbers, even well after the announcement that they are to be banned by the end of March 2011.

Title: Re: GP contract revised - "expensive" numbers bann
Post by Dave on Dec 26th, 2010 at 12:01am
Cornwall and Isles of Scilly PCT has dropped its 0845 numbers and replaced it with a 01726 one. This was done on one day before the 21st December deadline set by the Directive:

http://www.cornwallandislesofscilly.nhs.uk/CornwallAndIslesOfScillyPCT/MediaCentre/NewsArticles/201210PCTNewNumber.aspx
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cornwall-12055027

Title: Re: GP contract revised - "expensive" numbers bann
Post by SilentCallsVictim on Jan 9th, 2011 at 9:51am
We are now in the final quarter during which all NHS GPs have to give up their use of expensive telephone numbers to remain in compliance with the terms of their contract with their PCT, representing the NHS.

The highlight on the "Service Charge" element of the cost of calling any 084 number contained in the Ofcom consultation helps to draw attention to this issue.

I do not normally report my specific campaigning efforts in this forum, however members may be interested to refer to this blog posting and to the further comments referenced from there.

I see it as vital that the Department of Health and one of its Ministers gets involved in this matter in the next few weeks, so that GPs have some chance of doing what they need to do before the end of March deadline.

Pathfinder GP Consortia have already been established (as the successors to PCTs and SHAs) and the Bill which will bring in all of the NHS reforms is likely to be introduced to parliament very shortly. With all of the effort being put into saving money and management devices it is vital that the principles of the NHS, as represented by this issue, are maintained and that effective mechanisms are in place to prevent other scams such as Surgery Line from being perpetrated in future. Alternatively it may be decided that the principles of the NHS are outdated and unsuitable for the future of healthcare in the UK - in which case the NHS must be formally abolished.

Title: Re: GP contract revised - "expensive" numbers bann
Post by Dave on Jan 24th, 2011 at 8:31pm
http://www.guardian-series.co.uk/news/8799805.LOUGHTON__Surgery_manager_vows_to_scrap_premium_rate_number/


Quote:
LOUGHTON: Surgery manager vows to scrap premium-rate number
1:39pm Wednesday 19th January 2011

By Clare Hardy »

A HEALTH centre manager has vowed to scrap her surgery's premium rate phone number after the Guardian revealed the massive phone bills patients are running up.

Anyone who wants to make an appointment at Loughton Health Centre in The Drive currently has to call its 0844-prefixed number, which can cost up to twice as much as a local number.

One patient, Whitehills Road resident Marie Alexis, 41, spent £10 in mobile phone credit trying to make an appointment for her eight-year-old daughter Jayga Leslie, who has a bad flu and fever.

[…]

She said she had run out of credit and had to send text messages to friends and relatives to ask them to call the surgery for her.

[…]

Title: Re: GP contract revised - "expensive" numbers bann
Post by loddon on Feb 21st, 2011 at 8:20am
The apalling rip-off by GPs continues, as perfectly illustrated by this letter to "This is Derbyshire", describing the frustration and uselessness of 0844 numbers, Surgery Line, NEG promises, NHS statements and Dept Of Health announcements.   How many GPs have taken action to comply with their NHS contract?    These are the same GPs who the current Government are planning to put in control of 80% of the whole NHS annual spend ( £80 billion )!!  :o :o

"Surgery's phone queue keeps me hanging on

SCENARIO: 8.00am, I ring relevant 0844 number to my GP's surgery. An electronic voice directs me to press one of a series of numbers for the relevant assistance. I press "one for appointments". A voice confirms that I am through to appointments.

Music plays.

The voice informs me that I am in a call queue, that there is currently a high volume of callers but reassures me that my call is important to them, I am number 29 in the queue and to continue to hold.

I grip the phone in anticipation when the voice returns and tells me "you are currently number... 27 in the queue". My grip relaxes, as does my bladder. Small dilemma, do I call back later and risk a longer queue, or cross my legs and pray? The voice announces that my call is important, so I wait.

Oh silly me, I have a cordless phone. I take the phone with me – the receptionist will enjoy the sound of rushing water in the background. Returning to my chair, I am now relieved in body and mind as I find I am now only 23 in the queue.

The music plays on to accompany my banging headache.

Now, if I was semi-fit I might hold on to my sense of humour but I feel even more poorly and need the loo again for another purpose. Do I hope to connect and let them hear me amid full flow of sickness and diarrhoea, or call back later? Too ill to care, I grasp the phone and head to the bathroom, only to drop the machine and it disconnects. Now 8.29am.

8.48am, resume call to GP. Wow! I am now number 25 in the queue, How much has this call cost? I feel too ill to care, I need my bed.

Later, after a prolonged attempt to get through again, I am informed that I am too late to get an appointment with the GP I requested and I could ring back next week or see a locum.

I see the locum doctor. He hasn't a clue about the issues my GP wanted to see me about in the first place and advises me to re-book at reception. ARGGGGHHHH!

Jennifer Stevenson

Shelton Lock
"

http://www.thisisderbyshire.co.uk/letters/Surgery-s-phone-queue-keeps-hanging/article-3239564-detail/article.html

Title: Re: GP contract revised - "expensive" numbers bann
Post by Dave on Feb 21st, 2011 at 12:45pm

loddon wrote on Feb 21st, 2011 at 8:20am:
The apalling rip-off by GPs continues, as perfectly illustrated by this letter to "This is Derbyshire", describing the frustration and uselessness of 0844 numbers, Surgery Line, NEG promises, NHS statements and Dept Of Health announcements.   How many GPs have taken action to comply with their NHS contract?    These are the same GPs who the current Government are planning to put in control of 80% of the whole NHS annual spend ( £80 billion )!!  :o :o

And how much money has been spent on consultations and other waste of time exercises by DoH over the many years that 0870 and 0844 numbers have been used by charging GPs?

And how much money has been spent by patients ringing their doctor or other NHS service that they wouldn't have had it been a number starting 01, 02 or 03?

Title: Re: GP contract revised - "expensive" numbers bann
Post by SilentCallsVictim on Mar 2nd, 2011 at 8:43pm
Although the NHS covers all of the UK and is owned by all UK citizens, its management is devolved to the national governments.

Most of what is discussed here only applies to England, although Wales has copied with similarly ineffective results.

The latest situation in Scotland is covered by this blog posting.

Title: Re: GP contract revised - "expensive" numbers bann
Post by SilentCallsVictim on Mar 21st, 2011 at 8:29am
Members may be interested to note a report of campaigning activity. The items in question have now just hit the airwaves.

There is a possibility for those who may agree with the thrust of this effort to follow up in their own way.

Title: Re: GP contract revised - "expensive" numbers bann
Post by sherbert on Mar 21st, 2011 at 8:50am
SCV...


I can't find this one on your list


http://www.holbrooksurgery.com/

Title: Re: GP contract revised - "expensive" numbers bann
Post by Keith on Mar 21st, 2011 at 1:58pm
SCV

Also www.lightwatersurgery.co.uk

Title: Re: GP contract revised - "expensive" numbers bann
Post by SilentCallsVictim on Apr 5th, 2011 at 11:03pm

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Apr 5th, 2011 at 10:48pm:
Very interesting response to the consultation by the BMA GPC. It appears that Dr Buckman is living in a fantasy world and wishes Ofcom to make it true for him. I do hope that Ofcom will respond to his request for information and bring him down to earth with a bump.


With the deadline for compliance with the contract revisions now passed, I have published this document. It has been brought to the attention of media, MPs and PCTs, by circular messages.

There is nothing contentious, as it only contains links to NHS Choices and published telephone tariffs.

This information is freely available to anyone who wishes to take up any issue with their own PCT, surgery, MP or the media.

Title: Re: GP contract revised - "expensive" numbers bann
Post by SilentCallsVictim on Apr 15th, 2011 at 5:50pm
A more accessible and featured version of the list of GPs in breach of their contracts has now been published.
  • The full document includes some waffle - PCT Clusters to enforce principle of "free at the point of need" before the NHS can move forward.

  • The fun starts with this league table by the newish "PCT Clusters", the 50-odd areas of England where the NHS will be managed for the next couple of years.
    The Department of Health has made it clear that it is for these bodies to sort out the mess that it refused to address properly.

  • The full list, which can be browsed geographically North to South, East to West shows the valid source of the data (on NHS Choices) along with relevant details.
    A hot feature is a link to the MP covering the location of each surgery.
Those who care about this must now put all possible pressure on the commissioning teams in the PCT Clusters to start enforcing the terms of the contract, which does prohibit use of non-geographic numbers (other than 03) if interpreted properly.

With parliament thinking again about the NHS reforms, understanding how things can already go wrong must provide a useful guide to the future.

Title: GPs in breach of contract using 084 numbers
Post by Dave on Apr 17th, 2011 at 3:43pm
As the deadline set by DH has now passed, many GP surgeries continue to charge more than the price of a geographic call by way of 084x numbers.

SilentCallsVictim's league table includes a comprehensive list of offending surgeries by area and parliamentary constituency.

I urge everyone to support this in any way they can, such as by getting publicity from local media, and contacting their MP.

Title: Re: GP contract revised - "expensive" numbers bann
Post by speedy on Apr 29th, 2011 at 8:58pm
I have sent a mail to my local Dartford MP - awaiting reply - It seems to me that not only is the Cost Rate objectionable but these systems can queue acording to some posts for over 40 minutes - see lodden re water works problem - it is the overall cost of the call just to make appts. If these systems could be set to only queue 5 calls these would be more reasonable - then Patients would not be hit with £20 bill for apptountment call.

Could another Poll be set up to show Public opinion to MP's - the 2008 one had over 28,000 showing - and that would only be a small % - how many very Senior Patients have Computers - I am over 70 and know I am in a minority - but very lucky because I have excellant health so dont need to use Surgery yet .   How about Local Papers name and shame getting going

We have in Dartford 2 Surgeries using 0844 - Huntsman and Pilgrims Way - another Doctor under Pilgrims Way actual Roof uses 01322 which is mine -
I will try to get actual call costs from a friend that has to use one of these Surgeries

Title: Re: GP contract revised - "expensive" numbers bann
Post by SilentCallsVictim on May 1st, 2011 at 6:21am

speedy wrote on Apr 29th, 2011 at 8:58pm:
... It seems to me that not only is the Cost Rate objectionable but these systems can queue acording to some posts for over 40 minutes - see lodden re water works problem - it is the overall cost of the call just to make appts. If these systems could be set to only queue 5 calls these would be more reasonable - then Patients would not be hit with £20 bill for apptountment call.

I would not support a demand that those who make calls to Geographic Rate numbers without paying a call charge should perhaps be denied the opportunity to queue to wait to speak to a GP receptionist.

I recognise that those who pay for Geographic Rate calls and perhaps cannot afford to queue may be seen as being disadvantaged against those who have these calls as inclusive or are ready and able to pay to queue. I see that as being one of the many unfairnesses of life; it is not something which must be addressed by limiting use of a helpful and otherwise equitable feature - i.e. an orderly queue of callers waiting to get through in turn.

I certainly do not want to think about measures that may need to be taken if use of expensive numbers is to continue - it simply must not!



speedy wrote on Apr 29th, 2011 at 8:58pm:
Could another Poll be set up to show Public opinion to MP's - the 2008 one had over 28,000 showing - and that would only be a small % - how many very Senior Patients have Computers - I am over 70 and know I am in a minority - but very lucky because I have excellant health so dont need to use Surgery yet.

With the GP contract revisions in place, I see no need to arrange a further petition to call for action on the call rate that may apply to calls to GPs. It is simply a matter of getting the PCTs (under threat of abolition) to do their jobs.

Many of those who have computers are able to book GP appointments and to make and monitor the progress of repeat subscriptions online, and so have less need to use the telephone to contact the surgery. (Not all practices offer this facility, but it is spreading.)



speedy wrote on Apr 29th, 2011 at 8:58pm:
I will try to get actual call costs from a friend that has to use one of these Surgeries

The actual cost incurred by a patient in calling a 084 number is useful information for the practice, the PCT and the media.

I have published a table of illustrative costs with links to the published tariffs. This should be quite sufficient to demonstrate that the ban applies to all 084 numbers, however specific evidence may carry more weight, when it is readily available.

I do not want us to get into the consumerist situation where it is only the weight of complaints and specific cases that may require GPs to give up their expensive numbers. The NHS works on points of principle (whether that be for good or ill).


Local and national media coverage of this issue, since the 1 April deadline, is growing nicely and more is expected. Some of it has been discussed in this thread.

To help those who wish to follow the developing story, I have assembled a news feed for this specific topic, excluding my own published contributions which are seen in my general topic feed. The feed content is available to view by following this link. One may also "subscribe" (no charge) to receive updates as items are added, either by email or through a "feed viewer".

Members may wish to discuss these items in this forum, or simply draw attention to them for the benefit of those who use the forum as a "news digest".

Title: Re: GP contract revised - "expensive" numbers bann
Post by loddon on May 2nd, 2011 at 8:28am
Headline in todays Daily Mail ----


Ten million patients ripped off by GPs' 40p-a-minute phone lines


"Primary Care Trusts have been instructed to amend GP contracts to ensure that the cost of calls made to surgeries is no higher than calling a local number from a landline, which is around 4p a minute.

But even though family doctors have had more than 18 months to comply with the new rules, many have not done so.
"

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1382565/10m-patients-ripped-GPs-40p-minute-phone-lines.html#ixzz1LB57yvje



Title: Re: GP contract revised - "expensive" numbers bann
Post by loddon on May 2nd, 2011 at 8:41am
Headline in todays Kenilworth Weekly News ----



Company defends charges for calling GP practices

"....  a campaigner has called for an end to charging patients for calls - and warned that patients calling their surgery from mobile phones or landlines other than BT should check their charges.



