A wonderful example of exploitation:

http://www.networkeuropegroup.com/downloads/surgeryline-dartford.pdf#search=%22neg%200844%22

includes:

What is Surgery Line?
“Surgery Line is a cost-effective way for forward looking surgeries to improve the service that they offer to patients, reduce stress levels for staff and self-fund a state of the art phone system,” explains NEG’s CEO, Richard Chapman. “As you can see, this case study focuses on one of the hundreds of surgeries that have already switched to Surgery Line. By doing so, they have saved money, improved the service that they offer patients and relieved the pressure on busy staff.”

You and your staff benefit When a surgery switches to an 084 number, NEG will install and maintain the most efficient communications system on the market. You specify exactly what equipment you want to receive (from handsets to switchboards) for no extra charge. With your own 084 number, you keep about 2p from every call to re-invest in your practice, instead of BT making all the profit from calls to your surgery.

How your patients benefit Patients benefit by having their calls answered more quickly. The engaged tone becomes rare – even at peak times - because you are able to handle incoming calls more efficiently, whilst patient calls are spread out during the day. Calls to 084 or ‘lo-call’ numbers cost patients 4p per minute, the same as the first minute of BT’s standard call rate between 6am and 6pm. This means that many patients will actually pay less in total because their call is answered and processed more quickly. Significantly, the cost of calls from mobiles remains unchanged - these account for around 30% of all calls to surgeries.

The phone system that won’t test your patients “I’ve met a number of practice managers who think that Surgery Line sounds almost too good to be true,” says Chapman, “but after it’s been installed, they realise that NEG delivers everything we promise, and more.”

- Edited by DaveM - to improve readability !

Or "Surgery line is a way to ensure that if your patients are involved in a serious overseas road accident or other unexpected medical emergency that there is a vastly increased probability they will die unnecessarily as overseas doctors are not able to call a UK 0844 number as these numbers are barred by virtually all overseas telecoms providers".

There has to be an angle to take Ofcom to the Parliamentary Ombudsman over this for failing to keep the UK citizen consumer alive! :o ::) >:( >:( >:(

- Edited to remove extraneous data - DaveM -

And from This is Wiltshire (ironically at 8:44am today!):

http://www.thisiswiltshire.co.uk/display.var.954403.0.gps_install_hitech_hotline.php

<<
ENGAGED telephone lines at GP surgeries are a common problem up and down the country.

However, a practice in Wilton is tackling the issue by installing a new phone system, designed to all but eliminate the engaged tone.

This will provide an improved method for patients trying to get in touch with the particular service that they require at the Wilton health centre.

The new service came online last Wednesday, and now the main telephone number is 0844 477 3483.

The new system reduces call congestion by introducing extra phone lines and elements of call automation.

The health centre currently has more than 3,500 residents on its register, which, because of the volume of calls, can make it difficult to get through on the first attempt.

"At busy times, we receive more calls than our current switchboard can handle," said practice manager Pauline Mairs.

"We decided to address the problem by installing a new system, known as Surgery Line, which will manage calls more efficiently by routing a patient directly to the service they need."

The hi-tech service includes a new switchboard, headsets, a call-recording facility and extra safety features.

Designed specifically to meet the requirements of doctors' surgeries, the Surgery Line phone system has proved popular with both doctors and patients across the country.

"We believe that Surgery Line will considerably improve the service that we are able to offer our patients," said Ms Mairs.

"Calls will be answered every time, and patients should find it much quicker to make contact with the person they wish to speak to."

To facilitate the changeover, those calling the old telephone number will hear a recording, with details of the new number they need to call.

This redirection message will be kept on the old line for as long as it is needed.

The new number will be charged at local rates.>>


How much longer will the wretched 'local rate' description prevail?

Pauline Mairs - yet another clueless individual hoodwinked by the sharp-suited slimy NEG salesman.

OF COURSE THERE WILL BE NO ENGAGED TONES - that is the whole point of this scam, Ms Mairs. Queueing earns revenue for NEG. 'Nuff said.

Ms Mairs - just consider a patient trying to contact you from overseas - either for an emergency situation or for scheduling/altering an appointment. The patient will not be able to get through as your idiotic surgery has been scammed by NEG. Where was your due diligence Ms Mairs?

YOU NEED TO BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR THIS DECISION, Ms Mairs.

idb wrote on Oct 7^th, 2006 at 1:21am:

How much longer will the wretched 'local rate' description prevail?

For as long as Ofcom is hijacked by despicable self promoting careerist New Labour ladder climbers like Stephen Carter and Ed Richards interested only in a fat salary and their next knighthood or peerage from their New Labour masters and not giving one stuff for ensuring effective price competition in the best interests of the uk citizen consumers in the telecoms sector. :o >:( >:( >:(

Some more bull from NEG - this time, from Kath Simons

http://archive.mail-list.com/fpm-forum/msg13565.html

<<
Hi Heather

Whether this will work out to be self funding or not depends on how much
this company will give you back for each 0844 call...we also supply
Patient Partner as one of our 'add-on' modules and we give the practice
2p for each
0844 call - you may want to check this. It then depends on how many
calls you receive. We would be able to give you an indication based on
list size.

0844 numbers are not non-geographic numbers, they're lo-cal numbers, a
non-geo number would be 0870, which as you probably know, are no longer
allowed to be used by surgeries.

0844 numbers are fully sanctioned by the Department of Health and also
Ofcom, and there are no plans to change the ruling.

Patients (and the general public as a whole, i.e. you, me - us!), now
have a free rein to use who they wish for calls from home / landline,
and while some packages do give free calls, most of these are not during
the day and the costs are hidden elsewhere, plus of course it is up to
the individual to negotiate a suitable package with their provider.

Telephone systems, Patient Partner, Jayex wallboards, Automatic Patient
Check-in screens etc can all be a costly outlay for a practice, 0844
numbers are just a way of reducing this cost, either entirely or partly.

Kath Simons
N.E.G Surgery Line
>>

No wonder surgeries are being fooled when these utter lies are being output by NEG representatives.

A disgrace. The DH really needs to get a grip.

idb wrote on Oct 7^th, 2006 at 1:37am:

A disgrace. The DH really needs to get a grip.

I think the recent admission by Ofcom's own experts that 0844 numbers cannot be called from overseas could really blow this scam out of the water.

As to the references to 0844 being local rate do you reckon this NEG stuff would be suitable for an ASA complaint?

I think bbb_uk has more familiarity with the ASA and I will defer to his opinion. It is quite incredible that this company can repeatedly lie and escape any sanction from any authority.

Sadly, it's probably going to take a death or serious problem caused by inability to connect from overseas to get any action by authorities.

Unfortunately the ASA have no control of whats written on web sites.

idb wrote on Oct 7^th, 2006 at 1:46am:

Sadly, it's probably going to take a death or serious problem caused by inability to connect from overseas to get any action by authorities.

Writing to MPs on the Parliamentary Select Committee responsible for the NHS and GPs and getting them to ask questions tro the NHS senior directors at their next committee meeting might help prevent the deaths occurring.

As would getting press coverage that you cannot call your doctor from overseas if they have an 0844 number and for anyone in this position going overseas to write to their doctor demanding a geographic alternative.  If the doctor refuses they should go to their MP and get him to refer a complaint to the Ombudsman that Ofcom has failed to prevent 0844 numbers being used by doctors surgeries despite them not being accessible overseas at all and in the UK at the same cost as normal 01/02 numbers.

Thread about this subject on MSE.

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=278248

idb wrote on Oct 7^th, 2006 at 1:46am:

wrote on Oct 7th, 2006 at 1:41am: I think the recent admission by Ofcom's own experts that 0844 numbers cannot be called from overseas could really blow this scam out of the water. As to the references to 0844 being local rate do you reckon this NEG stuff would be suitable for an ASA complaint? I think bbb_uk has more familiarity with the ASA and I will defer to his opinion. It is quite incredible that this company can repeatedly lie and escape any sanction from any authority. Sadly, it's probably going to take a death or serious problem caused by inability to connect from overseas to get any action by authorities.

Sorry, just noticed thread.

As mentioned by Orsonkart, ASA have no authority over websites and having read the wording anyhow they state that 084 'lo-call' costs the same as BT standard rate.  Well as BT Standard Rate is no longer available and customers where moved to BT Together Option 1 where calls cost 3ppm then you could ask trading standards to investigate this as they are implying calls to 084 cost the same as a normal BT call which they are 1p more.

Apart from that though, I don't think much else could be done.

Quote:

Apart from that though, I don't think much else could be done

You could of course complain to the surgery pointing out that they had a new telephone system installed and patients are footing the bill for it.  This is in addition to the fact that their number cannot be called  from abroad if there is an emergency.

