catj wrote on Jul 11^th, 2012 at 1:39am:

Are these the "SIM only rates"?

If not, then they will also include a standardised contribution towards the cost of the handset and any inclusive service arrangement.

They will always include "line rental" to cover incoming calls, as this is not a separate item for mobile services.

---

sherbert wrote on Jul 11^th, 2012 at 10:30am:

In fact it was April 2010, with a twelve month period of grace for those currently using them to change their arrangements.

The ban did however rely on PCTs reading and understanding the terms approved by parliament.
Unfortunately they were misled by NEG/Daisy/Surgery Line and the BMA/LMCs.

catj wrote on Jul 11^th, 2012 at 9:54pm:

As I had to myself correct a typo in the second word of the last line of my most recent post, I understand.

My posting was more to offer an explanation for the lack of compliance, than a correction.

I see losses are  increaseing at Daisy .

See: http://www.mobiletoday.co.uk/Dealer_News/23370/Daisy_Group_cautious_on_months_ah...

Let us keep things in order.

Daisy grows by acquisition. It acquired NEG, NEG continued to operate as it always has. Hopes that Daisy would take the good and strong elements of the Surgery Line product, but adjust it to fit the NHS have not yet been realised.

The financial performance of Surgery Line has been dented by an increasing (although not total) resistance to its proposition to customers. In my view, Daisy has not yet decided what to do with it. The fact that the website has been taken down (with a promise of something to come) may be significant.

Daisy has (so far) taken NEG as it is and defended it. That is not to say that NEG is fully and properly representative of Daisy and its approach to business in general. It seems that Daisy is content, at least to some degree, to leave its subsidiary businesses to operate as they will. This makes it very difficult to form a valid impression of the group as a whole.

At last the new Surgery Line website is up and running.

Visitors may notice a difference of approach, as it is no longer exclusively a "co-funded" product. The body of the information makes cautious reference to NHS regulations, in a tone which almost suggests that clarification of the ban on use of 0844 number is imminent.

Links to a special document "NHS Regulations – Supporting GPs with Compliance - Effective January 2013" are presented, almost as a footnote. This document offers a wholly impenetrable and largely incomprehensible opinion on the question of whether callers pay more to call 0844 numbers. A lot of spurious nonsense found in earlier versions has been removed. This document does however fail in its third paragraph by suggesting that GPs need not consider each and every patient of the practice.

Whatever the merits of the complex arguments that follow, this suggestion strikes at the core principle of the NHS being a "universal" service. NHS-contracted GPs have a statutory duty to have regard to the NHS constitution which states this well-understood principle clearly.

The contractual requirement is not based on determining whether 0844 or geographic numbers are cheaper, in some general sense. It prohibits use of numbers which, having regard to the arrangement as a whole, are more expensive. If this were even true for a small, but significant, minority of callers, then use of such a number would be prohibited. One cannot be sure of the mix of tariffs which apply to callers to any particular practice, however it is inevitable that a significant number of callers (in most cases a majority) will pay more to call a 0844, than a geographic, number.

We must remember that the NHS is all about minorities - everyone in need of healthcare. At any time, it is funded by the taxes paid by the healthy majority so that services may be provided to the minority that need them. Over time, an individual citizen may move between the two groups, at rates which vary between them, but at any time it is the needy minority which is the sole focus of the NHS. (There are other ways of funding healthcare, but we are concerned here only with the NHS.)

Why are these PCTs pretending to the Public that they know nothing about 03 Migration, they have had all the information particularly with reference to the 03 Migration within the terms of the Provider Contract without penalty.

The now free offer from a Provider of a Geo. Line to run alongside is not Compliance. This 2-Tier System is not the answer and should be labelled 2nd Class Line, while the wealthy use the 0844 and get an Appointment and better service. Some Practices that have installed this 2-Tier Service have also put Hazard Warning In Emergency phone 0844   That says it all.

http://www.surgeryline.com/surgery-line/faqs/

Frequently Asked Questions

Why have you stopped marketing the 0844 number to GPs surgeries?

We have always listened to the needs of our customers, undertaking extensive work to help support them with compliance and developing solutions which help meet the very significant demands placed upon frontline NHS staff and improved access for patients.

However, we will not stand in the way of public opinion. We will continue to work in the interests of our GP customers and develop solutions which support them to improve their service to patients, however, we have taken the decision to no longer proactively market the 0844 product to NHS-related organisations.

We will continue to work with our GP customers to develop alternative solutions, supporting them by providing them with the products of their choice.

There is a news release on the fair telecoms web site: http://www.fairtelecoms.org.uk/1/post/2013/05/daisy-surgery-line-ends-0844-numbe...

idb wrote on May 5^th, 2013 at 11:55pm:

Many thanks to idb for drawing attention to the Daisy website updates to reflect the comment made to Wales on Sunday.

The fair telecoms campaign blogging now includes a briefing on the full Daisy statement
This Statement was published after publication of the Wales on Sunday article and our news release.


If anyone is interested in before / after comparisons, we have retained copies of the now-amended pages, as cached by Google prior to the events of early Sunday morning..