Clarendon Lodge, Brese Avenue, Priory Medical Centre, Southam Surgery and Abbey Medical Centre all use Network Europe Group’s Surgery Line system to manage calls from patients, who can pay up to 41p if they call from some mobile phone providers
"

http://www.kenilworthweeklynews.co.uk/news/company_defends_charges_for_calling_gp_practices_1_2638960

Title: Re: GP contract revised - "expensive" numbers bann
Post by loddon on May 2nd, 2011 at 8:45am
Headline in recent edition of "This is South Wales"  and the "South Wales Evening Post"  -----


Neath Port Talbot surgeries place a 'toll on sick'

"PATIENTS are being forced to dial premium rate phone numbers to get through to some Neath Port Talbot GP surgeries.

They say they are being given little option but to call through to 08 and 09 numbers for medical support, which can cost as much as 10p per minute, labelling the high cost as "a toll on the sick."

In Swansea, no GP practices have the lines in place, and an Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University Health Board spokeswoman said it would be meeting with the Neath Port Talbot practices which do in the next few weeks to discuss the topic again
."







http://www.thisissouthwales.co.uk/news/phone-cost-toll-sick/article-3486320-detail/article.html

Title: Re: GP contract revised - "expensive" numbers bann
Post by bazzerfewi on May 2nd, 2011 at 2:25pm

speedy wrote on Apr 29th, 2011 at 8:58pm:
I have sent a mail to my local Dartford MP - awaiting reply - It seems to me that not only is the Cost Rate objectionable but these systems can queue acording to some posts for over 40 minutes - see lodden re water works problem - it is the overall cost of the call just to make appts. If these systems could be set to only queue 5 calls these would be more reasonable - then Patients would not be hit with £20 bill for apptountment call.

Could another Poll be set up to show Public opinion to MP's - the 2008 one had over 28,000 showing - and that would only be a small % - how many very Senior Patients have Computers - I am over 70 and know I am in a minority - but very lucky because I have excellant health so dont need to use Surgery yet .   How about Local Papers name and shame getting going

We have in Dartford 2 Surgeries using 0844 - Huntsman and Pilgrims Way - another Doctor under Pilgrims Way actual Roof uses 01322 which is mine -
I will try to get actual call costs from a friend that has to use one of these Surgeries

ing
I have also written to my MP Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) I have been contacted by phone and they are writing to the relevent minister. I urge every body that is interested to write to their MP in regard to both surgery 0845 numbers and NHS 0845 umbers this will give the campsign legs

Title: Re: GP contract revised - "expensive" numbers bann
Post by Dave on May 2nd, 2011 at 9:08pm

bazzerfewi wrote on May 2nd, 2011 at 2:25pm:
I have also written to my MP Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) I have been contacted by phone and they are writing to the relevent minister. I urge every body that is interested to write to their MP in regard to both surgery 0845 numbers and NHS 0845 umbers this will give the campsign legs

I second this.

The question of whether GPs should be able to charge a premium or not is water under the bridge now. The outcome of the consultation two years ago was that patients should not pay more than the price of a geographic call and this was written into GPs' contracts.

The point to be put to MPs is that the terms of the contract must be enforced.

Title: Re: GP contract revised - "expensive" numbers bann
Post by SilentCallsVictim on May 3rd, 2011 at 3:03am

Dave wrote on May 2nd, 2011 at 9:08pm:
The point to be put to MPs is that the terms of the contract must be enforced.

I would add that during this period of "pause and reflect" on the Health and Social Care Bill, it also draws the issue of the NHS being "free at the point of need" into the spotlight. There has so far been little discussion of what is necessary to protect this principle - especially as PCTs, who have the task of enforcing the terms of the contract, are to be abolished under the terms of the Bill as it stands.

Perhaps we should pause to see if they can do their job, and then think about how this may best be done in future, before we allow their formal abolition to be enshrined in statute. (Personally I have my doubts about contracted private sector GP consortium administrators checking up on consortium members and then reporting them to the National Commissioning Board to instigate civil action for a breach of contract.)


I have commented - PCT Clusters to enforce principle of "free at the point of need" before the NHS can move forward.

This blog posting introduces the list of surgeries in breach of their NHS contracts. Arranged by region and PCT Cluster, they are then grouped by parliamentary constituency with a link to the MP profile (including the email address). There is also a link to each NHS Choices entry, where patients of the practice may add a comment for publication and response. This was done to enable and encourage engagement.


What is needed now is for a Health Minister (Burns or Lansley) to make a clear public comment that any 084 number is bound to be more expensive for at least some NHS patients to call and that PCTs are expected to apply the terms of the GP contract on this basis. I would encourage MPs to press for this, whilst also making contact with their PCT.

NEG has now admitted that calls from mobiles and non-BT landlines are more expensive than equivalent calls to geographic numbers - this wrongly excludes BT Call Plan users, but it is enough for the purpose of establishing a breach of contract. A formal comment from a Minister will resolve the confusion caused by earlier statements that did not offer any opinion about whether 084 numbers were or were not more expensive. This has been taken to represent formal approval of their use, when there was no such intention!

The government must be threatened that if it fails to take decisive action on this vital issue, this must be taken as indicating that the commitment to the principle of "free at the point of need", so commonly repeated by Cameron and Lansley, is just meaningless words. It may sound tough, but one is only asking for a very simple statement of fact to be given ministerial endorsement.

(One hopes that a suitably worried Health Minister will not pause to consider the implications of such a comment for other government departments.)


I am somewhat embarrassed to refer to a newspaper editorial stating "This shameless exploitation of the vulnerable must cease". My comment taking issue with another piece on the same page (as I would with much that appears there) has not been published. A link is however to be found, along with other recent media coverage (and more that is expected to follow) in this feed.

Title: Invitation to contribute to a TV Show
Post by SilentCallsVictim on May 3rd, 2011 at 1:28pm
I have been approached by the producer of a BBC TV show who would like to feature the filmed experiences of victims of GPs and their expensive telephone numbers as part of coverage of this story.

If anyone would like their contact details, or those of someone they know, passed on, please email or PM me.


Title: Re: GP contract revised - "expensive" numbers bann
Post by speedy on May 11th, 2011 at 9:10pm
Dave

Have received your PM but Forum Rules that I need to make 5 posts to reply to PM direct  :(   I dont believe I could make enough of a contribution - I am having dificulties getting call costs from person that has to phone 0844 but will keep trying.

However, some good news I have received a letter from House of Commons today and the our MP and has said :  ;D

quote "I have raised your concerns with the local Primary Care Trust and will provide you with a copy of the response that I receive"

Although I asked for Country wide support it looks that it is only going to be Local Support - I will wait for that response before taking it to the next stage - to the Local Papers



Title: Re: GP contract revised - "expensive" numbers bann
Post by CJT-80 on May 12th, 2011 at 12:08am
speedy,

I have been in contact with my local MP, and PCT who both gave me almost useless answer's regarding the 0844 numbers. So you may get the same response.

Be prepared to keep going with this.


Title: Re: GP contract revised - "expensive" numbers bann
Post by bazzerfewi on May 16th, 2011 at 7:15am
I have been in conact with Dan Jarvis MP for Barnsley Central in this regard and he is contacting the relvent minister, I will let you know the outcome when I receive a reply

Title: West Pottergate Practice 0844 "local rate" lie
Post by Dave on May 18th, 2011 at 12:26pm
The latest NHS GP 0844 convert, Westpottergate Health Centre, says of its new number (click the link on its homepage to the PDF):

Quote:
1. What does this mean for us?

The use of 084 numbers in the NHS is supported by the Department of Health, so long as patients do not pay more than the cost of a local call; decisions on whether to adopt an 084 number will continue to be freely taken by an individual GP surgery, dental practice or other NHS organisation.

For virtually all patients' calls, the local GPs’ 084 number is not more expensive to call than using an ordinary number. More than 4.5 million patients use an 084 number to contact their GP surgery every month.

Patients pay local call rates with the 0844 number charges from landlines. If you use a mobile phone, depending on your provider and contract, such calls can cost more. Therefore, we encourage you to use a landline.

GPs do not make a single penny of individual profit from 084 numbers. NHS Direct also operates an 084 number.

Our new number from Wednesday, 11th May will be 08443 878911

These are the people that this government wishes to hand over control of the NHS to!

Since when have 0844 numbers been charged at the same price as a local call? Idiots.

Oh, and they don't make a single penny of profit - if West Pottergate Health Centre believes that this number is "local rate", then why does it feel the need to defend where its charges go?


See also this report from Norwich Evening News:
Norwich GP practice defends new 0844 number

Title: Re: GP contract revised - "expensive" numbers bann
Post by Dave on May 19th, 2011 at 9:23pm
From Derby Telegraph:

http://www.thisisderbyshire.co.uk/news/Calls-GP-surgeries-cost-75p-minute-despite-new-rules-charges/article-3568191-detail/article.html


Quote:
This has benefited patients in Derbyshire who call from landlines as they now pay local rates for 084 numbers.

But both the Department of Health and Network Europe Group, which provides the 084 numbers to Derbyshire's doctors, admit they have little control over mobile phone charges.


Total nonsense!

I've blogged about how, using some simple logical thinking, it can be seen as a load of twaddle that 0845 calls are ever local rate:

Who is responsible for setting the cost of a telephone call?

Title: Re: GP contract revised - "expensive" numbers bann
Post by Barbara on May 20th, 2011 at 9:54am
Can someone clarify for me exactly what is & isn't officially allowed in terms of 084X numbers (I know that this bears little relationship to practice but would like clarification on the actual rules)?  I ask as Cheltenham General Hospital has 0845 numbers for everything, there is a geo alternative in the database which I suspect is for the switchboard but all their leafelts etc show various 0845 numbers.  If they should not be using such nos under DoH rules, I will email their CE & point this out as well as requesting alternatives for all departments.  Thank you. (I know this isn't strictly about the GP contract but it is still health service numbers & so there is a link I feel.)

Title: Re: GP contract revised - "expensive" numbers bann
Post by Dave on May 20th, 2011 at 11:27am

Barbara wrote on May 20th, 2011 at 9:54am:
Can someone clarify for me exactly what is & isn't officially allowed in terms of 084X numbers (I know that this bears little relationship to practice but would like clarification on the actual rules)?  I ask as Cheltenham General Hospital has 0845 numbers for everything, there is a geo alternative in the database which I suspect is for the switchboard but all their leafelts etc show various 0845 numbers.  If they should not be using such nos under DoH rules, I will email their CE & point this out as well as requesting alternatives for all departments.  Thank you. (I know this isn't strictly about the GP contract but it is still health service numbers & so there is a link I feel.)

Directions to NHS Bodies concerning the cost of telephone calls:
http://www.dh.gov.uk/prod_consum_dh/groups/dh_digitalassets/@dh/@en/documents/digitalasset/dh_110479.pdf
Dear colleague letter:
http://www.dh.gov.uk/prod_consum_dh/groups/dh_digitalassets/documents/digitalasset/dh_110463.pdf

These apply to hospitals as they are NHS bodies. GPs are not NHS bodies and are in fact NHS contractors which is why these don't apply to them, instead they are bound by the GMS contract.


A quick search of the forum for threads relating to Gloucestershire NHS Hospitals Foundation Trust (and Cheltenham Hospital and Gloucester Royal Hospital, of which they belong) reveals just one in the FOI section from 5 years ago.

Discussion of the alternatives would be best served in a new thread within the Requests section of the forum.

For now, I've retitled all entries for this trust to Gloucestershire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust as they were entered as various such as "Cheltenham Hospital" and "Gloucester Royal Hospital". This helps us see what numbers we have for this trust and the hospital name can be added to the Other Info field of entries so that they are picked up on a search.

Just a thought, you say that all the published numbers are 0845; the Cheltenham Hospital switchboard is 0845 422 2222 = 01242 222222, maybe other numbers translate in the same way, i.e. 0845 422 2xxx = 01242 222xxx or even 0845 422 xxxx = 01242 22xxxx.

Some 0845 numbers will probably be for Gloucester Royal Hospital, so obviously they will have 01452 numbers. One unverified entry says 0845 422 5523 = 01452 395523 for the Birth Unit, so perhaps 0845 422 5xxx = 01452 395xxx.

These are all just ideas and suggestions based on what I've seen in the database. As I say, it would be best to continue discussion of alternatives in the Requests section, and if a thread is started, I can move these paragraphs into a post over there.

Title: Re: GP contract revised - "expensive" numbers bann
Post by Dave on May 20th, 2011 at 12:03pm
Note that Gloucestershire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust lies about its 0845 number on its contact page saying "Calls from landlines are charged at local rates". It neglects to mention that this applies only to BT landlines which vary from others. The NHS should be available to all and access should not be favouring the customers of particular private telephone service providers.

The FOI response makes mention of such rubbish.

Title: Re: GP contract revised - "expensive" numbers bann
Post by Barbara on May 20th, 2011 at 1:13pm
Thanks for this, Dave, it looks as if my understanding was correct that 084 numbers should not be used within the NHS including by hospitals.  As soon as I get a moment, I will email the CE, draw his attention to the situation, quote your links & ask what they did to review the situation as required by December 2010!   Will probably be barred from using the hospitals but even Addenbrookes didn't use 084Xs!   I think I've found the name of the CE & the formula for their email addresses, will keep you posted.

Title: Re: GP contract revised - "expensive" numbers bann
Post by CJT-80 on May 20th, 2011 at 1:31pm
Dave,

If anyone can 'prove' (via a bill) that calling an 084 number is MORE expensive to them then calling an 01/02/03 number would that 'prove' that their local Dr's Surgery is breaking DoH Guidlines?

My local Surgery is looking to change it's number, but was told by the supplier that calls to it's 0844 number cost the same as a geographic call, which we know is untrue.