However, since the surgery signed a contract with NEG I agree that it is unlikely that they will revert to a geog. number

That is true you could complain to the surgery but as you said they have a contract for which they probably couldnt get out of.

I believe the best way to complain would be via DoH.

bbb_uk wrote on Oct 13^th, 2006 at 3:36pm:

Sorry, just noticed thread. As mentioned by Orsonkart, ASA have no authority over websites and having read the wording anyhow they state that 084 'lo-call' costs the same as BT standard rate.  Well as BT Standard Rate is no longer available and customers where moved to BT Together Option 1 where calls cost 3ppm then you could ask trading standards to investigate this as they are implying calls to 084 cost the same as a normal BT call which they are 1p more.

Since 1st October the first minute of a call on BT,(01/02), are:- 3p set up, 3p per minute,rounded to a full minute, therefore the first minute on BT cost 6p

And, as the 0844 477 number used in the case is charged by BT at 5p/minute at all times, the first minute of a call to it now costs 8p (but that's alright, it's only a third more).

So, patients used to paying a total of 3p for a call of any duration to the surgery using 1899 and their previous 01 or 02 geographic number will be entitled to be well p*ssed off when they finish up paying 53p when they get stuck in the wonderful new, efficient system for 10 minutes waiting until one of the (same number of) staff gets round to answering their call, won't they?

"Free at the point of use.................."

Cruz wrote on Oct 14^th, 2006 at 3:31pm:

And, as the 0844 477 number used in the case is charged by BT at 5p/minute at all times, the first minute of a call to it now costs 8p (but that's alright, it's only a third more).

Just to clarify, whole minute charging 'only' applies to geographical calls (remember them? ::)), international calls and calls to mobiles. All other numbers are still billed to the nearest second, and this includes 0844 numbers.

Dave wrote on Oct 14^th, 2006 at 7:20pm:

Just to clarify, whole minute charging 'only' applies to geographical calls (remember them? ::)), international calls and calls to mobiles. All other numbers are still billed to the nearest second, and this includes 0844 numbers.

I've been told that - and that the antiquated 'whole minute charging' applies to all calls - by staff at the CEO's office.  So who knows which is correct?

In any case, it makes very little difference for anything except a call on which you immediately hang up.

There's several threads on NEG now, the latest being one on its SchoolLine 'service'.

Since I last looked at the NEG website, this page has been added. It promotes 0800, 0844 and 0870 numbers. It does not come as a suprise that an outfit like this clings to the usual misdescriptions (lies) to sell its 'products':


Quote:

Choose a local rate 0844 number to save your callers money or national rate 0870 number to earn an income from your callers. 08 numbers are used by thousands of companies but choosing the right number depends on the type of service your are providing, click NGN to find out what number is right for your business. Our most popular numbers are lo-call rate 0844 which charges the caller BT's standard local rate of 4.2 pence per minute, so in many cases your UK customer could actually be saving money every time they ring your business. Once set 0844 numbers are completely free to use, you pay no standing charges or forwarding costs. Alternatively if you can choose a national rate 0870 number that pays an outbound payment of up to 3 pence per minute depending on call volumes.

Clicking the NGN link shows another page with more propaganda, most noteably:

Quote:

... Research shows that subsidising your incoming callers by charging local rates increases goodwill and the likelihood of a recommendation.

Have been reading the latest comments and I know NEG appears in a number of threads.  Has anyone contacted them to draw attention to the misleading info they give?   I am sure this has been done but maybe all forum members interested could try it as a concerted campaign?   Would such campaigning be a way forward generally?   Members could be alerted to targets by PMs so the concerted nature of the complaints would be disguised.   Also are there any lawyers who are members of the forum who could take action on such misdescriptions?   I expect I am way behind and this has already been tried but thought it worth a post.

Barbara wrote on Dec 17^th, 2006 at 11:00am:

Have been reading the latest comments and I know NEG appears in a number of threads.  Has anyone contacted them to draw attention to the misleading info they give?

The problem is that ASA has no remit over their website.  Trading Standards do and so I'm going to make a complaint.  I noticed they are careful about using the term, "BT standard local rate" which may be true however as this is no longer available they shouldn't be allowed to use it.

Thanks for spotting that Dave.

The ASA have stated to me in a letter that they are hoping to deal with the issue of their various codes not covering advertising on websites at some point in the near future.

NGMsGhost wrote on Dec 20^th, 2006 at 4:28pm:

The ASA have stated to me in a letter that they are hoping to deal with the issue of their various codes not covering advertising on websites at some point in the near future.

Do you have anything new regarding ASA's different stance on this matter for TV adverts (broadcasting division) that currently don't have to abide by any of the 08x codes of practice/guidelines unlike the non-broadcast that do?

My last reply from them a few months ago (I think) stated that they were looking into this and are currently in contact with Ofcom for advice on a few things.  That's all they would tell me.

bbb_uk wrote on Dec 20^th, 2006 at 10:36pm:

Do you have anything new regarding ASA's different stance on this matter for TV adverts (broadcasting division) that currently don't have to abide by any of the 08x codes of practice/guidelines unlike the non-broadcast that do?

They did a formal adjudication on my complaint against Sky Travel Shop on Sky Three's claim that their 0870 calls were charged "at the National Rate of up to 8p per minute" or words to that effect.  They didn't formally rule against Sky on the basis that they had used the correct rate per minute, even though they had also used the words National Rate.  The ASA's letter said something along the lines of hoping that Sky wouldn't use the term National Rate in the future and to be fair I see they now don't make this claim on Sky Travel Shop.

Anyhow my complaint broke new ground in that the ASA decided they did have the power to review a tv program on the basis of a price claim made about an 0870 number.  It is unfortunate that Sky didn't get a formal ruling against them though.

The adjudication should be somewhere on the ASA website.

Just found it at www.asa.org.uk/asa/adjudications/Public/TF_ADJ_41766.htm

Annoyingly I emailed the ASA before the adjudication to complain that the pricing information on BT's website that Sky referred to was inaccurate and also pointing to The MD of BT Retail's (Ian Livingston) comments that 084/7 numbers were a scam and extra charging should be ended but these were not taken into account at the adjudication.

I suppose this really needs breaking off into a new thread entitled "ASA Ruling On Sky Travel Shop Claim 0870 is National Rate"

Case studies for Surgery Line are here. Each one includes the following:

Quote:

You and your staff benefit When a surgery switches to an 084 number, NEG will install and maintain the most efficient communications system on the market. You specify exactly what equipment you want to receive (from handsets to switchboards) for no extra charge. With your own 084 number, you keep about 2p from every call to re-invest in your practice, instead of BT making all the profit from calls to your surgery.

I thought that this 2p that they receive was paid straight back to NEG for the 'service'. That's what Janice Gregory, Welsh Assembly Member argued and got into hot water for, see here.


Quote:

How your patients benefit Patients benefit by having their calls answered more quickly. The engaged tone becomes rare – even at peak times - because you are able to handle incoming calls more efficiently, whilst patient calls are spread out during the day. Calls to 084 or ‘lo-call’ numbers cost patients 4p per minute, the same as the first minute of BT’s standard call rate between 6am and 6pm. This means that many patients will actually pay less in total because their call is answered and processed more quickly. Significantly, the cost of calls from mobiles remains unchanged - these account for around 30% of all calls to surgeries.

Is this a contest to see how many lies they can fit into one sentence?

In the first paragraph they say that it's good because BT won't make the profit, and in the second they cling to the idea of BT rates!

Dave,

Where did you get this stuff from - NEG's website?

If you could get sent NEG's leaflets and these lies are in the leaflets then you can file a complaint with the ASA about it which NEG will obviously lose.  If its only on their website then trading standards is the only form of redress sadly. >:( :'(

NGMsGhost wrote on Jan 26^th, 2007 at 6:32pm:

Where did you get this stuff from - NEG's website?

Yes, the website. Select the case studies link and select a case study from there. The PDFs are 2 A4 pages, so I'm sure that they're available double-sided on fancy glossy paper.

Quote:

Yes, the website. Select the case studies link and select a case study from there. The PDFs are 2 A4 pages, so I'm sure that they're available double-sided on fancy glossy paper.

Dave, couldn't find any actual case studies on the NEG website only general blurb about Bank of England, YMCA, etc. Might they have removed it, or am I just not sufficiently computer literate?

Could you provide a link?

lompos wrote on Jan 27^th, 2007 at 9:40am:

couldn't find any actual case studies on the NEG website only general blurb about Bank of England, YMCA, etc. Might they have removed it, or am I just not sufficiently computer literate? Could you provide a link?

If you view this page you can see that half way down they have 'Surgery Case Studies' where it mentions Fulham Surgery, Kingshurst Surgery, etc.


