Quote:

Err, whatever happened to the National Health Service?

DISCUSTING!!!!!!!!!!

What can be done other than what has been done already

I await suggestions from the more experienced members

Source: East Grinstead Courier and Observer

Patients hit by soaring bills when calling GPs

Thursday, March 01, 2012

PATIENTS in the East Grinstead area claim they are paying a fortune to dial "premium-rate telephone numbers" to reach their GPs.

Two surgeries – Judges Close and Lingfield – have 0844 numbers, which patients have to use to talk to their doctor or make an appointment.

[…]

A spokesman for Judges Close Surgery said it had been assured calls would cost no more than the BT standard rate from a landline.

[…]

A spokesman for NHS Sussex told the Courier & Observer the 0844 numbers should not be costing patients any more.

She said: "All of our GP practices in Sussex have met their obligations under both the terms of the Government's guidance and the relevant legislation relating to their contact telephone number.

"While some of our practices use non-geographical telephone numbers – often beginning 0844 – patients are charged a maximum of the local/geographical rate.

"Patients' own telephone contracts may allow them cheaper, or even free, calls to geographical numbers. Our practices are aware of this and many have stated that they will take it into consideration when reviewing their telephone contracts.

"Some practices choose to use non-geographical numbers because of the additional functionality they provide. They can eliminate the engaged tone and provide other call-switching functions, helping them to handle the large number of calls they receive."

---

One surgery says that it had been "assured calls would cost no more than the BT standard rate from a landline". "Standard" BT rates have not existed since 2004. It chose to move breach its contract last April when it introduced its 0844 387 "g11" number. The DH has clearly said that the regulations apply to calls from all landlines, mobiles and payphones and not just one particular tariff from one provider.

The PCT is happily allowing surgeries to flout the ban as it admits that some "may" pay less whilst claiming that they comply!

devon jack wrote on Dec 15^th, 2011 at 10:19pm:

SUCCESS
We now have a new number 01769 580295
Here is an extract from the surgery newsletter
Quote:

---

Patients assured over 0844 numbers


Published on Monday 12 March 2012 11:18

PATIENTS across the district have been reassured this week that calls to their doctors’ surgeries do not cost more

than a local rate number.

A Horsham patient contacted this paper with concerns about his surgery breaking Government guidelines by requesting patients to call an 0844 number to make appointments or other enquiries.

NHS Sussex has made clear that the way these numbers are set up means they should not cost people more than a call to a normal landline.

A spokesman said: “All of our GP practices in Sussex have met their obligations under both the terms of the Government’s guidance and the relevant legislation relating to their contact telephone number.

“While some of our practices use non-geographical telephone numbers - often beginning 0844 - patients are charged a maximum of the local or geographical rate.

“Patients’ own telephone contracts may allow them cheaper, or even free, calls to geographical numbers.

“Our practices are aware of this and many have stated that they will take it into consideration when reviewing their telephone contracts.”

They added that surgeries often use the 0844 numbers because they carry other benefits for patients.

“Some practices choose to use telephone systems with non-geographical numbers because of the additional functionality they provide.

“They can eliminate the engaged tone and provide other call switching functions, helping them to handle the large number of calls they receive.”


http://www.wscountytimes.co.uk/news/local/patients-assured-over-0844-numbers-1-3...

kasg wrote on Mar 12^th, 2012 at 8:03pm:

Sadly, there is lots of messing about. The quoted statement is clearly referring to some charge that does actually affect what callers pay. The truth follows in the next quoted paragraph from the article:

Quote:

The above is the statement that matters. It makes the following statement untrue:

Quote:


It may sound stupid, but PCTs such as those which comprise NHS Sussex have failed to recognise that it is what callers actually pay which has to be considered.

Many PCTs have been misled into believing that there is such a thing as a standard "local or geographic" rate and a standard rate for calling a particular 0844 number, which can be set by the GP in conjunction with their telephone service provider, and that these can be used as the basis for determining compliance.

This type of mistaken thinking is what lies behind bizarre statements such as:

Quote:

This suggests that there is something "set up" about the cost of telephone calls. What is set up for 0844 numbers is the extreme likelihood that they will cost people more than a call to a normal landline, because of the "revenue share", which is an additional cost to the call originator. This is exactly what is seen in practice, apart from exceptional cases where calls to geographic numbers are subject to a "out of plan" penalty charge.


The word "should" can imply a duty under regulation, whereas in this case it refers only to the views of some people about regulations that they would wish to see imposed. We can all say what we think other people "should" do.

NHS Sussex may think that BT should not offer call inclusive packages and that those who choose 0844 numbers should be provided with a subsidy at the expense of all telephone users, rather than those who call them. What it cannot do is assume that its wishes have been fulfilled when they have not.

I would question why a PCT is forming views about issues of telecommunications regulation and voicing them only in response to a challenge about its failure to perform its proper duties. Furthermore, as the views expressed are somewhat extreme and most unlikely ever to get adopted as policy by Ofcom and implemented in practice, I would also question whether it adequately understands the issues.

Dave wrote on Mar 13^th, 2012 at 11:41am:

As with the other example, quoted above where a similar statement is made, this written confirmation is of no value. It is neither provided by those who levy the charges on the patients and other callers, nor from anyone who can demonstrate any competent awareness of what they pay.

I would happily provide anyone with written confirmation that I do not charge callers to GP surgeries any more for calls to international destinations or the highest rated "Premium Rate Service" calls than I do for geographic calls - because I do not provide telephone service to them. I am confident in asserting that the author of the "written confirmation" referred to is in exactly the same position as me.

Members may be interested to see this list of 56 surgeries that moved to 0844 numbers since the ban came into effect on 1st April 2010. There are still plenty of GPs who are jumping on the bandwagon.