Just a thought


Title: Re: GP contract revised - "expensive" numbers bann
Post by Dave on May 20th, 2011 at 7:44pm
Source: Bournemouth Echo

http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/9029019.NHS_users_still_being_stung_on_call_costs/


Quote:
A spokesperson from NHS Bournemouth and Poole said: “GP surgeries are able to use an 084 number as long as the tariff is equivalent to geographical local rates.

“Within the NHS Bournemouth and Poole area there are nine practices using an 084 number, all of which report to be charging local rates.

“We have requested that a contract variation is signed which commits practices to reviewing call costs to ensure they are in line with guidance so that calls to their 084 number are charged at a local rate for fixed lines.

“We will be expecting responses from all practices by the end of this month.”

A spokesperson for NHS Dorset said: “We can confirm that we have three practices in Dorset which use 084 numbers. These practices comply with the regulations, which means a call to them would cost no more than a call to a geographically equivalent number.”

More foolish comments from not one but two PCTs.

Title: Re: GP contract revised - "expensive" numbers bann
Post by Barbara on May 20th, 2011 at 8:01pm
Dave, this seems particularly horrifying as vulnerable patients could call their 0844-using surgery, reassured by the inaccurate information about call costs from what they might perceive to be a reliable source, and incur massive bills having been totally misled, in these cases no information would be better than this rubbish.  It is a pity someone who has been "stung" like this (obviously not a vulnerable or poor person but a wealthier, public spirited one) couldn't make a court case against those peddling this sort of false info.  If such misleading info was supplied in any other circumstances it would surely fall foul of consumer protection law, if those giving out this info profited from this, it would surely be tantamount to fraud.

Title: Re: GP contract revised - "expensive" numbers bann
Post by CJT-80 on May 21st, 2011 at 11:42am
Ok, well I have a thought..

Those who have a landline with a calling package or a mobile on contract can "prove" that the cost of calling the 084 number is greater than a geographic call.

I get 600 inclusive minutes per month to 01/02/03/07 numbers (excluding some 07 calls) for £25. So I worked out 25/600 which = 0.041666. I guess that's the per minute charge?

Lets say with BT you get 1000 minutes on the AnyTime plan ( for arguments sake) we pay £5.00 per month so that's 5/1000 which is 0.005.

Now lets look at 0844 calls. My local surgery uses 0844 477 which is charged at BT's G6 rate of 5.105p per minute PLUS a 12.50p connection charge making the 1st minute 16.55 p ? This is approx,

By my very rough calculations I have proved it costs MORE than a geographic call to use the 0844 number to call my sugery.

Now if I can work that out why can't our over paid MP's work it out!


Title: Re: GP contract revised - "expensive" numbers bann
Post by Keith on May 21st, 2011 at 2:53pm
I think it is reasonable to assume that the PCTs and health department are not all idiots.

It is also abundantly clear that the vast majority (by a long way) of people are either using mobiles with inclusive contracts, PAYG mobiles or landlines with inclusive contracts.

For these 3 groups of people (whom make up the majority of the population) we are not talking about a 'slight' differences between the cost of calling a 'local number' and the cost of calling an 0844 number. The difference in price is vast.

For example for me to call a local number from my landline the cost is completely free, but typically for me to call my local surgery the cost is around 50p to £2.

This is very simple, so one must assume there is more behind the fact that the PCTs and government have not cracked down on this practise.

Title: Re: GP contract revised - "expensive" numbers bann
Post by bazzerfewi on May 21st, 2011 at 7:28pm
Obviously all providers of 084X numbers will point out the benefit of an 084X number, portability etc but surely when they start quoting false information such as call charges and not quoting the connection charge they are miss quoting and as such they are breaking the law.

It there not a body that regulate false information and if so who is it as they need reporting for falsifying information

Title: Re: GP contract revised - "expensive" numbers bann
Post by derrick on May 22nd, 2011 at 11:54am

bazzerfewi wrote on May 21st, 2011 at 7:28pm:
Obviously all providers of 084X numbers will point out the benefit of an 084X number, portability etc but surely when they start quoting false information such as call charges and not quoting the connection charge they are miss quoting and as such they are breaking the law.

It there not a body that regulate false information and if so who is it as they need reporting for falsifying information



There is, Trading Standards, but don't hold your breath that they will do anything, the ASA may do something as they now police websites

The regulation they are breaking is the Consumer Protection Act 1987 Part III Misleading Price Indications.

See East Sussex TS Business sheet on Special services telephone numbers under Law and penalties via this url;-
http://www.eastsussex.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/735C4641-4E0A-48DA-BA19-8A5007CE0AB6/0%20/BSN0800numbers.pdf


Also HERE where they mention Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008, also under Law and penalties.

.

Title: Re: GP contract revised - "expensive" numbers bann
Post by bazzerfewi on May 23rd, 2011 at 4:17am
I have contacted my local MP Dan Jarvis for Barnsley Central in this regard, if others contact their MP or even Dan Jarvis we could make headway

If you wish to contact Dan Jarvis he is the MP for barnsley central - if you enter local MP in google and enter S71 2HS the system will return his details to contact him directly

Title: Re: GP contract revised - "expensive" numbers bann
Post by sherbert on May 23rd, 2011 at 8:26am
I wrote to my MP  three years ago and what a waste of time that was. He sent my letter  to John Hutton who was the the Labour Secretary of State for Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform at the time and he got one of his civil servants to write  me a letter which was full of inaccuracies, at that point I gave up.

See here

http://www.saynoto0870.com/cgi-bin/forum/YaBB.cgi?num=1136294819/90#90


Reply #90

Title: Re: GP contract revised - "expensive" numbers bann
Post by bazzerfewi on May 23rd, 2011 at 9:39am
I can see your point and of course it is entirely up to you weather you act or not

But I believe that we have to keep going until we get the desired result

Dan Jarvis MP is a different person in a different time he may be a load of rubbish but we won't know until we try

I started a project 4 years ago, everybody said it would never work "118FREE" I am now at provisional launch stage having carried out the relevant tests.

The pilot starts in Barnsley in June; the moral is keep going if you can if one door shuts kick down another
It is not my intention to upset anybody I just have self belief, keep going until you can't go any more or until all avenues have been exhausted

Title: Re: GP contract revised - "expensive" numbers bann
Post by Dave on May 23rd, 2011 at 10:51am
There is a simple point to put to MPs and that is that the ban should be enforced.

Title: Re: GP contract revised - "expensive" numbers bann
Post by Keith on May 25th, 2011 at 12:51pm
Re my last post - Could it be that the PCTs are failing to crack down because with the current reorganisation of the health service, with PCTs likely to be wound up and their roles transferred to GP consortiums, it is not in the interest of PCT employees to enforce the rules when they will be looking to apply for positions with the same GPs or potential unemployment.

Title: Re: GP contract revised - "expensive" numbers bann
Post by bazzerfewi on May 25th, 2011 at 2:34pm
Hi Keith

You could have a valid point there, by coincidence I received a letter from Dan Jarvis today and it all seems that it is in the hands of the individual doctor’s practices

The minister in question did reiterate that it is the responsibility of the PCT but as you rightly state they probably will not be here so then it will be down to the individual doctors practice to manage themselves so to speak, all of our work and canpaigning may have been in vain after all


Baz


Title: Re: GP contract revised - "expensive" numbers bann
Post by CJT-80 on May 25th, 2011 at 3:27pm
Have I missed something?

Is the point of the GP's contract being revised that the call should cost NO more then a geographic call? Did I get that part right?

If so I have proven calls to 0844 numbers DO cost more then a geographic call, and therefore their are in breach of said contract. PCT's have to Act as does our current government.

Imagine if we ALL qeued unwell at our local Dr's to make an appointment as we refused to pay such rates to call in!


Title: Re: GP contract revised - "expensive" numbers bann
Post by Keith on May 25th, 2011 at 4:27pm
CJT-80

The point is they are not 'acting' and nobody is making them 'act'.

The fact they are in clear breach is irrelevant.

The govt says it is up to the PCTs. The Doctor surgeries make a patently untrue claim that the cost is no more than a local call which any idiot can see is not true and the PCTs shrug their shoulders.

Nothing will happen.

If what bazzerfewi has been told is true then the Doctors will be regulating themselves.

If it is any consolation my wife is a Doctor and she doesn't approve and I'm aware of at least one Consultant who is outraged by this.

Title: Re: GP contract revised - "expensive" numbers bann
Post by CJT-80 on May 25th, 2011 at 6:51pm
It's a small consolation.

If the Government is allowed to sweep through reforms, and the PCT's have little or no power we will be in a much worser situation than we are in now.

In the current economic climate why should we be expected to pay such costs to call the NHS?? As far as it has been stated it should be "free at point of use"

Well if I call to have a telephone consultation, and I am given one, I have PAID for the information which goes against this ethos!

I am not going to sit here and let them win, I will do what I can to complain, starting with the DoH Ministers and our Prime and Deputy Prime Minsters!


Title: Re: GP contract revised - "expensive" numbers bann
Post by sherbert on May 25th, 2011 at 7:17pm
I wouldn't bother with the Deputy Prime Minister, I don't think he knows what day of the week it is ;D ;D

Title: Re: GP contract revised - "expensive" numbers bann
Post by loddon on May 25th, 2011 at 11:32pm
In today's Wokingham Times :----

Premium rate numbers to call the doctor

http://www.getwokingham.co.uk/news/s/2093141_premium_rate_numbers_to_call_the_doctor

Patients calling some Wokingham GP surgeries are being forced to dial premium-rate phone numbers to book an appointment. .......
Campaigners have been battling against the use of premium-rate numbers by GPs since 2009, saying they are unfair to patients .......
National phone charges campaigner David Hickson identified six surgeries in West Berkshire which were using 0844 or 0845 numbers including Cedar House Surgery in Finchampstead, Chalfont Close, Earley, and Brookside Close, Earley. .........
A member of the NAG, who asked not to be named in case it affected his treatment at the surgery, said: “There was an elderly lady that I know who was recently complaining to me that she had tried to make an appointment for her husband who has Parkinson’s and it had cost her £7 just to make an appointment.” ........
“NHS Berkshire West has been corresponding with practices regarding this issue to ensure that people are not paying more than they have to.”


Some comments published below this article :----


  Try http://www.saynoto0870.com/numbersearch.php
Clive Counsell
24/05/2011 at 19:44 Offensive or Inappropriate?

   My wife is severely disabled and housebound. She has a many health issues and phones the surgery quite often. As she is housebound we have bought an extra package from the telephone provider so that we have 24 hours national and local calls free so that she can call at any-time of the day without too much fear of having a large telephone bill but ... 084x numbers are not free.

When we get the phone bill, the largest call cost is due calls to the surgery!
Gary, Wokingham
24/05/2011 at 13:11 Offensive or Inappropriate?


   In the main GPs surgeries are used by people local to the area, this being the case surgeries should by law be required to provide a local telephone number for patients to phone. Many telephone companies are including the price of local land line calls in their connection charges effectivelly giving subscibers free phone calls. In all honesty do doctors need to rely on extorting money from patients to run their business?
William Richards
24/05/2011 at 13:06 Offensive or Inappropriate?


   Many GP's have turned into a greedy bunch of money grabbers. It used to be a vocation - now they are little better than bankers!
4-4-2 and you win
24/05/2011 at 12:49 Offensive or Inappropriate?

   A very poor response bty the PCT which says it "has been corresponding with practices" instead of ensuring that patients are not overcharged for their phone calls to NHS GPs. When is the PCT actually going to do something about this outrageous GP behaviour. There is absolutely no doubt that 0844 calls cost more than normal geographic calls and yet the PCT fails to take action.

As for the behaviour of these GPs it is unethical and untruthful to pretend that they are not causing extra costs to patients. Where are their morals and principles? Is this an example of the principleas they will apply when the Government hands over control to GPs opf 80% of the NHS expenditure? God help the NHS and all patients once the GPs are given such responsibility.
George Kelly

Title: Re: GP contract revised - "expensive" numbers bann
Post by loddon on May 25th, 2011 at 11:39pm
In today's Bracknell News and on-line in "Get Bracknell" :---

Premium rate numbers to call the doctor
By Caroline Cook
May 24, 2011

http://www.getbracknell.co.uk/news/s/2093157_premium_rate_numbers_to_call_the_doctor

..........
People trying to call their GP for an appointment could be paying up to 41p per minute for their calls despite recent legislation banning surgeries from charging more than the local rate.  ............

And some campaigners say the cost runs into several pounds if people are forced to wait in a queuing system.
Five Bracknell surgeries are still using 0844 numbers which are capable of charging premium prices for calls depending on if someone is calling from a mobile phone or a landline. ............

Birch Hill Medical Centre in Bracknell and Great Hollands Health Centre in Bracknell were also using 0844 numbers although both have automated messages advising callers that they are not being charged more than if they were calling a geographical number. Both messages advise that mobile costs will be higher. ..........................

Title: Re: GP contract revised - "expensive" numbers bann
Post by Barbara on May 26th, 2011 at 10:22am
I am afraid this is just par for the course in terms of the contractor system.  Ever since a previous Government, many years ago, introduced the system of "contracting out" services, this has been a problem.  If you complain to anyone who contracts out services, be it your local council or a hospital eg for cleaning services, about the service delivery, all you are likely to be told is that "it will be brought to the contractors' attention" or "the breach isn't big enough to terminate the contract" - and let's face it, termination of the contract would be the only sanction.  And what would happen even if PCTs did terminate contracts, areas could be left without GP cover (I know that GPs might comply when issued the threat but if they all stood out against it and called the bluff of PCTs what then?)  This is like far too much in this country, rules exist about things which are supposed to protect the consumer/user/employee but NO ONE is willing/able to enforce the regulations.  Unless & until a Government sets up regulatory bodies which truly independent and are REQUIRED to enforce the rules and given real teeth to do so, I fear nothing will change, the only hope is to shame some of these bodies and I suspect they have very little capacity for shame unless hit in their pockets.  For example, off message but pertinent, I recently wanted to complain to BT but via email so I had a copy, no email address, contacted OFCOM, even they have no email address for BT!!!!   I also have a complaint about Royal Mail but Postwatch who used to take up customer complaints, has been abolished & Royal Mail now police themselves - or not as the case may be!