NGMsGhost wrote on Jan 26^th, 2007 at 6:32pm:

If its only on their website then trading standards is the only form of redress sadly. >:( :'(

I've already made a complaint about NEG mentioning a tariff that is no longer available on BT so therefore it's unfair/misleading.  Can't really complain about lo-call though as far as I can see.

The problem is though due to bureaucracy, the complaint was made through Consumer Direct who then pass it on to my local trading standards who then pass it on to the trading standards where NEG's head office is.  Talk about useless 'red tape'.

I've not heard nothing as yet.

Having read various incorrect postings re NEG, and quite frankly an offensive posting from user idb I felt compelled to register and post a response. I use the word 'offensive' as idb feels that a) he has the right to make assumptions about me and how I 'bull s**t' my customers and b) he assumes to know Surgery Line - when in fact this person has never even discussed our service with us.

Just to clarify; after 13 years in this business and a holder of both a degree and Masters I feel no need to go out and 'scam' people in order to make a living.

OK - personal feelings to one side;

It makes no odds to us at all if a surgery queues calls for 20mins or 1min or not at all and continues to give the engaged tone as we do not make money from this element.

The SURGERY makes this choice, and can change the queue duration at any time, as Surgery Line is bespoke it can often take about 3-6months before it fits the environment of the practice, list size and patient demographic.

Many practices conduct patient surveys, and this always bring up the problem of access, esp first thing in the morning.

The practice can either continue to give the engaged tone, meaning no one can get through - even if they wanted to cancel their appt, or employ another person to ans calls for the first 1.5 hours, OR adopt a queue facility which TELLS THE PATIENT WHERE THEY ARE IN THE QUEUE - so they have a choice.

I am also a patient, and before my own GP moved to Surgery Line it was a total nightmare to get through. I am far too busy to keep ringing an engaged tone in the hope I can get through. For this reason I often didn't bother to cancel my appts as I couldn't reach them. It also cost me 50p to use BT ring back.

It probably costs me about £1 a year to ring my doctor - lets get things in perspective shall we?

We are the preferred supplier to GP in the UK and again we don't make out money from the length of call, but the rental for the hardware of the system. Practices have a choice - THEY decide how it is set up, not us.

Rather than speculate about NEG - wouldn't it be far better to speak to us and get a true picture?

OK then Mr K V Simons, what is "the true picture"?  

By the way, who are you?  Do you work for NEG and in which capacity?

I think that you’ll find that Mr KV Simons is in fact Kath Simons, referred to in a post from idb on 7 October 2006.

I do however think that our government must shoulder most of the blame.  They set targets and then expect these to be met without any cost to themselves – i.e. stealth taxation.  It’s the same with Patient Line (to put matters in perspective, I have nothing to do with any telecom company or service provider).

Even the watchdogs are on the side of the “powers that be” so where does that leave us?

All we can do is keep on prodding those in power.  I see that there are over 10,500 members.

KVSimons wrote on Jul 17^th, 2007 at 8:51am:

Having read various incorrect postings re NEG, and quite frankly an offensive posting from user idb I felt compelled to register and post a response. I use the word 'offensive' as idb feels that a) he has the right to make assumptions about me and how I 'bull s**t' my customers and b) he assumes to know Surgery Line - when in fact this person has never even discussed our service with us. Just to clarify; after 13 years in this business and a holder of both a degree and Masters I feel no need to go out and 'scam' people in order to make a living. OK - personal feelings to one side; It makes no odds to us at all if a surgery queues calls for 20mins or 1min or not at all and continues to give the engaged tone as we do not make money from this element. The SURGERY makes this choice, and can change the queue duration at any time, as Surgery Line is bespoke it can often take about 3-6months before it fits the environment of the practice, list size and patient demographic. Many practices conduct patient surveys, and this always bring up the problem of access, esp first thing in the morning. The practice can either continue to give the engaged tone, meaning no one can get through - even if they wanted to cancel their appt, or employ another person to ans calls for the first 1.5 hours, OR adopt a queue facility which TELLS THE PATIENT WHERE THEY ARE IN THE QUEUE - so they have a choice. I am also a patient, and before my own GP moved to Surgery Line it was a total nightmare to get through. I am far too busy to keep ringing an engaged tone in the hope I can get through. For this reason I often didn't bother to cancel my appts as I couldn't reach them. It also cost me 50p to use BT ring back. It probably costs me about £1 a year to ring my doctor - lets get things in perspective shall we? We are the preferred supplier to GP in the UK and again we don't make out money from the length of call, but the rental for the hardware of the system. Practices have a choice - THEY decide how it is set up, not us. Rather than speculate about NEG - wouldn't it be far better to speak to us and get a true picture?

Ms Simons, as you appear to need to state credentials, then I'll do the same. I have a bachelor's degree in engineering and a master's degree in computing. My former responsibilities in the United Kingdom included the administration of a telephone switch within the public sector. I am fully aware of how NGNs, including 084X, 087X, 070X and 09X are used by various organizations to establish a revenue stream and in many cases exploit the public.

SurgeryLine is a rip-off. It also may have serious consequences. Just because you are too busy to redial after receiving a busy tone doesn't mean that 80-year old Mrs Smith, living on benefits, is also too busy. I'm sure she would rather redial than pay the rip-off rate for dialing an 0844 number. Consider Mr Jones, a welfare recipient who either has to use payphones or PAYG cellular. Would he rather have a geographic number or one that begins 0844? I'll let you guess the answer.

Consider those, like myself, that had a requirement to call my surgery from overseas. Before becoming a permanent US resident, I was traveling back and forth between the UK and Florida whilst awaiting various medical test results. This happened over an eighteen month period. I also needed to schedule and change appointments. If my surgery had used a scam 0844 number, then I would have been denied access as my US telephone provider does not route calls to scam 0844 numbers.

My elderly parents have also visited me in Florida. Should the need arise, how can they or I or a health care professional call their UK surgery, in an emergency situation, when many foreign providers do not route to scam 0844 numbers? (If you don't believe me, either ask Ofcom, or I'll provide a link to Ofcom documentation). Please explain what we should do.

When will NEG stop calling these numbers 'lo-call', 'low-call' or similar?

Now 03 numbers are coming, will SurgeryLine use these as such numbers will have no detriment to the patient.

loddon wrote on Jul 17^th, 2007 at 11:00am:

OK then Mr K V Simons, what is "the true picture"?   By the way, who are you?  Do you work for NEG and in which capacity?

The only person at NEG mentioned on their website is their founder Scott Russell, who no longer works at the company.  Its directors seem rather keen to hide their identities, although no doubt they can be learned by purchasing the appropriate return for £1 from the www.companieshouse.co.uk website

See www.negtec.co.uk/scott_russell.htm

However after calling NEG's 0800 customer service number I have learned that K V Simons is in fact female and is a mere sales executive with the company and not as you might assume from her tone one of its directors or its managing director.

Her claims that NEG doesn't make any money from the 0844 numbers are so preposterous (we know the doctors don't get the revenue share and that the revenue share from these 0844 numbers exists so where then does the money go) that one can only assume that she has been taken in by the same brainwashing propaganda they dish out to their clients in which any old form of economy with the truth will do in order to con dumber practice managers in to believing that 0844 numbers are normal priced calls.

I have here several brochures from NEG with claims about phone call costs that I intend to file copies of with the ASA as a formal complaint in due course.  However as those brochure are all intended for doctors surgeries and not for doctors patients it remains to be seen whether the ASA will be prepared to investigate this further.

If Ms Simons in fact holds the qualifications she claims to then I cannot imagine any real form of job satisfaction for her from working at NEG other than the no doubt fast growing size of her bank account.

Yet it does not seem to even occur her to that every time she signs a new Surgeryline contract for NEG she is in fact stabbing all of the patients of those doctors in the back. :o >:( :'(

Unfortunately I recently suffered at the hands of this outfit. My local surgery unbenown to me had changed to Surgery Line in the interests of 'Customer Improvement' after a survey of their patients. I should have known this was coming.
Recently I was on holiday in the Canaries and developed problems with my lower back which required the attendance of a local doctor to the complex where I was staying. Because I have had similar problems on a vist some months before to the Canaries the doctor would not give me any further treatment without speaking to my local GP in the UK. He tried the 0844 number and this would not connect. I then went to the expense of 'phoning a friend who uses the same surgery and asking her to obtain an alternative number. This was given as an 0870 number. Surprise surprise this wouldn't work either. Upon contacting Telefonica the main telecoms provider for Spain / Canaries I was advised that they will only connect to UK nos beginning with 01, 02 and 07 due to previous problems in attempting to recover monies owned due to the 'revenue sharing arrangement'. I don't take a mobile on holiday due to the cost of calls and I don't want to be disturbed either. After all I'm on holiday.

