http://www.wales.gov.uk/keypubassemstandconduct2/content/report-annexa-e.pdf

Strictly Private and Confidential

Reference: C049-05

Report to the Committee on Standards of Conduct by the Commissioner for
Standards following his Formal Investigation of the complaint by representatives of
the Pencoed Medical Centre in respect of Janice Gregory AM

1. Background to the complaint

1.1 The partners at the Pencoed Medical Centre wrote to the Standards Committee
Secretariat on 15 March 2005 (Annex 1) to complain about what they described
as:

‘defamatory public comments she (Janice Gregory AM) made in the
press about the Doctors at Pencoed Medical Centre’

[...]

2. The potential complaint

2.1 In the letter of 15 March 2005, the Pencoed Medical Centre referred to an
article in the Bridgend Post of 10 March 2005 (Annex 2) concerning the
installation of a new digital telephone exchange by NEG at the Practice. They
claimed that Janice Gregory AM had made ‘outrageous accusations’ in this
article that the Doctors at the Centre were ‘making a fast buck’ and were on
to a ‘nice little earner’ from their patients using the revenue raised by using
the associated 0870 number.

2.2 The letter from the Centre claimed that the Doctors involved were ‘NOT
pocketing a penny of any revenue raised by the use of the 0870 number’.
It also claimed that Janice Gregory had not seen any of the details of the
contract with NEG (the telecoms company involved) and that she had not
contacted the Medical Centre before making her statement. It said that:
‘Her comments are based on assumptions and hearsay that have no
basis in fact. That she can mislead the public by making inaccurate
and defamatory public statements about hard working local doctors
without having seen any of the facts is a cause for great concern
and deserves a public apology’.

[...]

4.4 The Pencoed Practice decided to install Surgery Line for both its Pencoed and
Llanharan Centres after an online patient satisfaction questionnaire highlighted
the serious difficulties patients were experiencing in getting through to the
surgeries, especially during the busy early morning period. One consequence
was that the telephone numbers for both surgeries changed to 0870 numbers.
The Practice explained in its communications with patients that this was not an
expensive premium rate number, although it would cost a higher rate per
minute (6.73 pence per minute) compared with the usual BT (and other
providers’) charge (4.2 pence per minute) and that the Practice would receive
back from NEG 2p per call. The Practice also advised patients in its
communications that despite this higher cost per minute the fact that calls
should not last so long and that patients would not have to phone a number of
times to get what they wanted would mitigate the extra potential costs.

Costs and benefits for the Practice

4.5 The Practice told me that it had taken the decision to use the NEG Surgery Line
system after considerable research. The Practice claims to be proactive in its
relationship with patients and had not relied solely on the on-line patient
satisfaction questionnaire for its information about the dissatisfaction with the
old telephone system, but had used information coming directly from its daily
contact with patients. NEG had originally suggested that the system had the
potential to be a net revenue generator but the Practice had made it clear to
NEG that as an 'ethical' organisation its motivation for installing a new system
was to provide a better service for patients rather than to generate income.

[...]

7.3 I have concluded that Janice Gregory has, as a result of her conduct, breached
the Code of Conduct for Assembly Members in respect of her ‘Public Duty’ - in
that she did not take adequate steps to check the facts about the financial
arrangements that applied to the installation of Surgery Line at the Pencoed
Medical Centre before commenting on those arrangements in a press article in
the Bridgend Post of 10 March 2005. She repeated and elaborated on those
comments in a further article in the Bridgend Post on 30 March 2005.

Much more at the url above.

Interesting. They are obviously not profitting directly, although there is the issue that had there not been revenue generated from the NGN, the practices would have to cover these 'costs' directly. Thus, surely this revenue must be of benefit indirectly.

These doctors, who were "both angry and distressed by the misleading and inflammatory comments made in public."

Less well off citizens will have to pay many times the rate of a geographical call should they have to call from a BT Payphone or a mobile phone. This will add futher to their [financial] distress and will most probably anger them as well.

idb wrote on May 3^rd, 2006 at 1:36am:

2.2 The letter from the Centre claimed that the Doctors involved were ‘NOT pocketing a penny of any revenue raised by the use of the 0870 number’. The Practice explained in its communications with patients that this was not an expensive premium rate number, although it would cost a higher rate per minute (6.73 pence per minute) compared with the usual BT (and other providers’) charge (4.2 pence per minute) and that the Practice would receive back from NEG 2p per call. The Practice also advised patients in its communications that despite this higher cost per minute the fact that calls should not last so long and that patients would not have to phone a number of times to get what they wanted would mitigate the extra potential costs. 7.3 I have concluded that Janice Gregory has, as a result of her conduct, breached the Code of Conduct for Assembly Members in respect of her ‘Public Duty’ - in that she did not take adequate steps to check the facts about the financial arrangements that applied ...