Title: Re: GP contract revised - "expensive" numbers bann
Post by loddon on May 26th, 2011 at 11:30am
Another comment on the "GetWokingham" website.   This person makes a strong point :---


http://www.getwokingham.co.uk/news/s/2093141_premium_rate_numbers_to_call_the_doctor

As real local calls are included in a call package, they cost nothing, this makes any chargeable call infinitely more expensive.

There has been guidance and advice for years telling doctors to get off these numbers but they continue to ignore us. It is time that there was a legal requirement that they use either a free number or a geographic number with no other exceptions.

There is a suggestion that these numbers are used because of the added value of special services, this is not the case, all services could be made available on any number, it is just that those services are funded by the additional charges paid by callers.

Now where is that website for writing to your MP..

Wiztwas, Binfield
26/05/2011 at 09:06

Title: Re: GP contract revised - "expensive" numbers bann
Post by bazzerfewi on May 26th, 2011 at 7:33pm
hi

the following link gives you the details to contact your MP, I use in on a regular basis

http://www.writetothem.com/

Dan Jarvis Barnsley Central MP is assisting me with this campaign

Title: More surgeries moving to 0844 numbers
Post by Dave on May 28th, 2011 at 7:31pm
http://www.mandevillesurgery.co.uk/


Quote:
New Telephone Number

0844  387 8383

Please note that calls from some mobile providers may cost more, however calls from fixed lines should cost the same as previously.

Please check with your phone provider for further information.



http://www.attenboroughsurgery.co.uk/t54149.html?a=0


Quote:
Attenborough Surgery
Bushey Health Centre
New Telephone Number
Tel: 0844 387 8633
Fax: 0844 387 8634
From 7th March 2011



http://www.ravenswoodmedicalpractice.co.uk/

Quote:
From Wednesday 1st December 2010 our number will be changing to:

0844 387 8008


The decision to move to an 084 telephone number has been made by the Practice after a great deal of discussion and deliberation, we looked at all available options for  how we can best improve the current  telephone and associated facilities to our patients and importantly continue to improve the quality of our services to our patients. The 084 company that we have chosen have demonstrated to the Department of Health and to ourselves that:-
  • For all patient calls, our local GP number will not be more expensive to call than using an ordinary number.
  • More than 4.5 million patients use a 084 number to contact their GP surgery every month.
  • GP surgeries do not profit from 084 numbers.
  • The use of a 084 number has the support of the Department of Health and the British Medical Association

Should you wish to discuss this further please do not hesitate to contact:-
Nigel Dransfield – Practice Manager.

Title: Re: GP contract revised - "expensive" numbers bann
Post by bazzerfewi on May 29th, 2011 at 7:27am
24 HOUR A DAY ROBBERY

I think this is disgusting which ever way they attempt to disguise it 0844 numbers are still premium rate numbers and those patients that only use a mobile are paying a fortune.

Are we ever going to be able to do anything to sop this daylight robbery?
The worst thing of all is that they try and justify it.

Title: Re: GP contract revised - "expensive" numbers bann
Post by Dave on May 29th, 2011 at 11:06am

bazzerfewi wrote on May 29th, 2011 at 7:27am:
I think this is disgusting which ever way they attempt to disguise it 0844 numbers are still premium rate numbers and those patients that only use a mobile are paying a fortune.

Indeed. All calls carry the premium, irrespective of whether the charge is BT's (regulated) abnormally low charge of 4.084 pence per minute or T-Mobile's 41 pence per minute. For more on this, see my blog: How do 084x numbers work?



bazzerfewi wrote on May 29th, 2011 at 7:27am:
The worst thing of all is that they try and justify it.

This is not the worst thing. Any organisation which uses these numbers is fully entitled to justify its decision if its so chooses (or perhaps if it feels the need to).

What is the worst thing is the lie that "For all patient calls, our local GP number will not be more expensive to call than using an ordinary number". Ravenswood Medical Practice says that the company which supplies its new phone system has demonstrated that this is the case but provides no supporting evidence for this very dubious claim.

It also chooses to refer to the premium Business Rate number as a "local GP number".

Had it given qualification to the work "all", that it excludes certain tariffs, then it would be clear to see what game this practice is playing. If it has evidence that its current and future patient-base does not (and will not) subscribe to any of these tariffs, then it should present it.

These are the daytime rates with some landline providers:
[/color][/color][/color][/color][/color][/color][/color][/color]
Tariff Geographic/03 ("Ordinary number") 0844 387 [g11] ("Local GP number")
BT Unlimited Weekend/Unlimited E&W 7.60 4.084
BT Unlimited Anytime 0 4.084
Virgin Media - all except Talk Unlimited 8.68 8.16
Virgin Media - Talk Unlimited 0 8.16
Sky Talk Freetime 6.03 4.09
Sky Talk Unlimited 0 4.09
Post Office Homephone 5.36 4.08
TalkTalk UK Evening & Weekend 7.6 6
TalkTalk Anytime 0 6
Those in green show the cheapest and the ones in red show the most expensive for each respective tariff.

It is interesting that these surgeries are now adopting g11 0844 numbers which are one down from the top type, g6, which they used to be moving to.

This table rather suggests that they choose not acknowledge that patients have inclusive packages. The 'per minute' cost of calls is that high that it is worthwhile to switch to an inclusive package if only a few calls are made. That is, to get to the break even point between non-inclusive paid-for (per minute) calls and the additional charge to have calls inclusive requires very very few calls to be made.

A 'per minute' geographic rate is therefore a penalty for making such calls outside of the times of inclusivity.

I won't even bother comparing call charges with mobiles because they all charge more for 0844 calls!


So, as I say, the "all" does not include a number of patients, but this practice chooses not to mention this, which makes its statement misleading due to the sheer size of this group.

Title: Re: GP contract revised - "expensive" numbers bann
Post by kasg on May 30th, 2011 at 5:41pm
I wonder whether the "Patient Participation Group" at Ravenscroft had anything to say about the matter. There's nothing on the latest minutes (May) and I couldn't find minutes for any previous meetings. The lie about no patient calls costing more must surely be challenged. I don't know what percentage of patients use mobiles to call that surgery but round here I reckon it's over 50%. I am staggered that surgeries are still entering into new contracts to provide 0844 numbers, even after the toothless "ban" came into effect.

Title: Re: GP contract revised - "expensive" numbers bann
Post by Keith on May 30th, 2011 at 8:16pm
"I don't know what percentage of patients use mobiles to call that surgery but round here I reckon it's over 50%"

And most of the rest will use landline inclusive packages of some sort or other.

The percentage for whom the cost will not be more will be minuscule.

Title: Re: GP contract revised - "expensive" numbers bann
Post by Dave on May 30th, 2011 at 9:11pm
There is a report in today's Western Mail:

Patients pay higher call charges for out of hours care

Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University Health Board is replacing its 0845 out of hours number with a 03 one in July.


Quote:
A spokeswoman for Aneurin Bevan Health Board said: “Our GP out of hours services currently operate 0845 numbers charged at the local rate.”

Title: Re: GP contract revised - "expensive" numbers bann
Post by bazzerfewi on May 31st, 2011 at 6:35am
If the law states that calls to a Doctors surgery should not cost more than a local call can this be legally challenged.

I am not qualified to comment on the law, is there anybody that may know a way to take these surgeries to task. It is my intention to meet with the local M P Dan Jarvis as he has offered to assist in the misuse of 08 numbers

Title: Re: GP contract revised - "expensive" numbers bann
Post by Dave on May 31st, 2011 at 9:47am

loddon wrote on May 25th, 2011 at 11:39pm:
In today's Bracknell News and on-line in "Get Bracknell" :---

Premium rate numbers to call the doctor
By Caroline Cook
May 24, 2011

http://www.getbracknell.co.uk/news/s/2093157_premium_rate_numbers_to_call_the_doctor

..........
Birch Hill Medical Centre in Bracknell and Great Hollands Health Centre in Bracknell were also using 0844 numbers although both have automated messages advising callers that they are not being charged more than if they were calling a geographical number. Both messages advise that mobile costs will be higher. ..........................

These are lies then.  ::) ::)

Title: Re: GP contract revised - "expensive" numbers bann
Post by Keith on Jun 3rd, 2011 at 10:06am
I've sent (very polite) emails to two of the recent GP surgery's to move to 0844 numbers - No surprise that they have ignored me.

I have also followed up with my local PCT. I am awaiting a full reply, but their acknowledgement from their complaints officer was (I think) possibly illuminating:

"I will look into your concerns about the 0844 numbers and reply to you when I know more"

Could it be that although this is high on our priority list this is just one of too many issues they are dealing with and low in priority on their "to do" list.

I (probably unreasonably) assumed they would know all about the issue and have a policy and plan.

Could this be why we keep seeing the standard replies from the PCTs in the press when it hits the newspapers; paraphrasing - provided it costs no more than a local call it is ok. A correct and easy reply, but of course if they actually checked the cost (which takes effort) they would see their GPs are breaking this rule. Stating the rule is easy and takes no time; checking it is true and doing something about it when you find out it isn't takes a lot of effort.

It could just be the PCTs are over worked (as most of us are) and this does not come high enough on their to do list.

Title: Re: GP contract revised - "expensive" numbers bann
Post by Dave on Jun 9th, 2011 at 11:04am
A new interactive map of charging GPs right across the UK has been drawn up. This blogging explains it, as well as the inner-workings of 084 numbers and why they contravene the NHS' policy of free at the point of need:

http://nhspatient.blogspot.com/2011/06/nhs-gps-using-expensive-telephone.html

Title: Re: GP contract revised - "expensive" numbers bann
Post by Keith on Jun 10th, 2011 at 11:37am
Please find below my email correspondence with Surrey PCT. Their reply is very informative. See my reply to their reply in the next post.
________  

Hello xxx, you probably don't remember me but we spoke several years ago
regarding this topic.

As I know you will be aware the new rules came into play in April re the GPs use of
0844 numbers.

The response (at least from what one can gather from the press and internet) from
most PCTs regarding this matter appears to be disappointing.

Most PCTs seem to state that as long as GPs using 08xx numbers ensure the cost
is no more than that of a local call they are free to continue. If the GPs claim this is
so then no further action appears to be taken, even though the evidence regarding
the cost is clearly contrary to this statement.

Those of us campaigning against the use of 08xx clearly would not be campaigning
if it were true that the calls did not cost more (what would be the point?)

However I haven't heard anything regarding the Surrey PCT and as a Surrey
resident I thought it appropriate to ask your position. I hope it is different from other
PCTs, but as I haven't seen our local GPs changing from their 08xx numbers I would
appreciate knowing your position.

Tables have been produced (I can direct you if you wish) comparing all operators
local costs to 08xx costs which clearly show the difference in cost. However one
need not go into that detail. Three simple glaring examples exist which cover the
vast majority of the population namely:

* Landline users with inclusive packages of one sort or another (how many landline
users don't have such packages?)

* Mobile phone uses with inclusive packages

* PAYG mobile users.

All 3 of these users pay significantly higher costs.

The transfer to the equivalent 03xx is straightforward without any loss of functionality.

The poorest in society are those worst hit by the use of the 08xx numbers. For me it
is annoying, but for someone on a very low income using a payphone or PAYG
mobile it can cost several desperately needed pounds just to make that call.

Regards Keith.
                            ________________

xxx,

Just looking for a response re the attached email.

Clearly 0844 numbers cost more to call from:

a) all landlines with inclusive packages
b) all mobiles with inclusive packages
c) most mobile PAYG phones
d) all payphones
e) some non inclusive package landlines.

That puts GPs using 0844 numbers in breach of the rules.

In the case of c) and d) this impacts the poorest in society hardest with the biggest
cost.

What is the position of Surrey PCT regarding this please?

Regards Keith

         ____________________

xxxx,

Any response yet please re my email on the use of 08xx numbers by GPs please?

Can I draw your attention to the following link (you may need to copy and paste into
your browser if the whole link is not highlighted when you receive this email)

http://nhspatient.blogspot.com/2011/06/nhs-gps-using-expensive-telephone.html

From this link you can obtain a list of the cost of all 08xx numbers operated by GPs
which is compared to the price of using an 01/02/03 number for all telephone
providers and all packages.

It also provides a list (and map) of all GPs using 0844 numbers and as you can see
a number are in Surrey.

It is now 2 months since GPs should have ceased using such number (they can very
easily and readily convert to the equivalent 03xx number). This delay costs patients;
in particular the most vulnerable and least well off.

Those worse affected are the poorest in society, those that have to make frequent
appointments and those that use payphones or PAYG mobiles.

Sadly a significant number fall into all 3 categories. Those that can least afford it
should not be forced to pay so much to make an appointment to see their GP.

Regards Keith.

                   __________________

Dear Keith

I write further to your email regarding the use of 0844 numbers in GP surgeries.

Following the recent Department of Health update on the guidance for use of these
numbers (attached), NHS Surrey conducted an audit of all 137 GP surgeries with
whom we have contracts.  Of the surgeries that declared that they still use 0844
numbers (total 14) most are compliant with the Department of Health Guidelines.
Some are looking to change back to a geographical number (i.e. 01483) and one,
which is not compliant but bound to a contract with their phone supplier has been
informed by our Contracting and Commissioning team that they cannot renew the
contract in the future and until then must offer to ring patients back at their own cost.
I can also confirm that all but one surgery (the latter one) do not make a profit from
using these numbers.

Our understanding of the guidance issued by the Department of Health is that no
call to a surgery should cost more than the local geographical number for that area.
We fully appreciate and sympathise with those patients who have telephone
packages that allow free local calls, however, it is very difficult to ascertain the
variation of tariffs available to individuals. If a patient believes they have been
charged more than the local rate and can provide evidence in the form of their
phone bill, the PCT can, and will, challenge the surgery from a contractual point of
view and assist wherever possible to resolve the situation for the patient.