As a result I spent the best part of a day in hospital in Las Palmas for further checks. This all could have been avoided if the local doctor could have spoken with my GP in the UK. My insurance company wouldn't cover me either, so be warned in you're travelling abroad.

leedslad wrote on Jul 17^th, 2007 at 12:39pm:

As a result I spent the best part of a day in hospital in Las Palmas for further checks. This all could have been avoided if the local doctor could have spoken with my GP in the UK. My insurance company wouldn't cover me either, so be warned in you're travelling abroad.

I would recommend you lodge this as a formal complaint with your MP and ask him to refer this to the Parliamentary Ombusman for a formal investigation as an example of the total and uitter failure of the regulator Ofcom to fulfil its Primary duty under part 3(i) of the Communications Act 2003 to look after the best interests of the UK citizen consumer.  Your complaint to your MP is about Ofcom who are accountable to the Parliamentary Ombudsman for their actions or in this case their inaction to stop the NEG scam.

I would also recommend you forward copies of all correspondnce to your MP by email to the executive and non executive directors of Ofcom, all of whom are listed on their website and for whom the email addresses are firstname.lastname@ofcom.org.uk Also copy in the Chairman of their Consumer Panel, colette.bowe@ofcomconsumerpanel.org.uk

In fact if you PM me and request it I will send you the email addreses of several UK national newspaper journalists who are likely to be rather interested in covering your story.

KVSimons wrote on Jul 17^th, 2007 at 8:51am:

Having read various incorrect postings re NEG, and quite frankly an offensive posting from user idb I felt compelled to register and post a response. I use the word 'offensive' as idb feels that a) he has the right to make assumptions about me and how I 'bull s**t' my customers and b) he assumes to know Surgery Line - when in fact this person has never even discussed our service with us.

The response from yourself that idb referred to is this:

Quote:

Hi Heather Whether this will work out to be self funding or not depends on how much this company will give you back for each 0844 call...we also supply Patient Partner as one of our 'add-on' modules and we give the practice 2p for each 0844 call - you may want to check this. It then depends on how many calls you receive. We would be able to give you an indication based on list size. 0844 numbers are not non-geographic numbers, they're lo-cal numbers, a non-geo number would be 0870, which as you probably know, are no longer allowed to be used by surgeries. 0844 numbers are fully sanctioned by the Department of Health and also Ofcom, and there are no plans to change the ruling. Patients (and the general public as a whole, i.e. you, me - us!), now have a free rein to use who they wish for calls from home / landline, and while some packages do give free calls, most of these are not during the day and the costs are hidden elsewhere, plus of course it is up to the individual to negotiate a suitable package with their provider. Telephone systems, Patient Partner, Jayex wallboards, Automatic Patient Check-in screens etc can all be a costly outlay for a practice, 0844 numbers are just a way of reducing this cost, either entirely or partly. Kath Simons N.E.G Surgery Line

The first highlighted paragraph is incorrect as a non-geographic number is, by definition, one that is not geographical. That means that 0844 is a non-geographical number prefix. The term 'lo-call' is one that was coined by BT to market 0845 numbers (not 0844), and is now no longer used by them for the very reason that it is potentially misleading. Refer to this page on BT's website. 0844 and 0871 are marketed as 'Contactcall' numbers and 0845 and 0870 are 'BT 0845' and 'BT 0870', respectively.

In the second highlighted paragraph you quite rightly identify that there is a free market whereby telephone users can choose a provider(s) for their service. As with most service providers, a doctor's surgery is fixed, and therefore it is reasonable to consider the price of a telephone call from the caller to them is the price of a (geographical) UK landline call as that is where the call terminates.

By imposing a 0844 NGN on the caller, they are paying a premium to call [Lookup the definition of 'premium' in the dictionary]. Simple. That is what Say no to 0870 is about. By being forced to call a company on 084x/087x they are charging me above the price of a standard landline call.

The potential merits of how the Surgery Line system functions are not being questioned in the same way that the benefits of NTS are not in doubt. Having a call answered and being put in queue costs the caller. That's the case choose what "product" is used. The only place where the caller doesn't pay is when they have an inclusive package, but then you believe and the surgeries (service providers) that you have carte blanche to decide what the market price is for a telephone call ("just a few pence").


KVSimons wrote on Jul 17^th, 2007 at 8:51am:

It makes no odds to us at all if a surgery queues calls for 20mins or 1min or not at all and continues to give the engaged tone as we do not make money from this element.

So where do the call charges go? The tooth fairy? ::)

Ms Simons, please clarify where the revenue from the 0844 number goes. I suspect you are splitting hairs in that the revenue (2p/min???) goes to the surgery who then (in practice) pay it back to NEG for provision of the service. If this is the case, then NEG would obviously receive payment regardless. Thus, the surgery is benefiting in kind.

At 2p/min there is obviously room for other party(ies) to profit, probably the telco providing NGN. As the customer of this company, NEG should be paying this, and not the caller. This would drive down the charges for these NTS numbers, rather than fixing them at xp/min to the caller. They are therefore contravene the free competitive market in telephone calls which has been introduced.

Also, if a company does not profit from an 084x/087x number, it certainly receives services in kind. These should be paid for out of the service provider's budget and not on a per minute basis by the caller!!!

KVSimons wrote on Jul 17^th, 2007 at 8:51am:

It probably costs me about £1 a year to ring my doctor - lets get things in perspective shall we?

Ms Simons, a free market is just that. The telepone companies decide how much they charge for calling from A to B. In this case we are talking a UK landline. Any charges for additional services like NTS should be bourne by the receiving party as a business expense. It is therefore not for service providers to overrule this and say "well it's only x pence".


KVSimons wrote on Jul 17^th, 2007 at 8:51am:

We are the preferred supplier to GP in the UK and again we don't make out money from the length of call, but the rental for the hardware of the system. Practices have a choice - THEY decide how it is set up, not us.

And it is a patient's choice what sort of telephone package they use. It is not for the likes of NEG and doctors to step right over that and charge a fixed amount regardless of package.


KVSimons wrote on Jul 17^th, 2007 at 8:51am:

Rather than speculate about NEG - wouldn't it be far better to speak to us and get a true picture?

Will NEG be looking to move Surgery Line and others like School Line on to a 03xx number when they come into service?

What about people calling from phone boxes and mobiles? Especially during the daytime when they are likely to be out? Conveniently you don't mention them.

In answer to your response, I work as Snr Consultant for NEG - so you could say I am biased (!) or I am simply passionate about our company and the service we provide (depending on what side of the fence you sit at!!). To be quite honest we have taken a lot of stick since the days of 0870 - which were banned obviously by the DOH, shortly before they agreed to let us roll out 0844 - all this history and the fact we install at 30-40 surgeries a month make us even more determined because the bottom line is that it does work and it is a fantastic service, the queuing part is only 20% of the solution it offers so much more; both practice and patient perspective.

The public (which includes me!) have a right as to who provides their gas, electricity and telephony at home. There are more and more suppliers on the market. I am with One Tel, and as I may very few calls at peak time (as I am out working), my best package gives me free evening and weekend calls plus a low line rental (zero in fact). It does mean that I do have to pay to use my surgery's 0844 number; but I can book and cancel my appts 24/7 365 days a year, so while I am in the minority that does have to pay I feel it's worth it as I can access my surgery easily and at any time convienient to me. Plus of course I make 99% of my calls from my mobile.

The 0844 is charged the same as a standard BT rate.

I also go back to saying - practices don't have to have the queueing, plus they decide how many to queue; some practices we work with have this set quite high (these tend to be large) and other, smaller ones will either have no queuing or will have it set at say 5 or 10.

Re School Line, 03 numbers have been mentioned - these won't be rolled out for another 18 months - 2years - so who knows!!

KVSimons wrote on Jul 17^th, 2007 at 3:23pm:

... The 0844 is charged the same as a standard BT rate.

Nope.
0844 is specifically excluded from landline and mobile bundles, that is why it is so lucrative.

KVSimons wrote on Jul 17^th, 2007 at 3:23pm:

The 0844 is charged the same as a standard BT rate.

No it isn't.

BT Option 3 includes unlimited calls to 01/02 numbers.  0844 calls with NEG are not part of this allowance and are charged at 5p per minute at all times.

Virgin Everyday Pay As You Go tariff costs 12p per minute at all times to all 01/02 numbers and all 077, 078 and 079 mobile numbers.  0844 numbers cost 40p per minute at all times.

Contract mobile phone give 500 or 750 minutes a month for instance for say £30 to all 01/02 and other mobile numbers. 0844 numbers are excluded and cost around 20p to 40p per minute.  There are no packages that include these numbers.  The revenue share rake off makes it impossible.

So not a normal BT rate is it.