Clearly someone needs the help of a Professor of Semantics ...

They aren't receiving a penny, but in fact two. Just a moment - per call, or per minute?

Do the doctors in question also pay NEG 6.73 pence a minute [+ vat] for their outgoing calls? I suspect not.

And the old bollocks that a more expensive tariff enables people to communicate faster - surely only if they are so manic about call charges as to talk faster

And where did they earn the right to present false evidence, namely call charges of 4.2p per minute [plus the VAT that NEG-sponsored rhetoric always seems to omit] from BT and other providers for the old number. Is this possibly perjury?

As for her public duty, if she had asked them for detailed info about the financial details in question, one imagines that she would have been told it was none of her business ...

This is the first instance to my knowledge when a pubic body actually censured somebody for complaining about the introduction of 0870 numbers by GPs.

This Forum had a number of threads on this topic.  Although following John Hutton's (then Health Minister) ruling the practice concerned now uses an 0844 number,  it may well be worth taking up the cudgel on Janice Gregory's behalf.  There are clearly erroneous statements in the ruling as pointed out in the previous posting, as well as a lot of omitted and relevant considerations such as, for example, that GPs are self employed and are supposed to finance their businesses and any improvements to it, the cost of calls to 0870/0844 numbers from payphones, the incentive to keep people queuing on the phone, etc. etc......

Also relevant are the recent revelations about GPs' earnings (up to £250k).  

Profiteering from patients is quite an appropriate description of what NEG have induced GPs to do.  One could be kind and say that most of the GPs were probably just naive in letting themselves be persuaded by sharp operators like NEG, but for one of the GP practices to actually complain about the exposure of this rip-off is OUTRAGEOUS.
;D

Quote:

NEG had originally suggested that the system had the potential to be a net revenue generator but the Practice had made it clear to NEG that as an 'ethical' organisation its motivation for installing a new system was to provide a better service for patients rather than to generate income.

The document says that NEG suggested that the system could be a "net revenue generator." The 'ethical' practice decided that this would have been inappropriate. So if the practice isn't profitting from extra revenue, where is it going then? Afterall, the caller still pays the same charge. Is it the communications provider who keeps this 'extra revenue' due to the noble ethics of the surgery in question?

Quote:

The cost of maintaining the NEG system (nearly £600 per month)

£600??? - a bargain at a tenth or a hundredth of the price

They could get a virtual pbx from Voipfone for 99p per extension per month, rent an ordinary landline number for £1.99 per month, and make their outgoing calls for from 1p per minute. And buy half a dozen phones for under £1000.

http://www.voipfone.co.uk/PB_Virtual_PBX.php

Quote from Dave: (sorry I don't know how to put the quote in a box)

The document says that NEG suggested that the system could be a "net revenue generator." The 'ethical' practice decided that this would have been inappropriate. So if the practice isn't profitting from extra revenue, where is it going then? Afterall, the caller still pays the same charge. Is it the communications provider who keeps this 'extra revenue' due to the noble ethics of the surgery in question?

In my view it idoes not make the blindest bit of difference who is profiting - somebody is and the patient is being ripped off. The doctor may not pocket any direct per minute revenue from the 0870/0844 calls, but he/she got a new telephone system installed at the patients' expense.  This is the thin end of the wedge - by the same token should patients contribute to the cost of buying new blood pressure meters, computers or paperclips for the practice?

And doesn't this "ethical practice" have any compunction about people without their own phones (likely to be elderly, low-income) having to pay exorbitant charges for calling the practice from payphones?
:(

But perhaps it is an "ethical practice" in the same way that drugs companies are referred to as "ethical pharmaceuticals"?

It is a shame this thread has not been read by more people. Their website http://pencoedmedical.co.uk/pencoedmedical/news.htm

offers an "explanation" for the use of the NGN full of misleading claims.

What is most galling is that they seem to be happy to bask in their notoriety, proudly proclaiming "The most visited GP website?"  Let's hope those visiting the site contact them (bv e-mail or fax- where they do offer geographical numbers) to condemn both the use of NGNs and the hounding of an elected politician trying to defend some of the people who elected her