I hope this answers your queries.

Yours sincerely

Title: Re: GP contract revised - "expensive" numbers bann
Post by Keith on Jun 10th, 2011 at 11:38am

Thank you xxxx, much appreciated.

a) You say "it is very difficult to ascertain the variation of tariffs available to
individuals". I refer you to the link I supplied yesterday. That provides a table
showing the cost of 0844 and 0845 numbers for all packages from all suppliers and
comparing to the cost of 01/02/03 numbers.

So the comparison is readily available and it is clear that no 0844 number can
comply. How do you come to the conclusion that 13 of the 14 do comply?

Do you just take the GPs or their suppliers word for it or do you check what they tell
you re the cost? Any check is very simple indeed.

b) Re the one that doesn't comply, you say "...and until then must offer to ring
patients back at their own cost."

This really doesn't help much as the majority of the cost of the call is going through
the menu system and waiting on hold, so the call back will only save a very small
portion of the cost. The patient still incurs the vast majority of the cost.

Also anyone who has implemented an 0844 number can very quickly convert it to its
equivalent 0344 using the same provider. There will be a cost to the GP surgery as
the revenue generating element of the call will be lost so the supplier will want to
make up this shortfall, but that will happen anyway when the contract comes to an
end and it is wrong that the patients should foot this bill until the end of the contract.
They do not have to wait until the contract comes to an end.

I look forward to your further feedback.

Thank you, Keith.



Title: Re: GP contract revised - "expensive" numbers bann
Post by Keith on Jun 10th, 2011 at 11:55am
Sorry additional reply from me (point that I missed)

         ___________________________


Sorry xxx I missed the point where you said "I can also confirm that all
but one surgery (the latter one) do not make a profit from using these
numbers. "

This can not be correct. 0844 numbers are revenue generating. The GPs
may not be taking income in the form or revenue from the calls, but will be
taking a discount on the cost in some way. From both an accounting and
cash point of view this is exactly the same thing. It effects the profit figure
in exactly the same way.

Logic must tell you this is the case. If not why implement an 0844 number
in the first place? Why would it cost them more to implement an 0344
number. The difference in cost is the profit they will be losing.

Keith.

Title: Re: GP contract revised - "expensive" numbers bann
Post by Dave on Jun 14th, 2011 at 10:23am
Chichester Smiles Dental Practice changed to a 0844 387 (g11) number around a year ago.

Title: Kelvedon Surgery to abandon its 0844 number
Post by Dave on Jun 15th, 2011 at 8:55am
Story from Braintree & Witham Times:

GP surgery changes its number amid complaints

This shows that it can be done!

Title: Re: GP contract revised - "expensive" numbers bann
Post by SilentCallsVictim on Jun 15th, 2011 at 1:18pm

Dave wrote on Jun 14th, 2011 at 10:23am:
Chichester Smiles Dental Practice changed to a 0844 387 (g11) number around a year ago.

Although NHS Dentists were covered by the ban on 0870 numbers introduced in February 2005, they are not covered by the ban on "expensive" 084 numbers announced in September 2009.


For those following developments on this front there is some recent news to be found here

Title: Re: GP contract revised - "expensive" numbers bann
Post by Dave on Jun 17th, 2011 at 10:25am
NHS Solent has recently changed its 084 out of ours GP number to 0300 300 2012:

http://www.solent.nhs.uk/news_item.asp?fldID=285

http://www.andoveradvertiser.co.uk/news/9065339.A_new_number_for_out_of_hours_doctor_s_service/


Does anyone know what the old 084 number that this replaced is? I would like to list it in the database.

Title: Re: GP contract revised - "expensive" numbers bann
Post by kasg on Jun 17th, 2011 at 10:36am

Dave wrote on Jun 17th, 2011 at 10:25am:
Does anyone know what the old 084 number that this replaced is? I would like to list it in the database.


0844 811 3060?

http://www.solent.nhs.uk/page.asp?fldArea=18&fldMenu=9&fldSubMenu=0&fldKey=169

Title: Re: GP contract revised - "expensive" numbers bann
Post by Dave on Jun 17th, 2011 at 10:40am

kasg wrote on Jun 17th, 2011 at 10:36am:

Dave wrote on Jun 17th, 2011 at 10:25am:
Does anyone know what the old 084 number that this replaced is? I would like to list it in the database.


0844 811 3060?

http://www.solent.nhs.uk/page.asp?fldArea=18&fldMenu=9&fldSubMenu=0&fldKey=169

Thanks. I've added it.  :)

Title: Abbey Medical Centre says no to 0844
Post by Dave on Jun 19th, 2011 at 1:57pm
Abbey Medical Centre of Abbey Road, NW8 has changed its 0844 number back to a local 020 number.

From its home page:

Quote:
Our Telephone Number Has Changed

What you  all have been waiting for we have changed our telephone number to

020 7604 2455

The number 0844 477 3568 is still live and does not have any redirector message.

Title: Re: GP contract revised - "expensive" numbers bann
Post by CJT-80 on Jun 20th, 2011 at 11:08am
Might be worth contacting them here and letting them know they need a message on their "old" 0844 number.


Title: Re: GP contract revised - "expensive" numbers bann
Post by speedy on Jul 7th, 2011 at 1:01am
I received on 14th June a reply from my MP after I asked him on 29th April to Support stopping this illegal use of expensive 0844 GP Numbers, he contacted our West Kent PCT and enclosed a copy of their reply which in effect said they had reviewed this and were assured that :

" Generally calls made to NHS contractors using 0844 number should be charged at a local rate if calls are made from callers with a BT Standard Rate Tariff only. However if a customer is not on a Standard Rate Rariff their Service Provider can charge more for the call, if that is the case the customer should follow this up with their Service Provider as customers are informed of the T & C their Service Provider offer and this is so as there is freedom of choice as to which Service Provider a person signs up to for their phone service "

In other words they are not interested in stopping it and GO CHANGE YOUR PHONE SERVICE  - ditch your phone bundle to suit your GP -  I dont think BT do a Standard Tariff now, it is either Anytime or Evening and Weekend - nothing else

I am going to phone West Kent PCT when I have double checked that there is no Standard Tariff on BT and it would be local if their was still Standard - will update after I have phoned BT

Title: Re: GP contract revised - "expensive" numbers bann
Post by speedy on Jul 7th, 2011 at 2:04am
Money Grabbing GPs' more than phone numbers

In addition to my previous post I looked at a copy of the Daily Mail dated
29th June before I recycled it and found an article titled :

GP bonuses 'lead to poorer patient care'  in which it stated in 2004 targets for Actions like testing for high blood pressure and choresterol levels were not being met so PCT started giving BONUSES as incentives which naturally improved them to the detriment of other testing e.g back pain, dementia and arthiritus and they are still on Bonuses out of 42 activities 23 grab Bonuses and 19 dont - so if you might need a Thyroid or blood sugar test plus 17 more, Hard Luck if its not on their Bonus Scheme that month.

How many more ways are GPs' going to grab money off Patients to add to their Average £105,000 a year. Apparently there was a general improvement in Care until the Bonuses were started in 2004 then a marked improvement in Bonused Testing and decline in non bonused actions.

I would have liked to have had a Bonus for doing my Job properly - wouldnt we all !!!   and the Government is going to close PCTs and give GPs all our
NHS money I wonder how quickly the Bentleys are going to start appearing - wait and see!!!  


Title: Re: GP contract revised - "expensive" numbers bann
Post by SilentCallsVictim on Jul 7th, 2011 at 3:19am

speedy wrote on Jul 7th, 2011 at 1:01am:
I am going to phone West Kent PCT when I have double checked that there is no Standard Tariff on BT and it would be local if their was still Standard - will update after I have phoned BT

I have in my position a written statement from an authoritative source in BT, endorsed by its communications office, which confirms:


Quote:
Standard rate were abolished years ago and now all the customers who make calls with BT are either on the weekend, evening and weekend or anytime calls plan, apart from the ones on BT Basic our social telephony tariff.

The officer concerned has promised to make enquiries about why a rate which does not apply to any customers is still published in the customer price list.


speedy wrote on Jul 7th, 2011 at 1:01am:

Quote:
"Generally calls made to NHS contractors using 0844 number should be charged at a local rate if calls are made from callers with a BT Standard Rate Tariff only."

This is an interesting policy for West Kent PCT to have developed at its own discretion.

It is quite different from the terms of the relevant contract, as approved by parliament, which states:


Quote:
"having regard to the arrangement as a whole, persons will not pay more to make relevant calls to the practice than they would to make equivalent calls to a geographical number"

This is the essence of the requirements which West Kent PCT has the powers and duty to enforce.

West Kent PCT has adopted a policy whereby "persons" is qualified, so that it applies to nobody, in what amounts to a re-writing of this simple statement. This is a rather radical interpretation of its statutory duty to have regard to the rights under the NHS Constitution. The first of these Rights states that all persons have access to NHS services without charge, except those charges explicitly sanctioned by parliament.


Ann Sutton, the Chief Executive of the Kent and Medway PCT Cluster, along with her 50 colleagues, has received this message. Officers of the PCTs cannot claim that they have not been invited to consider the reality of the situation. They have a duty to verify claims made by others and to disregard spurious suggestions about the position taken by the Department of Health and the false idea that there is any general regulation of charges for calling 084 numbers, or any regulation relating that cost to the cost of calling geographic numbers.

It is for each PCT to understand the simple words quoted above, as they are written. If they choose to add their own qualifications then that is a matter for which the accountable officer (Ms Sutton in this case) is fully responsible. I strongly believe that to do so is to redefine the principles of the NHS for the locality which they serve. If this involves withdrawing rights under the NHS Constitution, they are in breach of the terms of Section 1 of the Health Act 2009.

Title: Re: GP contract revised - "expensive" numbers bann
Post by speedy on Jul 7th, 2011 at 4:05am
Thanks SCV for your swift reply.

The copy enclosed by my MP of West Kent PCT letter was from Helen Buckingham, Deputy Cheif Exec. not Ann Sutton - it also said which I hadnt included in my post that they ' had sent information to Practices that use such numbers advising them to display a poster in their Recp. Area as a means of providing assurance to all patients'  I dont know what it is supposed to assure patients of -  apart from the fact they were being ripped off  ::)

I am going to phone Helen Buckingham Thurs afternoon (an 0800 number)
to see what she has to say but I am not expecting much - it will probably be a releif to bang my head on the wall after the call having read all that has gone before - however more power to your elbow SCV - keep up the good work

I have also added most of the post you replied to on David Hickinsin blog - but not showing yet - if I can find it again  :-[ - I am a silver surfer and am alright on this Forum but a bit green about finding my way round links and blogs

Title: Re: GP contract revised - "expensive" numbers bann
Post by Dave on Jul 11th, 2011 at 11:05am
Tomorrow afternoon is Oral Questions to the Secretary of State for Health, and the 8th on the list is:

Mark Pawsey (Rugby): What guidance his Department issues on the use by GP surgeries of premium rate telephone numbers.
(65113)


Members might wish to contact their MP with a view to asking a follow-up question.

The DH has said many times in written and verbal exchanges that "... having regard to the arrangement as a whole, persons will not pay more to make relevant calls than they would to make equivalent calls to a geographical number". I suspect that we might be hearing these words again, in direct response to the above question.

However, some PCTs are saying that the regulations are only applicable to certain customers of a certain telephone provider or exclusive of patients ringing from mobile phones. It will be good to get some sort of statement to the effect that it applies to all patients ringing from all landlines and all mobiles.

I have drawn up the following question:

Some PCTs say that they consider that their GPs are in compliance with the GMS Contract where patients subscribed to only a certain tariff with a certain telephone provider pay no more than a geographic call. Can the Minister/Secretary of State confirm that the "arrangement as a whole" includes patients who are customers of all telephone providers and applies irrespective of whether they call from a fixed line or mobile phone? And will he write to PCTs to clarify that this is the case?"

Title: Re: GP contract revised - "expensive" numbers bann
Post by SilentCallsVictim on Jul 11th, 2011 at 3:37pm

Dave wrote on Jul 11th, 2011 at 11:05am:
Tomorrow afternoon is Oral Questions to the Secretary of State for Health, and the 8th on the list is:

Mark Pawsey (Rugby): What guidance his Department issues on the use by GP surgeries of premium rate telephone numbers.
(65113)


Members might wish to contact their MP with a view to asking a follow-up question.


I fully endorse Dave's suggestion.

Many MPs have been advised of this excellent opportunity for PCTs to be reminded of their responsibilities. Many have been misled into thinking that the Department of Health does not support the idea that all patients are entitled to the same treatment under the NHS - free at the point of need.

There is an extensive supporting briefing document published here - PCTs failing to understand DH Guidance.

A telephone call to your MP to press them on this matter could make all the difference.

Title: Re: Surgeries saying no to 0844!
Post by Dave on Jul 13th, 2011 at 9:18am
The Health Question and follow-up questions yesterday have been published in Hansard:

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2011-07-12a.149.4

GPs (Premium Rate Telephone Numbers)

8. Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con): What guidance his Department issues on the use by GP surgeries of premium rate telephone numbers. [65113]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Anne Milton): The Department has amended the general medical services regulations to prohibit GP practices from using telephone numbers that charge patients more than the equivalent cost of calling a geographical number to contact the NHS. Since April this year, GPs have not been allowed to use a number that charges patients more than the cost of an equivalent geographical call.

Mark Pawsey: I have been contacted by a constituent who is a patient at a practice in Rugby that uses telephony based on 084 numbers. My constituent is concerned about the additional charges incurred by patients when contacting the surgery by phone, particularly by mobile phone. Will the Minister update the House on the work of the Department in ensuring that GP surgeries do not use such numbers unnecessarily?