Its not just your own little scam 0844 numbers is it either ?  Its all the other lieing scam operators with scam staff like you with no principle and no conscience and only pound signs in their eyes and only interested in meeting their sales targets to get more money in their own pocket  and not able to think about the big picture of people only paying £5 per month for all 01/02 calls but another £20 per month for all the 084/7 numbers not in their calls package.  Which lieing toerags like you still outrageously claim are the normal BT rate.

My theory is that most people at NEG have either been lobotomised on joining the company or are congenitally stupid so they are not able to analyse facts in a normal logical and rational manner.  Look at your founder.  One shouldn't judge from appearances but he looks like more like Ducking and Diving dodgy Essex dell box than Brain of Britain doesn't he.

Yes that is rude but I think rudeness is entirely called for when it comes to NEG and its deplorable army of money grabbing staff.

For instance are you not aware that the cost of calling an NEG number from a phone box is 13p per minute compared to only 2p per minute for a normal 01/02 number.

Think of the 80 year old pensioner who has an ill wife with only a few coins in their pocket.  Where is your conscience young lady? :o ::) :'(

Quote:

Think of the 80 year old pensioner who has an ill wife with only a few coins in their pocket.  Where is your conscience young lady?

How do you know she's young?

Lobotomised and consequently brain dead I'll go along with.......  ;D

mikeinnc wrote on Jul 17^th, 2007 at 3:54pm:

How do you know she's young?

Ah yes I missed the 13 years with NEG and I expect she was probably selling double glazing or life assurance before that.

So an inveterate lifelong sales women unable to tell truth from fiction and undoubtedly willing to sell her own grandmother in order to pay next month's mortgage interest.

You only need to look at the picture of NEG's founder under About Us to imagine the kind of people who work there.

Still there's always selling wheel clamping to councils next month if Ofcom ever wakes up and so causes NEG to go belly up.

I wonder what on earth the Masters can have been in?

NGMsGhost

BA (Hons) in Economics and Politics - but that was 1985 when getting a degree was a bit more difficult than it is today.

Quote from KVSimons on Today at 9:51am:


Quote:

after 13 years in this business and a holder of both a degree and Masters I feel no need to go out and 'scam' people in order to make a living.

Your degrees are no guarantee of your fairness and honesty.  Look at the number of crooks identified in the House of Lords who have no doubt also been awarded various degrees in their youths.  

Quote from KVSimons on Today at 4.23pm:


Quote:

The 0844 is charged the same as a standard BT rate.

Flogging telecommunication services you should know better. 0844 calls to your GP clients from a private landline cost 5p/min at all times . Refer to the BT price list to see how much less the equivalent charges to geographical numbers are and also to see how much more than 5p/min 0844 calls cost from payphones and mobiles

Lompos (MSc)

KVSimons wrote on Jul 17^th, 2007 at 3:23pm:

The 0844 is charged the same as a standard BT rate.

Your qualifications can't really be in maths if you think that an 0844 which is generally charged at 5p/min at all times (from a BT landline) is the same as BTs normal rate.  BT currently charge 3p/min daytime and is cheaper of evening and weekend.

As Dave has mentioned, we don't generally dispute the benefits of non-geographical numbers but it's when companies advertise these numbers as local (you once did) or national when in fact the number is a stealth premium rate number.

It is stealth because there is revenue made from it either by the surgery and/or NEG and in many cases consumers (or patients in this case) aren't aware that money is being made from the call.

Some Communication Providers generally provide revenue to users who have an 0845 and as this is cheaper priced than the 0844 numbers used by NEG, then it becomes obvious that revenue is made from the call regardless of how it is used and by whom.

If you weren't that concerned about revenue (as supposedly NEG doesn't make any) then why do you go through all the trouble of disconnecting the geographical numbers used by surgeries and issue new geographical numbers which it appears in all cases you don't inform the surgery of their new geographical number instead just issue them an 0844 or 0870 to inform their patients of.

In most cases, non-geographical numbers like 0844 just divert/transfer to one or more geographical numbers.

Why do you try and hide the geographical number from surgeries and patients if there is no revenue made from 0844 numbers?

You could give patients a choice by issuing a geographical number to surgeries.  That way, patients can choose whether to keep trying to get through (in the case of an engaged geographical number) or wait in a queue and be charged for doing so.

My surgery recently changed over to an 0844 number.  Signs went up everwhere in the surgery this is a low-cost number.  The first month it cost me nearly £5 due to problems with the system.  Never mind the fact I was in tears because I felt so ill and when I did get through the system hung up on me 3 times.  When I finally got through all the appointments had gone.  I cried because I felt so ill.  There was no other way of contacting the surgery. I complained to the practice manager but they never offered to refund the money!   :'(

Well Ms Simons, having invited us to talk to you to get the "true picture" I do believe you have failed to convince a single person on this site that there is anything "true" in what NEG says.   Indeed it apprears that just about everything you have said has been shown to be questionable, inaccurate, misleading or a downright lie.  

You have succeeded in calling into question not only your veracity and trustworthyness and that of your company, but have also convinced contributors to this forum of the very low intellectual capacity and moral degradation of yourself and all who work at NEG.   Your mathematical ability appears to be lower than primary school level.   I am sure many 10 year olds could tell whether 40p/min or 5p/min was more or less than 2p/min.   You have added to the general belief that NEG is essentially a parasitic, greedy, exploitative, rip-off company.  

You give no consideration whatsoever to the patients who are compelled to use your expensive phone numbers and in effect have to pay a stealth tax in order to call their doctor.    You have no compassion for the old, the sick and those of limited financial means and you have complete inability to envisage the distress your company is causing, to say nothing of the rage and pent up fury which is welling up in resentment of NEG and its practices.  You and NEG may yet have a to pay a very high price for all the damage you are doing.  You are causing  some difficulties in doctor patient relationships.   I know two retired dentists and a retired surgeon in this locality who are furious that their doctors have gone over to 0844.  

By the way, it is not necessary to adopt 0844 in order to   " adopt a queue facility which TELLS THE PATIENT WHERE THEY ARE IN THE QUEUE".   My doctor's system used to announce your position in the queue on their previous geographical number.   If you would care to call the Royal Berkshire Hospital on 0118 322 7400 you can enjoy being in a low cost or free call queue AND be told where you are in the queue!   I suspect this sizable regional hospital is several hundred times larger than any of your doctors practices so please stop telling your sales prospects that only by using 0844 may callers be told where they are in the queue -- that is another lie.



Do you think you could NOW look at the facts and the TRUTH objectively, dispassionately and logically and finally admit that what NEG is doing is largely dishonest and that you are encouraging doctors, of all people, to deceive and even lie to their patients?  This is fundamentally undermining the bond of trust between doctor and patient.  If doctors can be seen to lie about this, what doubts might patients have about other more important issues?   This especially at a time when GPs are reported to be paid on average £100k and up to £250k per annum(Daily Mail 16/07/2007), a massive pay increase in the past few years -- so why do they need to use NEG's underhand methods to fund a new phone system when they could easily finance it in an open conventional way as a normal business expense?

So having read all the comments so far, and your first message was only timed at 09.51 this morning, what have you now got to say?

ultra1984 wrote on Jul 17^th, 2007 at 6:30pm:

My surgery recently changed over to an 0844 number.  Signs went up everwhere in the surgery this is a low-cost number.  The first month it cost me nearly £5 due to problems with the system.  Never mind the fact I was in tears because I felt so ill and when I did get through the system hung up on me 3 times.  When I finally got through all the appointments had gone.  I cried because I felt so ill.  There was no other way of contacting the surgery. I complained to the practice manager but they never offered to refund the money!   :'(

I suggest you send a complaint about this to Ofcom's CEO, Ed Richards (ed.richards@ofcom.org.uk) saying that they are failing in their principal duty under the Communications Act 2003 to protect the best interests of the UK Citizen Consumer by not using their reserve powers to stop doctors using these numbers and not preventing their description by doctors as "low-cost numbers".  Ask Mr Richards to investigate.  Don't be fobbed off to the Ofcom Contact Centre who are a waste of time.  Continue to pursue the matter with Ofcom until you are deadlocked with them and they refuse to help any more.

At that point approach your MP using www.writetothem.com drawing attention to his attention Ofcom's failure to both prevent the use of these numbers altogether by doctor's surgeries and their failure to prevent 0844 being called low-cost calls as the ASA have no power in this area.  Say you want your MP to write to the Parliamentary Ombudsman to have this investigated as a formal complaint against Ofcom for not properly fulfilling their principal duty under the Communications Act 2003 to protect the best interests of the UK citizen consumer.  At that point Ofcom might finally have to explain themselves.

You might also want to pursue the high level complaints procedure through the NHS which ultimately leads to the door of the same Parliamentary Ombudsman.

KVSimons wrote on Jul 17^th, 2007 at 8:51am:

Having read various incorrect postings re NEG, and quite frankly an offensive posting from user idb I felt compelled to register and post a response. I use the word 'offensive' as idb feels that a) he has the right to make assumptions about me and how I 'bull s**t' my customers and b) he assumes to know Surgery Line - when in fact this person has never even discussed our service with us.

Given your two postings on here, in addition to what I quoted earlier in this thread, I fully stand by the BS assertion. It is clear that you have no idea how much 0844 is charged from a landline; no idea what premium is paid by callers from alternative networks such as cellular, VOIP and payphone, and no idea that international termination to such numbers is either difficult or impossible. Indeed, one poster has even stated his difficulty contacting his surgery from Spain, and all because NEG's revenue stream is more important than providing a SERVICE to patients.

Your odious organization is a disgrace. It exploits patients. It shafts the customer. You should hang your head in shame rather than perpetrate yet more BS relating to SurgeryLine.

The sad aspect is that it will need a death or serious incident, relating the inability to contact a healthcare provider from overseas for any action to take place to curtail this HUGE scam that NEG is hoisting on a largely unsuspecting public (although that may be changing). If this happens, then I hope that a sharp attorney will go after NEG for all it has, and then perhaps it will end up like Patientline - a sick patient in need of decapitation to put it out of its misery and liberate the patient from exploitation.

Does NEG staff have any ethics/morals whatsoever?

I am offended by NEG. IT PUTS LIVES AT RISK. IT PUTS PROFITS BEFORE PATIENTS. IT PUTS GREED BEFORE SERVICE.

And, Ms Simons, let me give you an example of NEG's BS:

http://www.networkeuropegroup.com/downloads/surgeryline-thelodge.pdf

How your patients benefit
Patients benefit by having their calls
answered more quickly. The engaged
tone becomes rare – even at peak times -
because you are able to handle incoming
calls more efficiently, whilst patient calls
are spread out during the day. Calls to
084 or ‘lo-call’ numbers cost patients 4p
per minute, the same as the first minute
of BT’s standard call rate between 6am
and 6pm. This means that many
patients will actually pay less in total
because their call is answered and
processed more quickly. Significantly, the
cost of calls from mobiles remains
unchanged - these account for around
30% of all calls to surgeries.

This is pure bull. 0844 is not, and has never been described as 'lo-call', 'low-call' or whatever other sexy-sounding spin you want to attach to the true description of PREMIUM RATE SCAM.

wrote on Jul 17^th, 2007 at 10:27pm:

Significantly, the cost of calls from mobiles remains unchanged - these account for around 30% of all calls to surgeries.

This is also pure bulls**t

0844 calls are consistently excluded from inclusive calling bundles by all contract mobile providers and charged at a premium rate of up to 40p per minute.  Also on a a Pay As You Go tariff such as Virgin's Everyday you pay 40p per minute at all times for 0844 compared to 12p per minute for 01/02 and mobile calls.

The whole NEG house of cards is based on simple lieing and given the kind of people who work for them that is hardly much surprise.

What is much more surprising and alarming is that the continued growth of this appalling ripoff empire relies on the apparent stupidity of and/or lack of concern for the economic welfare of their patients of professionally qualified doctors and also the total failiure of Ofcom to take any action to stop the continued scamming or the lies about the call costs, even though the Communications Act 2003 gives them all the powers they need to do so.

NGMsGhost wrote on Jul 17^th, 2007 at 11:21pm:

The whole NEG house of cards is based on simple lieing and given the kind of people who work for them that is hardly much surprise.

These are the warm cuddly people who run NEG (pictures on web site) who are putting LIVES AT RISK by forcing surgeries into operating numbers that cannot be called under certain circumstances. They withdraw the geographic numbers so that patients are forced to dial premium rated numbers. Perhaps you would like to tell them how you feel:

http://www.networkeuropegroup.com/about/management_team.html

Dean Rayment – Managing Director

Dean is one of NEG ’s longest serving employees who joined the company in 1993 leaving 3 years later to co-fund Mediacom Global Communications Ltd. In a twist of fate NEG acquired Mediacom during an acquisition programme in 1999 and Dean rejoined NEG as part of earn-out arrangement and decided to stay. In the summer of 2002 Dean was appointed to the board accepting the position of Customer Accounts Director responsible for the management of the existing client base and internal marketing. In October 2004 after an MBO (Management Buy Out) Dean was appointed to Managing Director of NEG . Dean lives in Essex with his wife Rosie and is a keen sportsman enjoying golf, skiing and most water sports.

deanr@networkeuropegroup.com

Craig Hughes – Engineering Director

Craig Hughes joined NEG after 14 years in the Royal Air Force as a Telecommunication Engineer. He subsequently gained extensive experience in data, satellite and voice communications. He left the RAF finishing at the rank of Non Commissioned Officer after completing a tour at the Defence Crisis Management Centre in Whitehall. Craig joined NEG As the Nortel Product Manager, with his wealth of experience he was soon promoted to Engineering Manager. In 2003 Craig was rewarded for all his hard work with promotion to the position of Group General Manger. In October 2004 as part of the Management Team Craig became Engineering Director of NEG after an internal Management By Out. Craig has settled down in Essex and is a very keen sportsman and continues to participate in his love for the sport of rugby.

craigh@networkeuropegroup.com

Scott Russell – Non-Executive Director

In 1992 Scott Russell founded Network Europe Telecommunications ltd growing the company organically and through strategic acquisitions to become one of Europe’s premier suppliers of business telephone systems. In the Autumn 2004 Scott stepped down as Managing Director of NEG after successfully spearheaded the sale of the highly profitable Network division to Cable & Wireless’s largest international business partner, then orchestrating a consolidation and Management buyout of the remaining group companies. Scott is now a respected industry consultant regularly contributing to several leading telecommunication publications and has appeared on both television and radio. He lives in rural Suffolk with his wife and two boys, is a keen sportsman and private pilot, and strongly believes "if you look after your customers, they'll look after you"

idb wrote on Jul 18^th, 2007 at 12:20am:

NGMsGhost wrote on Jul 17th, 2007 at 11:21pm: The whole NEG house of cards is based on simple lieing and given the kind of people who work for them that is hardly much surprise. These are the warm cuddly people who run NEG (pictures on web site) who are putting LIVES AT RISK by forcing surgeries into operating numbers that cannot be called under certain circumstances. They withdraw the geographic numbers so that patients are forced to dial premium rated numbers. Perhaps you would like to tell them how you feel: http://www.networkeuropegroup.com/about/management_team.html Dean Rayment – Managing Director Dean is one of NEG ’s longest serving employees who joined the company in 1993 leaving 3 years later to co-fund Mediacom Global Communications Ltd. In a twist of fate NEG acquired Mediacom during an acquisition programme in 1999 and Dean rejoined NEG as part of earn-out arrangement and decided to stay. In the summer of 2002 Dean was appointed to the board accepting the position of Customer Accounts Director responsible for the management of the existing client base and internal marketing. In October 2004 after an MBO (Management Buy Out) Dean was appointed to Managing Director of NEG . Dean lives in Essex with his wife Rosie and is a keen sportsman enjoying golf, skiing and most water sports. deanr@networkeuropegroup.com Craig Hughes – Engineering Director Craig Hughes joined NEG after 14 years in the Royal Air Force as a Telecommunication Engineer. He subsequently gained extensive experience in data, satellite and voice communications. He left the RAF finishing at the rank of Non Commissioned Officer after completing a tour at the Defence Crisis Management Centre in Whitehall. Craig joined NEG As the Nortel Product Manager, with his wealth of experience he was soon promoted to Engineering Manager. In 2003 Craig was rewarded for all his hard work with promotion to the position of Group General Manger. In October 2004 as part of the Management Team Craig became Engineering Director of NEG after an internal Management By Out. Craig has settled down in Essex and is a very keen sportsman and continues to participate in his love for the sport of rugby. craigh@networkeuropegroup.com Scott Russell – Non-Executive Director In 1992 Scott Russell founded Network Europe Telecommunications ltd growing the company organically and through strategic acquisitions to become one of Europe’s premier suppliers of business telephone systems.  He lives in rural Suffolk with his wife and two boys, is a keen sportsman and private pilot, and strongly believes "if you look after your customers, they'll look after you"

What a shame that Mr Russell's customers don't seem to have the same caring attitude towards their own sickly captive human customer base.

I still can't believe the NHS hasn't made it illegal for doctors surgeries to use anything other than 01/02 geographic phone numbers.

A shame about the bloke from the RAF as he does seem to have had a reasonably useful career prior to joining NEG.

KVSimons wrote on Jul 17^th, 2007 at 3:23pm:

The 0844 is charged the same as a standard BT rate.