Anne Milton: I thank my hon. Friend for raising this matter. I understand that five GP surgeries in NHS Warwickshire use 084 numbers, and that the primary care trust has been assured that patients using those numbers are not charged more than the cost of using an equivalent local number. It is absolutely clear that there is no distinction between landlines, mobiles or payphones. The directions are very clear that patients should not expect to be charged any more.

Mr Andrew Love (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op): I, similarly, have three GP practices that use those telephone numbers. I have made extensive contact with my local PCT about this, but it did not seem to know what to do. Can the Minister assure us that the clear advice she is giving here today will be distributed around the health service, so that we can put an end to this?

Anne Milton: The Department is very clear, and the general medical services contract makes it very clear, that GPs are not allowed to charge more. There are a number of options open to GPs who already have such telephone contracts, such as calling patients back, altering the contract arrangements or, indeed, paying the costs themselves.

Title: Re: Surgeries saying no to 0844!
Post by Barbara on Jul 13th, 2011 at 2:22pm
I may be dim here but, for clarification, does Ms Milton mean that the regulations mean that it must not cost more from any type of telephone be it landline, mobile or payphone & all are covered by the regulations or does she mean that the PCT now believes a nonsense that there is no difference in cost in calling from any of these types of phone and to an 084 number?   If the latter, are these people on the same planet?   Do politicians ever use telephones themselves or pay their own phone bills?   At least, by not challenging the wording of the question, Ms Milton is accepting that 084 are premium rate telephone numbers!   A small victory perhaps?

Title: Re: GP contract revised - "expensive" numbers bann
Post by Dave on Jul 13th, 2011 at 2:34pm

Barbara wrote on Jul 13th, 2011 at 2:22pm:
I may be dim here but, for clarification, does Ms Milton mean that the regulations mean that it must not cost more from any type of telephone be it landline, mobile or payphone & all are covered by the regulations or does she mean that the PCT now believes a nonsense that there is no difference in cost in calling from any of these types of phone and to an 084 number? …

It is perhaps worth re-reading Ms Milton's statement:

"I understand that five GP surgeries in NHS Warwickshire use 084 numbers, and that the primary care trust has been assured that patients using those numbers are not charged more than the cost of using an equivalent local number."

It simply says that the PCT has been assured that patients will not pay more. It makes no mention whether this assurance has been accepted or not.

Then follows the confirmation that the regulations apply to all patients, irrespective of mode of telecommunications is used.

Title: Re: Surgeries saying no to 0844!
Post by Keith on Jul 13th, 2011 at 2:43pm
To me her words are very very clear and quite forcefully made so we should (note should!) be in the home straight as payphones and mobiles clearly fail the test for all 084x numbers.


Title: Re: Surgeries saying no to 0844!
Post by Keith on Jul 13th, 2011 at 2:47pm
Yes I agree with Dave. I can assure you that the sky is green. It doesn't make it a fact and it is wrong.

When specifically asked about mobiles she said:

"It is absolutely clear that there is no distinction between landlines, mobiles or payphones. The directions are very clear that patients should not expect to be charged any more. "

How clearer does anyone want it. And they do cost more.

Title: Re: Surgeries saying no to 0844!
Post by Keith on Jul 13th, 2011 at 3:01pm
Just phone Surrey PCT and they still think they comply!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Title: Re: GP contract revised - "expensive" numbers bann
Post by Dave on Jul 13th, 2011 at 3:05pm

Keith wrote on Jul 13th, 2011 at 3:01pm:
Just phone Surrey PCT and they still think they comply!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

According to this list, Surrey PCT has 20 surgeries with 084 numbers!  ::)

Title: Re: Surgeries saying no to 0844!
Post by Barbara on Jul 13th, 2011 at 5:04pm
Thank you all, I just felt the statement could be ambiguous.  However, there is still no clear statement about what instructions have been given to the DOH to deal with those NHS bodies which have not complied or refuse to comply with the directives and giving directives with no published and enforced penalty for non-compliance is not a lot of help.  I would have thought the DOH has had it brought to its attention quite clearly and from many sources the truth of the situation and that many NHS bodies are in breach of the directive and that the time to act on this has well & truly arrived.

Title: Re: GP contract revised - "expensive" numbers bann
Post by SilentCallsVictim on Jul 14th, 2011 at 6:21am
The Department of Health has now made it absolutely clear from the floor of the House of Commons that the ban applies to all numbers that cost more than the cost of an equivalent call to a geographic number, whether called from a landline, mobile or payphone.

This may represent news to some PCTs, who will have received assurances from their practices such as that widely circulated, a copy of which is published here -

Quote:
...
some telecoms providers (e.g. NEG) “have chosen to charge no more for an 084 call than a call to a geographic number when dialing from a fixed line”
...
Having held many meetings with the Department of Health over the past year, we understand that the Department of Health would be happy for an NHS body such as yours to get this reassurance in the form of this letter from NEG to you confirming that the cost of calls via the Surgery Line solution is no higher.
...
The Department accepted our evidence, which led to them confirming in their response  that: “Some providers have chosen to charge no more for a 084 call than a call to a geographic number when dialing from a fixed line.”
You can be confident, therefore, that your decision to continue to deliver excellent services for your patients using NEG Surgery Line has the full support of the Department of Health and the British Medical Association.

Up until now the Department of Health has never taken the trouble to point out that any reference to the cost of calling "from a fixed line" was not as significant as suggested by the preceding quotation. (This comment was with reference to some telephone call service providers, not system providers such as NEG, anyway). It has never confirmed its support for any particular system, nor indeed of any system being funded by use of a revenue sharing number. It has always stuck to the terms of the regulations as drafted, making it plain that it is these terms which PCTs are expected to enforce on GPs.


It is widely acknowledged that the cost of calling 084 numbers from a mobile is greater than that of calling geographic numbers. A variety of reasons have been advanced to suggest that this fact does not make use of 084 numbers fall outside the terms of the regulations. This argument is now firmly quashed by referring to the answer given on Tuesday.

In respect of payphones, there can be no dispute whatsoever.



There is some doubt about whether Andrew Love received the assurance sought by asking -

Quote:
Can the Minister assure us that the clear advice she is giving here today will be distributed around the health service, so that we can put an end to this?

The recording of the exchanges shows that the Minister began her response with the single word sentence "Yes." This (and the phrase which followed) is commonly used in parliament to acknowledge a well made point before responding to it, and was therefore excluded from the Official Record (Hansard). In response to a direct closed question however it may fairly be taken as an affirmative reply.

Efforts to ensure that the Department writes to all PCT Chief Executives, regardless of whether or not such an assurance was given, are underway. Members may wish to press their own MP to join in these efforts.


PCTs have a degree of autonomy and the Department has long been reluctant to "micro-manage" their activities. They do however all lean very heavily on what they understand to be the position of the DH, especially if this helps them avoid having to take difficult action. A clear statement, in the form of a letter, simply repeating what was said in the house, would make it far more difficult for them to avoid taking action against GPs in breach.

The relationship between the Department of Health and NHS bodies is complex and undergoing change. Suffice to say that one may be happily surprised by the strength and clarity of the comments made on Tuesday! There are other ways of ensuring that PCTs comply with their duties, rather than seeking for the DH to intervene.

Whether or not the DH writes to PCTs, they can also be pressured by patients, MPs and local media - all of whom now have a clear reference in Hansard to indicate that they may be contradicting the explicit directions of the Government, as confirmed to the Parliament to which it is accountable. There are further formal options.

Title: Re: GP contract revised - "expensive" numbers bann
Post by Barbara on Jul 14th, 2011 at 12:08pm
Hi, I have a request which I appreciate might be difficult or impossible to grant but it relates to the multiple threads on the use by NHS bodies, both GPs & hospitals etc, using 084X telephone numbers.   I am finding it increasingly difficult to remember in which thread particular posts appear when I am making reference eg in emails, complaints, particularly if the posts were made more than a couple of days ago.  I don't know if other people are also finding this difficult but it would be really helpful if certain aspects of the various threads could be merged and posts about other, similar, and equally important NHS related issues be separated, possibly the threads would need renaming.  I know this would be a mammoth task but we do seem to be making progress on this aspect so it would be worthwhile I think as it would be a great pity if people missed a relevant point which would have strengthened their argument just because it was in a different thread.

Title: Re: GP contract revised - "expensive" numbers bann
Post by SilentCallsVictim on Jul 14th, 2011 at 2:16pm

Barbara wrote on Jul 14th, 2011 at 12:08pm:
... multiple threads on the use by NHS bodies, both GPs & hospitals etc, using 084X telephone numbers ...

I share Barbara's concern and suggest that we should collectively accept some principles of good practice when choosing where to add a comment.

It is inevitable that related points will be raised in discussion - we need not feel excessively bound by the topic of the thread, although we should respect it.

Once a separate matter has turned into a discussion on that point alone, I would suggest that a new thread be started (or an existing thread be re-opened) with a forward linking posting added to the thread from which the discussion diverged. Earlier comments from the other thread where the point was raised could be quoted in the thread relevant to the "break -off" topic.

From a quick inspection of the general area to which this thread is central, I believe that we have reasonably well defined streams in which to make comments. News announcements without comment, which for me represent too large a proportion of the material in this "discussion" forum (although I know that others would disagree) may well apply to more than one thread. Given that the threads are properly focussed on specific issues, I see no reason why a brief "cross reference" posting could not be made in those threads of secondary relevance, whilst the main comment is made in the most appropriate thread.

I believe that most members are sufficiently competent with yabb syntax to handle a "quote". Some well written tips on how to prepare a "cross reference / link" posting would perhaps be helpful.


My previous posting to this thread (example of cross reference posting) highlighted one case where I believe that thread discipline has broken down. The other notable case (in which I am as guilty as anyone else) is an extensive discussion of car parking charges in a thread about Hospitals using 0844 numbers.

(I acknowledge that this contribution could perhaps have been best placed in the "Site related" section of the forum. On balance I believe that it has sufficient particular relevance to the topic covered in this thread to remain here. Should the discussion open up to cover wider points, then I would take a different view.)

Title: Re: GP contract revised - "expensive" numbers bann
Post by Dave on Jul 15th, 2011 at 12:04am

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Jul 14th, 2011 at 2:16pm:

Barbara wrote on Jul 14th, 2011 at 12:08pm:
... multiple threads on the use by NHS bodies, both GPs & hospitals etc, using 084X telephone numbers ...

I share Barbara's concern and suggest that we should collectively accept some principles of good practice when choosing where to add a comment.

I have moved over the postings to this thread from the Surgeries saying no to 0844 thread that are one the recent discussion in parliament.

Perhaps some posts need amending. For example, SCV has given a hyperlink referring to the posting I made in the other thread which has now been moved to this thread.

Title: Re: GP contract revised - "expensive" numbers bann
Post by SilentCallsVictim on Jul 15th, 2011 at 6:56am

Dave wrote on Jul 15th, 2011 at 12:04am:
I have moved over the postings to this thread from the Surgeries saying no to 0844 thread that are one the recent discussion in parliament.

Perhaps some posts need amending. For example, SCV has given a hyperlink referring to the posting I made in the other thread which has now been moved to this thread.

I have indeed now removed all references to the comments in what I saw as being the wrong thread from my earlier posting

I quote below the point I made about the fact that Tuesday's announcement does not itself mean that Surgeries are saying No to 0844. It no longer belongs in the earlier posting, but I want it retained in the discussion.


Quote:
Only when NEG and the BMA recognise that their battle to enable GPs to be funded by patients is lost, and start to work with GPs to deliver the best service they can to patients UNDER THE TERMS OF THE NHS, could it be relevant to refer to Tuesday's announcement in the other thread. We are still dealing with the enforcement of the contract revision, against those who have not yet "said no".



I have also removed the references to the action that was being taken with respect to consideration of amendment to the Official Record. This has now been swiftly resolved. I expect to be to shortly posting again including quotations from an accurate (updated) Hansard.

Purely for the sake of an historical record - my original comment said:

Quote:
(Officials are looking to see if a correction is necessary. The replacement of "do it" with the reasonable and intentionally helpful, but strictly inaccurate, "charge more" is also being investigated - we do not want to return to arguments that the regulations only apply to those telephone call charges which GPs can control, because there are none.)

The Minister has confirmed that there was no commitment made to write to PCTs, so the omission of the courtesy preamble stands. This does not mean that pressure from MPs and other sources may not cause the Department to write to PCTs; it may choose to do so itself. All that is missing is the "assurance" that was sought.

For news on the other point - watch this space, with an eye on the last two words of the first sentence of the penultimate line of this posting. I am not exactly sure when the on-line Hansard source will be changed and if this correction will be reflected on TheyWorkForYou. It will be splendid to be able to quote the full exchanges from Hansard without any fear of confusion being re-introduced.

Title: Re: Surgeries saying no to 0844!
Post by SilentCallsVictim on Jul 16th, 2011 at 3:01am

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Jul 15th, 2011 at 6:56am:
For news on the other point - watch this space, with an eye on the last two words of the first sentence of the penultimate line of this posting. I am not exactly sure when the on-line Hansard source will be changed and if this correction will be reflected on TheyWorkForYou. It will be splendid to be able to quote the full exchanges from Hansard without any fear of confusion being re-introduced.


I am delighted to report that the Official record (Hansard) of the exchanges on Tuesday now differs from that version shown on TheyWorkForYou as accurately reported below:


Dave wrote on Jul 13th, 2011 at 9:18am:
The Health Question and follow-up questions yesterday have been published in Hansard:

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2011-07-12a.149.4

...
Anne Milton: The Department is very clear, and the general medical services contract makes it very clear, that GPs are not allowed to charge more. ...


From 0800 on Friday morning the Hansard version of this sentence, in this section has read:


Quote:
Anne Milton: The Department is very clear, and the general medical services contract makes it very clear, that GPs are not allowed to do it. ...


Thanks are due to the personal private secretary to Anne Milton who requested and authorised this correction.

We are now able to quote Hansard without getting into arguments about the requirements being limited to those call charges which GPs can control - not that there are any, but this is one of the silly arguments that have been advanced as the basis for excluding consideration of calls from mobiles.


The major effort must now be to persuade the Department of Health of the need to write to all PCT Chief Executives to simply repeat what was said in the house, so that their state of confusion can be ended. This is most effectively done by MPs, who would normally be expected to respond swiftly if a fair case were presented by a constituent.

To assist in the presentation of representations to MPs I have now published a summary of the total number of cases of GPs in breach of their contract by English Parliamentary Constituency. For each MP there is a hyperlink to the list of cases in my database - all based on NHS Choices.

This is the list of MPs. With government and opposition front bench positions shown on the list it makes entertaining reading. There are a number of prominent government and shadow ministers in the top 30. As with all of my published material, all are free to use it in their campaigning efforts.

Title: The man behind GPs' rip-off numbers on TV tonight
Post by Dave on Jul 17th, 2011 at 4:48pm
One of the main suppliers of GP phone systems with 084 numbers is Network Europe Group (NEG) with its Surgery Line system. It is now part of Daisy Group and its founder and chief executive, Matthew Riley, will be making his TV debut this evening during the final of The Apprentice which starts at 21:00 on BBC One. He is one of people Lord Sugar has called upon to grill the final four candidates.

BBC News: Nelson businessman Matthew Riley grills Apprentice finalists
Lancashire Telegraph: Nelson entrepreneur to interview Apprentice finalists tonight

Title: Re: GP contract revised - "expensive" numbers bann
Post by speedy on Jul 18th, 2011 at 4:55am
Dave  - the post above yours from SCV - the link near the bottom shown as
This is the List of MPs doesnt work only if you are running Google Chrome - and I dont want to - can anything be done to make it available to all   ;) ;D

Thanks

Title: Re: GP contract revised - "expensive" numbers bann
Post by Dave on Jul 18th, 2011 at 9:40am

speedy wrote on Jul 18th, 2011 at 4:55am:
Dave  - the post above yours from SCV - the link near the bottom shown as
This is the List of MPs doesnt work only if you are running Google Chrome - and I dont want to - can anything be done to make it available to all   ;) ;D

It works for me in Firefox but not Internet Explorer 8 which says "We're sorry. The publishing options given are not valid. Please check the options and try again."

Title: Re: GP contract revised - "expensive" numbers bann
Post by SilentCallsVictim on Jul 18th, 2011 at 10:15am

Dave wrote on Jul 18th, 2011 at 9:40am:

speedy wrote on Jul 18th, 2011 at 4:55am:
Dave  - the post above yours from SCV - the link near the bottom shown as
This is the List of MPs doesnt work only if you are running Google Chrome - and I dont want to - can anything be done to make it available to all   ;) ;D

It works for me in Firefox but not Internet Explorer 8 which says "We're sorry. The publishing options given are not valid. Please check the options and try again."

Very sorry about this folks. There is a glitch somewhere, which gives the error message under some circumstances but not others. It is NOT A BROWSER ISSUE - I have had both successes and failures with the same URL on the same Browser.

I am working on it and hope to come back with good news soon. In the meantime, I am testing another way of rendering Google Spreadsheets, which could work more effectively, although it is actually far more complex.

I would be interested in feedback on whether this link works for people. The url is simpler, although the presentation is not quite as good and it probably involves a lot more work to maintain.

N.B. Until we have something known to be working to release to the world, it may be better to pass feedback to me through PM or email, rather than cluttering up this thread with technical discussion about a particular website.

I would be grateful for any technical tips on why html rendering of Google Spreadsheets behaves like this and what remedies there may be from any guru or lucky tester who has found a pattern.

Many thanks to all for their input so far.

Title: Re: GP contract revised - "expensive" numbers bann
Post by Dave on Jul 19th, 2011 at 9:21am

loddon wrote on May 25th, 2011 at 11:32pm:
In today's Wokingham Times :----

Premium rate numbers to call the doctor

http://www.getwokingham.co.uk/news/s/2093141_premium_rate_numbers_to_call_the_doctor

Patients calling some Wokingham GP surgeries are being forced to dial premium-rate phone numbers to book an appointment. .......
Campaigners have been battling against the use of premium-rate numbers by GPs since 2009, saying they are unfair to patients .......

Further to this article, another has been published:

Anger as surgery keeps premium rate number


Local campaigners point out that the ban applies to all modes of telecommunications, yet the PCT claims it has been told by the DH that the only comparison is the "local BT rate".

Title: Re: GP contract revised - "expensive" numbers bann
Post by Barbara on Jul 19th, 2011 at 9:36am
Surely it cannot be true that the DoH is advising comparison only with BT tariffs?   Does anyone anywhere have a document proving this is not the case?   If so could they please provide it or its link urgently for the rest of us to use?   If no one has this, could someone, possibly SCV as he is so heavily involved & has such good contacts, seek absolute clarification on this?   I know the article flies in the face of last week's parliamentary question but I think we all need something quotable and authoritative.

Title: Re: GP contract revised - "expensive" numbers bann
Post by Dave on Jul 19th, 2011 at 9:39am

Barbara wrote on Jul 19th, 2011 at 9:36am:
Surely it cannot be true that the DoH is advising comparison only with BT tariffs?   Does anyone anywhere have a document proving this is not the case?   If so could they please provide it or its link urgently for the rest of us to use?   If no one has this, could someone, possibly SCV as he is so heavily involved & has such good contacts, seek absolute clarification on this?   I know the article flies in the face of last week's parliamentary question but I think we all need something quotable and authoritative.

The statement by the Health Minister in Parliament is authoritive.

Title: Re: GP contract revised - "expensive" numbers bann
Post by SilentCallsVictim on Jul 19th, 2011 at 11:11am

Dave wrote on Jul 19th, 2011 at 9:21am:
... Anger as surgery keeps premium rate number

Local campaigners point out that the ban applies to all modes of telecommunications, yet the PCT claims it has been told by the DH that the only comparison is the "local BT rate".


Dave wrote on Jul 19th, 2011 at 9:39am:

Barbara wrote on Jul 19th, 2011 at 9:36am:
... could someone, possibly SCV as he is so heavily involved & has such good contacts, seek absolute clarification on this?   I know the article flies in the face of last week's parliamentary question but I think we all need something quotable and authoritative.

The statement by the Health Minister in Parliament is authoritive.

Dave is correct. In effect, the PCT is alleging that the Minister misled parliament.

After contacting all parties, a campaigner has added a further comment to the Wokingham Times website. This concludes by indicating the course of action open to patients who feel that the PCT is failing in its duty.

Title: Re: The man behind GPs' rip-off numbers on TV toni
Post by jimjim on Jul 21st, 2011 at 9:58am

Dave wrote on Jul 17th, 2011 at 4:48pm:
One of the main suppliers of GP phone systems with 084 numbers is Network Europe Group (NEG) with its Surgery Line system. It is now part of Daisy Group and its founder and chief executive, Matthew Riley, will be making his TV debut this evening during the final of The Apprentice which starts at 21:00 on BBC One. He is one of people Lord Sugar has called upon to grill the final four candidates.

BBC News: Nelson businessman Matthew Riley grills Apprentice finalists
Lancashire Telegraph: Nelson entrepreneur to interview Apprentice finalists tonight


A follow up to the above post.  ;)

http://davidhicksonmedia.blogspot.com/2011/07/apprentice-star-matthew-riley-asked-to.html

Title: Re: GP contract revised - "expensive" numbers bann
Post by speedy on Jul 26th, 2011 at 1:03am
Should anything be done about Dartford East Health Centre - the one Practice that has the 0844 number is STILL updating their Web Site supposedly or is it a ploy to force Patients to use the 0844 to make an appointment - perhaps they were getting too much activity on their Web site and didnt like missing out on the dosh !!!   Or perhaps they didnt like the complaints and reviews they were getting on it - Clever eh !!!

Anyone any idea how long it has been like this ?

Title: Re: GP contract revised - "expensive" numbers bann
Post by loddon on Jul 26th, 2011 at 10:54am

speedy wrote on Jul 26th, 2011 at 1:03am:
 ... perhaps they were getting too much activity on their Web site and didnt like missing out on the dosh !!!   Or perhaps they didnt like the complaints and reviews they were getting on it - Clever eh !!!

"speedy", this is interesting.   Could you give us more information on what was on their website?   It sounds as though on-line appointment booking and other facilities were available, or are you referring to something else?   Also, you refer to complaints and reviews -- were patients able to put their complaints and reviews on the website?    Is there a "cached" copy of the site that we can look at?

When did they get their 0844?

I notice that they have a geo number for their Fax, could this help you discover the geo number behind the 0844?

Title: BMA continues to denie the extent of the ban
Post by Dave on Jul 27th, 2011 at 8:10pm
The BMA has put out some more propaganda on the ban on expensive telephone numbers, dated July 2011:

GPC GUIDANCE: USE OF 084 NUMBERS BY GP PRACTICES

It contains this blatant falsity:


Quote:
What do the regulations say about calls from mobile phones?

The regulations do not include any specific requirement for practices to consider the cost of calls from mobile phones. In terms of call tariffs, the call rates which patients are charged depend on their mobile phone service provider. It is a matter for individual members of the public to ensure that they are happy with the terms and conditions of the mobile phone arrangements that they enter into with their mobile phone provider.


A Health Minister recently said in Parliament of the GP number ban:

…It is absolutely clear that there is no distinction between landlines, mobiles or payphones. The directions are very clear that patients should not expect to be charged any more.

Title: Re: GP contract revised - "expensive" numbers bann
Post by Barbara on Jul 28th, 2011 at 9:22am
Has this been brought yet again to the attention of those responsible at the BMA?

Title: Re: GP contract revised - "expensive" numbers bann
Post by SilentCallsVictim on Jul 28th, 2011 at 11:03am

Barbara wrote on Jul 28th, 2011 at 9:22am:
Has this been brought yet again to the attention of those responsible at the BMA?

See The BMA advises its members to continue the 084 telephone number scam


The issue of a practice abandoning a 0844 number has brought to light a failure by Bedfordshire PCT to perform its duties - see Example of how PCTs are failing

I understand that BBC 3 Counties Radio will be doing a piece on this at 2.30 this afternoon.

Title: Re: GP contract revised - "expensive" numbers bann
Post by CJT-80 on Jul 28th, 2011 at 1:16pm
Dave/SCV

I am now really confused. I was told by my Local PCT and Dr's Sugery that they are "Unable" to get out of their contact untill it is next up for re-tendering and that is why they are unable to change their number from 0844.

So what IS the situation? How can I clearly inform both the PCT and Surgery that they are able to modify the number to an 01/02/03 number?

It seems that the situation as it stands is far from clear, as the Health Minister in SCV's link appears to be confused herself.

As far as I can see only 01/02/03 numbers are inclusive, and therefore in MY case I will ALWAY'S pay more then the cost of a "geographic" call if I call the 0844 number.

Any advice is welcome.

Title: Re: GP contract revised - "expensive" numbers bann
Post by SilentCallsVictim on Jul 28th, 2011 at 2:07pm

CJT-80 wrote on Jul 28th, 2011 at 1:16pm:
I was told by my Local PCT and Dr's Sugery that they are "Unable" to get out of their contact untill it is next up for re-tendering and that is why they are unable to change their number from 0844.

If the surgery were to approach the telephone service provider and say that they needed to transfer to a 01/02 or 03 number in order to stop patients incurring additional costs, it would be told what options are available.

At the very least, they will be able to migrate to a 03 number. This is a standard option offered by Talk Talk to all of its customers at any time during the term of their arrangement, WITHOUT PENALTY. I have not heard of any case where such a request was refused.


On transferring to 03 (or 01/02) the surgery will, of course, suffer the loss of the illegal subsidy at the expense of patients, placing it in the same position as all other NHS GPs who meet the costs incurred in providing NHS services out of the funding provided for the purpose.

I would fully support any practice that wished to plead for assistance from those who had led it to believe that its telephone system was not as expensive as it is seen to be when migration to a 03 number fully exposes the costs, with the subsidy from patients removed. If such requests for assistance are not answered, it must honour the commitments it made when choosing its system - IT CANNOT CONTINUE TO USE NHS PATIENTS AS A SOURCE OF SUBSIDY.


I do not believe that the Health Minister was actually confused. I suspect that she is unaware of the ease with which practices can migrate to 03 numbers, because there is no strong base of evidence for this. Practices are being discouraged from taking this option, because once it is seen to work then the true cost of these systems (and thereby the scale of the subsidy from which they have been benefiting) will be exposed to view.

Title: Re: GP contract revised - "expensive" numbers bann
Post by CJT-80 on Jul 28th, 2011 at 3:28pm
Excuse my slight ignorence,

The practice "moves" it's number to an 03 number. They then pay part of the cost of the incomming call per minute or does SurgeryLines supplier (NEG/Daisy Group) pick up the cost and therefore expect the Sugery to pay them back?


Title: Re: GP contract revised - "expensive" numbers bann
Post by SilentCallsVictim on Jul 29th, 2011 at 4:49am

CJT-80 wrote on Jul 28th, 2011 at 3:28pm:
Excuse my slight ignorence,

The practice "moves" it's number to an 03 number. They then pay part of the cost of the incomming call per minute or does SurgeryLines supplier (NEG/Daisy Group) pick up the cost and therefore expect the Sugery to pay them back?

I understand that NEG/Daisy acts as an agent for Talk Talk in providing the telephone service to the practice and as the agent of a leasing company funding the switchboard and other equipment installed at the surgery.

I understand that the periodic (monthly/quarterly) charge/credit to the practice from NEG/Daisy consolidates charges/credits from Talk Talk, service charges from NEG/Daisy and lease payments.