"Standard BT rate" for what? ::)

As has been pointed out, the 0844 numbers provided to surgeries by NEG are charged at 5p/min at all times from a BT landline. You have pointed out that consumers have a choice about which provider that they use. These numbers effectively drive a coach and horses through this process and are charged at the same rate across (most) landline providers. Mobiles and payphones usually charge more.

So on the one hand, you claim that consumers are 'liberated' through market choice, and on the other, cling to BT's standard (sic) rates to justify your company's actions.

You haven't answered my question about where the proceedes of the 5p/min go. I understand that surgeries receive 2p/min and (in practice) they pay that back to NEG. Is this correct? So what about doing away with 084x NTS and providing 01/02 geographicals??? This will give patients a choice; remember them???!

Oh, and where has the st...st...stuttering Mr Chapman gone? :-/ Cl...cl...click here. ;D

And what's more, NEG continues with its lies of "national rate" respective of 0870 numbers. See here. This is misleading, as well you know, and Trading Standards have stated that they consider that it may be misleading within Part III of Consumer Protection Act 1987, and therefore the company liable for prosecution.

My betting is that Kath Simons won't be sticking her head above the parapet in this thread again anytime soon.

The main technique ignored by sales people when confronted over their lies is usually simply to act as though they have never heard the question.

The fact that she has been there for 13 years says that she can't possibly not understand what is really going on.

What has happened to Kath????

You could almost hear a pin drop in this thread today. ;) ::) ;D

NGMsGhost wrote on Jul 18^th, 2007 at 6:42pm:

What has happened to Kath???? You could almost hear a pin drop in this thread today. ;) ::) ;D

I didn't think she would return - her lack of understanding is all too clear.

Hello

Agree with you 100%. NEG are a despicable, odious company. They just want
to make money from anyone especially picking on the elderly, confused
and sick.

They deliberately charge the max for an 0844 number, cashing in on mosts peoples confusion on the ridiculous Ofcon charging structure for 08x numbers. Most people think 0844 is "local" like 0845. They dont give an 09 number knowing patients will smell a rat.

When they put in a 0844 number they then deliberately  cut off
the old trusted geographic number? This is not "providing a service "
, where is the choice? This is forcing patients to put money into these
bloodsuckers  pockets.

From Ms Simons NEG
QUOTE"I am also a patient, and before my own GP moved to Surgery Line it was a total nightmare to get through. I am far too busy to keep ringing an engaged tone in the hope I can get through. For this reason I often didn't bother to cancel my appts as I couldn't reach them. It also cost me 50p to use BT ring back.  "UNQUOTE



My local surgery is still on geo numbers. People MUST phone them in
the morning to make an appointment. Think this is same for all surgeries.
I phoned them some time ago at 08.00 hrs, engaged , 08.30 engaged.
I tried again 08.45 got the ring back service and ring back phoned me
back about 09.00 hrs
The cost of ring back on BT is 15p (or £1.75 pm) ,not 50p AFAIK.
total cost about 30p . How much with NEG hanging on for about 30 mins.
£1.50 plus the stress of an ill person having to keep the phone  pressed
to his/her ear all that time.
Disgraceful. Keep the geo number, give people the option.

Any chance , someone who can work these things, put this nasty scheme
onto front page of a national newspaper. I think a journalist will find some
unfortunate soul "Sick, frail 80 year old charged £12
(or whatever) to phone his doctors surgery" "I thought 0844 was a local
number says patient " 40p min  from some  mobiles. Or what happens if the patient runs out of PAYG credit?

All the best, keep up the good work.

Alan

alan99 wrote on Jul 18^th, 2007 at 11:06pm:

Any chance , someone who can work these things, put this nasty scheme onto front page of a national newspaper. I think a journalist will find some unfortunate soul "Sick, frail 80 year old charged £12 (or whatever) to phone his doctors surgery" "I thought 0844 was a local number says patient " 40p min  from some  mobiles. Or what happens if the patient runs out of PAYG credit?

I think leeds lad's case a few posts back would be precisely the kind of thing that would make an interesting newspaper story.

I guess now could be the time to try and turn up the heat against OfCoN, who I see are now trying to put the heat on the broadcasting companies to direct attention away from a scam that is actually entirely a result of their regulatory failure to properly restrict the use of these numbers and control access to them on ordinary domestic phone lines.

To NMGsGhost
I have sent you a personal message on this topic, please look asap. URGENT,
Good Luck, Loddon

ultra1984 wrote on Jul 17^th, 2007 at 6:30pm:

My surgery recently changed over to an 0844 number.  Signs went up everwhere in the surgery this is a low-cost number.  The first month it cost me nearly £5 due to problems with the system.  Never mind the fact I was in tears because I felt so ill and when I did get through the system hung up on me 3 times.  When I finally got through all the appointments had gone.  I cried because I felt so ill.  There was no other way of contacting the surgery. I complained to the practice manager but they never offered to refund the money!   :'(

Hi there,

I noticed your post and thought you might want to know that there is a journalist at The Times called David Rose, their health correspondent, who is currently writing up a story on the NEG doctor's surgery scam and is wanting to talk to real life examples of people like you who have actually had their own doctor's surgery number change to 0844 as a result of NEG's activities, and so who have to call one of these 084 or 087 numbers and suffered financially as a result.

If you would be interested in talking to him and having your case featured can you send an email to him at david.rose@the-times.co.uk also giving your phone number (home and/or mobile) and name and he will get in touch with you (probably this weekend as he is writing the story for an edition of next week's Times newspaper) to discuss it further.

I hope this is not intruding but you seemed pretty upset about what NEG has done and thought you might want to have the chance to strike back against them.

Regards,

NGMsGhost

leedslad wrote on Jul 17^th, 2007 at 12:39pm:

As a result I spent the best part of a day in hospital in Las Palmas for further checks. This all could have been avoided if the local doctor could have spoken with my GP in the UK. My insurance company wouldn't cover me either, so be warned in you're travelling abroad.

Hi there,

I noticed your post and thought you might want to know that there is a journalist at The Times called David Rose, their health correspondent, who is currently writing up a story on the NEG doctor's surgery scam and is wanting to talk to real life examples of people like you who have actually had their own doctor's surgery number change to 0844 as a result of NEG's activities, and so who have to call one of these 084 or 087 numbers and suffered financially as a result.  Your case in Spain with urgent medical treatment in Spain sounded a particularly bad example of the consequences of NEG's cynical and ruthless action.

If you would be interested in talking to him and having your case featured can you send an email to him at david.rose@the-times.co.uk also giving your phone number (home and/or mobile) and name and he will get in touch with you (probably this weekend as he is writing the story for an edition of next week's Times newspaper) to discuss it further.

I hope this is not intruding but I thought you might want to have the chance to strike back against NEG.

Regards,

NGMsGhost

The devious NEG, obviously recognizing the problems with not only international termination to 0844 but also from, for example, VOIP networks, started issuing 0870 numbers as alternatives for calls from overseas. Although 0870 can sometimes be called from outside the UK, albeit at an extortionate rate, there is, as we know, no guarantee that the foreign network will terminate the call.

Now, come Feb 2008, or whenever Ofcom implements its solution to 0870, which will make 0870 all but equivalent, rate-wise, to geographic calls, NEG will be in a difficult position - patients will clearly be able to call the 0870 number at geographic rates and thus deny income to NEG.

I'm sure the deviants at NEG are trying to think of a way around this, but what are the options - 0871 is no good as it has the same issues relating to international termination as 0844. I'm sure 0845 will not provide sufficient revenue. 09X is also out of the question. Perhaps a personal number 07 or 06 - I'm not too sure about availbility of terminating these from overseas.

Hopefully the database will grow with a mapping of 0844 to alternative 0870 numbers for surgeries which will be very useful from Feb 2008 onwards.

I wonder what NEG will do about this potential issue? I'm sure this matter is taxing their phenomenal brain power as we speak.

idb wrote on Jul 20^th, 2007 at 10:56pm:

Now, come Feb 2008, or whenever Ofcom implements its solution to 0870, which will make 0870 all but equivalent, rate-wise, to geographic calls, NEG will be in a difficult position - patients will clearly be able to call the 0870 number at geographic rates and thus deny income to NEG. I'm sure the deviants at NEG are trying to think of a way around this, but what are the options - 0871 is no good as it has the same issues relating to international termination as 0844. I'm sure 0845 will not provide sufficient revenue. 09X is also out of the question. Perhaps a personal number 07 or 06 - I'm not too sure about availbility of terminating these from overseas. Hopefully the database will grow with a mapping of 0844 to alternative 0870 numbers for surgeries which will be very useful from Feb 2008 onwards. I wonder what NEG will do about this potential issue? I'm sure this matter is taxing their phenomenal brain power as we speak.

That is a good point.  They're prob working overtime to think of a way of keeping the revenue they get (or don't according to recent poster from NEG) but still allows international access.