When using a 0844 number the Talk Talk element will be a sizeable credit. The "Surgery Line" proposal is that this will more than offset the other two elements. In reality, it is commonly found that it fails to do so.

Without the benefit of revenue share the cost of the telephone line (and associated features) will be charged in full by Talk Talk. This means that the overall cost to the practice will be the full cost of the system which they selected. This is fair, because all other NHS GPs have to meet the costs incurred in providing NHS services from the funding provided for the purpose.

The simple regulations intended to restore this proper state of affairs are being resisted for two reasons. The BMA obviously wishes for its GP members to benefit from reduced costs wherever it can. NEG/Daisy is apparently concerned that if the true full cost of its system were exposed, then it would be seen to be unaffordable by GPs. Both have argued that it is right for NHS patients to pay to subsidise the cost of GP telephone systems as they access NHS services. After this argument was rejected, they have been reduced to misrepresenting the terms of the regulations and seeking to disguise the possibility of changing to a 03 (or perhaps 01/02) number, whilst retaining the "Surgery Line" system for the remainder of the term of lease.

Given that both have clearly declared their opposition to the principle of "free at the point of need", one has to see these tricks as being ways of achieving their declared objective by stealth.

The fact that the charges for using the features of a non-geographic number are typically based on call volumes (as a pence per minute rate applied to incoming calls), rather than as a monthly rental, is immaterial. 080, 03 and 0870 numbers work this way because most non-geographic numbers are revenue sharing (including PRS numbers) and so it is convenient to apply a call volume based approach in all cases.

(I am not sure how what we know as "non-geographic number features" are charged for when they are deployed on geographic numbers. Perhaps someone who knows more about this could help!)

Title: Re: GP contract revised - "expensive" numbers bann
Post by SilentCallsVictim on Jul 29th, 2011 at 10:12am

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Jul 28th, 2011 at 11:03am:
The issue of a practice abandoning a 0844 number has brought to light a failure by Bedfordshire PCT to perform its duties - see Example of how PCTs are failing

I understand that BBC 3 Counties Radio will be doing a piece on this at 2.30 this afternoon.

... They did

Title: Re: GP contract revised - "expensive" numbers bann
Post by kasg on Jul 29th, 2011 at 10:41am

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Jul 29th, 2011 at 10:12am:

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Jul 28th, 2011 at 11:03am:
The issue of a practice abandoning a 0844 number has brought to light a failure by Bedfordshire PCT to perform its duties - see Example of how PCTs are failing

I understand that BBC 3 Counties Radio will be doing a piece on this at 2.30 this afternoon.

... They did
Well done David, could not be any clearer, we await the response ...

Title: Re: GP contract revised - "expensive" numbers bann
Post by speedy on Jul 30th, 2011 at 12:15pm
Would it be possible to copy one of my posts No. 711 on page 48  NEG Progaganda as I doent know how to link and I think part of the problem is shown here from my talk to the PCT that they have been passed ambiguous information from higher up the chain - in particular if and when PCT asks GP's if their 0844 complies - See my point about Who GP's ask for this information from and what is acceptable by the PCT


Title: Re: GP contract revised - "expensive" numbers bann
Post by Dave on Jul 30th, 2011 at 1:15pm

speedy wrote on Jul 30th, 2011 at 12:15pm:
Would it be possible to copy one of my posts No. 711 on page 48  NEG Progaganda


The post you refer to is below:


speedy wrote on Jul 18th, 2011 at 4:33am:
Why has no PCT pointed out that a letter from NEG or other similar Companys which are NOT the Telephony Providors - they are only the System ( Hardware ) Suppliers - is NOT appropriate - The Telephone Providers in NEG case is Talk Talk - THEY are the people that set the Charges not NEG or similar - it is because the PCTs have been mis-informed from higher up  >:(

Has this been put directly to NEG and the like and IF they answered what was it and why are they lying to GPs about being the Telephont Providor

When PCTs ask for the Call Charge confirmation from GPs they should point out that a letter from NEG is NOT what is required to the PCTs request

I will answer my original Question regarding one PCT that I have been liasing with and when I informed her of all of the points that I have collected from various Threads and posts that I have found on this site regarding the mis-infomation that NEG has conned MOH and higher and she was horrified because the PCT had unwittingly passed this mis-infomation to the GPs that was passed to them

I then helped her onto this Site and relavant Sections - which she said would make very enlightened reading  

I then myself later found the Thead Titled NEG Propaganda which I will tell her of but tell her to start from about page 37 because earlier pages links dont work now and prices are out of date

Title: Re: GP contract revised - "expensive" numbers bann
Post by SilentCallsVictim on Jul 30th, 2011 at 3:22pm

speedy wrote on Jul 18th, 2011 at 4:33am:
Why has no PCT pointed out that a letter from NEG or other similar Companys which are NOT the Telephony Providors - they are only the System ( Hardware ) Suppliers - is NOT appropriate - The Telephone Providers in NEG case is Talk Talk - THEY are the people that set the Charges not NEG or similar - it is because the PCTs have been mis-informed from higher up  >:(

You make some good very points, however there needs to be some further clarification.

Talk Talk did set the level of revenue share when originally applying for the 0844 ranges used by Surgery Line clients. IT DOES NOT DIRECTLY SET THE CHARGES INCURRED BY CALLERS, nor can it vary the rate of the revenue share in individual cases. There is some confusion caused by the fact that BT cannot add its own charge to the pence per minute revenue share rate (although it can add a call setup fee). No other provider is subject to this limitation.


A user of a 084 number can only determine the charges that will be incurred by callers by consulting the published tariffs of the various telephone companies through which people call them. They could ask NEG, Talk Talk, the PCT, the Department of Health or anyone else to do this job for them, or they could consult each of the telephone companies directly.

The implication that NEG or Talk Talk have any privileged access to this information is totally misleading. You and I are equally able to consult these published tariffs to determine what callers pay. It is also important to note that it not just what people pay which matters, but whether or not this is more than what they pay for an equivalent call to geographic number. In each case one has to look at both figures. I have published a summary with links to the published tariffs here.


The PCTs have not been misled from "higher up"; they have been misled by misrepresentations of the position of the Department of Health by the BMA and by NEG. Both claim to know what PCTs should do and say so loudly. It is actually for each PCT to make its own decisions, however it cannot go beyond the terms of the contract as drafted, because these are approved by parliament. Both the BMA and NEG claim that the terms of the contract include qualifications and provisions that are totally absent and well beyond the scope of what could be called "interpretation".

The simple truth is that there is no 084 number that is not more expensive to call for some patients of every GP surgery. If this were not the case, then 084 numbers could be used by NHS providers. It is however true; use of 084 numbers is, in effect, banned.

Title: Re: GP contract revised - "expensive" numbers bann
Post by speedy on Jul 30th, 2011 at 6:21pm
Thanks for bringing it over for me SCV
I didnt make myself very clear when I mentioned that the PCT should ask GP's about the compliance because this is a Premium Business type line - most of the GP's ask NEG or similar hardware supplier which is NOT the right place - these are the letters they are passing to PCT's -they should have asked THIER Telecom Service and also ask about whether inclusive and mobiles and other Tarifs how expensive to Callers

How many Practice Managers are going to put them selves out to check with other Telecom Services when NEG say yes it is compliant - one phone call to NEG or similar one letter job done as far as GP's are concerned - and PCT's in the case of the one I have been talking to (not West Kent PCT whose letter I quoted from my MP in an earlier post) didnt realise that NEG, theirs is another, was not the correct place for compliance assurence - as I said misled from Higher-up meaning the BMA supporting it and copying other PCT's that appeared to accept the SAME FALSE ASSURANCES from NEG or similar.   

It is a pity that FOI cant ask for Monies or in Kind returned to each Surgery and published I bet NEG or similar wouldnt be keen so give out THAT information - plenty of false accounting would be going on if THAT had to come out

How were the sums of £80,000 and £20,000 that was being made out of Patients on Premium Lines under FOI got and by whom that I found somewhere on this site ?- I have a feeling one was through a News Paper but could be wrong

Title: Re: GP contract revised - "expensive" numbers bann
Post by Dave on Jul 30th, 2011 at 8:22pm

speedy wrote on Jul 30th, 2011 at 6:21pm:
I didnt make myself very clear when I mentioned that the PCT should ask GP's about the compliance because this is a Premium Business type line - most of the GP's ask NEG or similar hardware supplier which is NOT the right place - these are the letters they are passing to PCT's -they should have asked THIER Telecom Service and also ask about whether inclusive and mobiles and other Tarifs how expensive to Callers

Telecommunications works by different operators interconnecting with one another. As a result, subscribers of one telephone company can call those with another.

If there were no interconnections, then those who have a BT line could only call other BT customers and not those with Virgin Media, O2, Orange and so on.

It is up to each call provider to set the rates that its customers pay to ring numbers. It is therefore not down to the receiver's telephone provider as to what the call cost is (except where the caller happens to be with the same telephone company).

The GP's contract does not stipulate which numbers can't be used or what the maximum cost of calls should be. What it does say is that (for the arrangement as a whole) calls should not cost more than an equivalent call to a geographic number.

The proof of what patients pay (and whether they pay more than their respective geographic charge) is in the tariffs of their own telephone providers.

For more on this see my blog: Who is responsible for setting the cost of a telephone call?


The BMA advocates that GPs should only ensure that patients don't pay more when calling from BT landline non-inclusive tariffs. This directly contradicts the recent statement in Parliament by a health minister as well as the principle that the NHS should be free at the point of need for all citizens and not just those that happen to purchase telecommunications from one private provider (BT).

Title: Re: GP contract revised - "expensive" numbers bann
Post by speedy on Jul 30th, 2011 at 8:37pm
First thank you Dave for quoting my other post - I said SCV because I had been all over threads checking things and forgot who did what  :-[

loddon  ( have used initials because when I put the full surgery name my post appeared in Google list on Page 2 )  have altered 2nd Surgery name for same reason I am sure you can see you put a saddle on it  ;D

Re: Dart.E.H.C, their site has been supposedly being Updated for ages - I was hoping someone might be able to answer how long - I have not seen it different -their 0844 was shown in Yell Pages 2007/8 but lots of sites still show their geo. number.

I tried dialing the 01322 number on a Mon at 9.15am and it just rung but by chance which I didnt know about then,  a friend had an appt. there and was standing AT Reception at 9.15am and she said that a phone somewhere at back rung a while then stoped then started again but it was ignored - that evening I told her that I had phoned the geo. number - she then told me what had happened that morning - I said that was me it is exactly what I had done - so the geo. number is still connecting

Next:  long 4 legs (not a dog ) Place   ;D

There does not appear to be a Review section now on their own site and I am sure I read some complaints about 0844 and Star Rating and not recommending to a Friend etc.some saying that they were leaving and now for complaints you have to leave Name and email address no Anon now that they were then, so Patients are not able to complain safely- their 0844 number shows in Thompson Dir. 2005/6 also in same Yell. Pages 2007/8 as above previous Surgery.

I have now got Practice Managers email addreses for both one is still correct but other is a bit old and may not be right - will try a check one not sure about.

Title: Re: GP contract revised - "expensive" numbers bann
Post by Dave on Aug 2nd, 2011 at 12:47am
More foolish comments on how telephone calls are charged:

Surgeries' call charges are making patients sick


Quote:
NHS Bedfordshire Head of Primary Care Commissioning, Tony Medwell, said: “We have been assured by the GP practices using 0844 numbers that their phone providers do not charge patients more than the cost of calling a local geographical number.

The phone providers of the GPs are irrelevant, unless they telephone their own 0844 numbers from their own surgeries just for the hell of it.  ::)



Quote:
“However, neither NHS Bedfordshire nor the practices have access to details regarding the cost levied by patients’ own telephone providers for calling these numbers.”

Does Mr Medwell consider himself to be a "person". Are his colleagues also "persons"?

The GMS Contract states that "having regard to the arrangement as a whole, persons will not pay more to make relevant calls to the practice than they would to make equivalent calls to a geographical number."

Doesn't say "patients". If Mr Medwell and his colleagues consider themselves as fitting the definition of "persons", then perhaps they could consider whether they pay more to ring the numbers in question from the PCT's office, or indeed their mobile phones provided by the PCT. Is this really too complex to do?  ::)

Remember that it only requires one person to pay more than they would otherwise do to make it unacceptable to use the 0844 number. There is therefore no need to know what tariff every patient is on. Just one example... pretty much every mobile phone tariff.... a BT Payphone.....

Title: Re: GP contract revised - "expensive" numbers bann
Post by SilentCallsVictim on Aug 2nd, 2011 at 6:34pm

Dave wrote on Aug 2nd, 2011 at 12:47am:
Does Mr Medwell consider himself to be a "person". Are his colleagues also "persons"?

The GMS Contract states that "having regard to the arrangement as a whole, persons will not pay more to make relevant calls to the practice than they would to make equivalent calls to a geographical number."

Doesn't say "patients".

Actually the GMS contract does say "patients" as part of the definition of "relevant calls" in 29B.5.2.1.

It also covers Mr Medwell and his colleagues, who may have cause to ring the practice "in relation to services provided as part of the health service", in 29B.5.2.2.

Given that the contract requires practices to determine the cost of a call relative to that of an equivalent call to a geographic number, NHS Bedfordshire and the practices are no less able to access the relevant information than anyone else.

The practices' phone provider Talk Talk would only be expected to know that it charges callers more to call 0844 number than for equivalent calls to geographic numbers. NEG and Daisy have no relevant comment to make because they only provide telephone service to businesses. NHS services are only available to individuals.

If they think it necessary to ask patients about the telephone service they use, there is nothing to prevent them from doing this. A swift review of all of the commonly used tariffs is however sufficient to establish that all 084 numbers are more expensive to call.

SAYNOTO0870.COM » Powered by YaBB 2.5.2!
YaBB Forum Software © 2000-2024. All Rights Reserved.