The Times is proposing to run a major article in tomorrow's (Monday's) newspaper about NEG's Surgeryline service based on its conversations with myself and another forum member and further background material that I sent them.  But they want to photograph and include a picture in the article of someone who has had their own doctor's surgery change over to NEG Surgeryline, and ideally who has also suffered a major issue with getting access to their doctor from overseas (eg LeedsLad) or at least suffered a lot more cost and inconvenience in reaching their doctor (ultra).

They want to do this today because the article is planned for tomorrow's newspaper (no time related reason it has to run tomorrow but Monday's newspaper has a lot more space for articles that are not immediately strictly time related to recent hard news events).

Although they would find it easiest to photograph someone in London they do also use photographers in the regions and so could probably get to photograph LeedsLad today in his home area.  Alternatively if anyone has a good quality picture of themselves in head and shoulders format in a JPG or whatever and your own doctor's surgery uses an NEG 0844 phone number then perhaps you may also be suitable for The Times purposes as long as you are prepared to be quoted expressing your outrage over your doctor's use of the NEG Surgeryline product and can email it to them today.

If you can do this please PM me.

Article by David Rose now available at http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article2120932.ece

<<
Why it will cost more to phone your GP

David Rose

Millions of patients could be paying more to telephone their family doctor as surgeries switch to numbers that are more expensive than the traditional local call, The Times has learnt.

Even though the telephone watchdog Ofcom is critical of the idea, about 1,200 practices have abandoned their area code numbers and now use numbers that have an “0844” prefix which may allow them to earn money from patients booking appointments.

Although not officially classed as “premium rate”, the new numbers are up to 4p a minute more expensive to call from a standard BT landline, and can cost up to 40p a minute using a mobile phone or other price plan. GPs’ practices can also receive a rebate of up to 2p a minute on incoming calls.

[...]

The Say No To 0870 campaign against chargeable numbers said that callers were queueing much longer under the Surgery Line system and being left out of pocket. “It is a scandal that doctors are switching to 0844 numbers without providing an alternative geographic number,” a spokesman said. “Although the banned 0870 numbers cost 7p per minute in the week they cost 1.5p per minute at the weekend, whereas 0844 numbers cost 5p per minute at all times. So anyone needing to call their doctor on a Saturday morning is worse off.” Ofcom should do more to address the issue, he said.

The regulator said it had no remit to prescribe what numbers were used by organisations, but added: “Our general advice is that public sector bodies should not use chargeable 08 numbers.” GPs “should be considering the new 03 numbering range. Calls to these numbers cost the same as a geographic call regardless of what type of line the call is made from and can be included in an inclusive minutes package.”
>>

I have to say I'm not overly impressed after all the effort put in on this.

I note that NEG get their Scott Russell quoted by name while I only get quoted as a vague representative of the campaign, like a sort of shifty Captain Gatso afraid to reveal their true public identity.  And our forum member loddon, who started the whole thing off, doesn't seem to be mentioned at all, although let us hope that his picture is published in the hard copy newspaper version with some kind of caption as he was promised.

All my points about most people now having fixed price calling plans like BT Option 3 (£7.95 per month) or even cheaper plans at £5 per month for all 01/02 calls and these 084/7 calls costing another £20 per month on top have been totally expunged and just the usual old tosh about it only being 3p vs 5p per minute remains.  Although they do show the astronomic costs of calling NEG Patientline from a BT Payphone vs an 01/02 number in their table, once again the whole descriptive comparison I gave of an elderly 80 year old pensioner not having a mobile and fumbling for enough change to pay the extortionate NEG charge to get a doctor's appointment for their sick wife is excised.

I am beginning to believe there is actually a stock national newspaper approach where this story is always axed back to it only being 3p vs 5p per minute (0844) or 7p per minute (0870) and the much bigger issues of it being a billion pound stealth industry and most households paying another £150 to £200 per extra on their phone bill per annum for formerly normal priced calls are always excised.  However hard one trys to get across the big story of a huge organised commercial ripoff and major regulatory failure by Ofcom the national newspaper's "keep it simple for our moron readers" subs always hack it back to just 3p vs 5p per minute.

Of course tell me I'm wrong and that this was a hugely significant article that is going to mean the end of the road for NEG.

I think not.  Over 1200 surgeries now - these numbers are truly shocking and still the useless NHS does nothing about banning the use of anything other than 01/02 or the new 03 numbers by doctors surgeries. :o >:( :'(

NGMsGhost wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2007 at 12:41am:

I have to say I'm not overly impressed after all the effort put in on this.

On the other hand it is the number 2 story on The Times website and it is an attention grabbing headline "Why it will cost more to phone your GP".

David Rose has probably flattered by calling us a "campaign" whereas, as far as I know, we are actuallya few anonymous contributors to a discussion forum.

He has revealed that about 1200 GP practices have gone 0844 -- a shocking number and he does say that it l "may allow them to earn money from patients booking appointments".   He also says "But patients’ groups told The Times that the 0844 code put an “unfair financial burden” on pensioners and others with chronic illness or disability who have to contact their surgery regularly. Those taken ill abroad may have difficulty contacting the doctor back home on an 0844 number, as many foreign networks will not connect to them."   Also, “It is a scandal that doctors are switching to 0844 numbers without providing an alternative geographic number,” .   This is surely quite damning.  

But patients’ groups told The Times that the 0844 code put an “unfair financial burden” on pensioners and others with chronic illness or disability who have to contact their surgery regularly. Those taken ill abroad may have difficulty contacting the doctor back home on an 0844 number, as many foreign networks will not connect to them".

Ofcon are quoted -- "Ofcom said that use of the numbers by public sector bodies was “not appropriate” and there were cheaper options".    This surely is a most significant statement -- Ofcon are criticising "public sector bodies".   This is point that must be followed up.   We must quiz Ofcon deeply on this and question Ofcon why they are not doing something about this.  

I would urge contributors to this Forum to write their comments to The Times directly (comment on the article on The Times website) and to write to the editor about the article and issues like Ofcom inaction raised in their article.   I would also suggest that we should draw our MPs attention to this story and ask them to take action in getting this scandal removed.     This is our opportunity to initiate something like a campaign on the whole NGN issue by attacking doctors use of 0844 without an alternative geographic number.    

~ Edited by Dave: Quote box tidied up

loddon,

Perhaps I am downplaying the article's significance but it does seem to me to not be very different in tone and content from several other articles that have mentioned the use of 084/7 by public sector organisations and is full of "on the one hand" and "on the other hand" type statements.

It is not written in terms of "public and politicians outraged at use of covert premium rate numbers by doctors to further bump up their already inflated earnings".  Now that would have made an impact.

Perhaps we are approaching the wrong paper on this issue given reader numbers.  What we need is a big article with a sensational headline in the The Sun or the Daily Mirror.

As to useless OfCoN it is nothing new for their spokesman to say public sector bodies shouldn't be using non standard priced numbers and then do nothing at all about it (even though they have the powers to do so under the Communications Act 2003).   Matt Peacock said the same thing on BBC Radio 4 You & Yours in Nov 2004 and promised OfCoN would force the publication of 01/02 alternatives but now OfCon aren't even committed to that.  Instead all they are commited to in conjunction with ICSTIS is allowing more expensive 0871 numbers to replace 0870.

And where were any comments from the Department of Health or from any offical bodies representing GPs in this article - nowhere it seems.  If Mr Rose had been more patient (sorry no pun intended) and waited till this week and done more research it could have been a much better article.

Of course I would imagine that a lot of doctors read The Times so perhaps the article will at least be effective in making new sales by NEG more difficult.  But why did Mr Rose just accept the Ofcom definition of what is a Premium and not refer to the dictionary definition of Premium instead?

A hard hitting headline and good to see it's on the homepage. Where abouts is it in the newspaper?

The amount quoted for a geographical call is 3p/min which is daytime rate on Option 1. No mention of inclusive packages and the evening and weekend rate is given as 1p/min, which is shown as the same as 0845, something which isn't correct for Option 1.

I had hoped for more on the possible consequences should someone fall ill abroad. However, it did mention rates mobile phones and even public phone boxes.

Still, it's a start and even mentions NEG. Let's hope that the NEG name gets the same reputation as Patientline.

By the way the fact that this campaign is not more organised is very much a reflection of how Daniel, the owner of this website, wants things to be.

If Daniel had ever called any meetings for supporters (even once a year given travelling distances) and given different people in the campaign different jobs and nominated public spokespeople for the press etc then a great deal more in lobbying terms could have been achieved.

Dave says "Where abouts is it in the newspaper? "

On page 5.  More than half page is used.   There is a sub-heading "Public sector bodies should not use chargeable 08 numbers"   This is a quote from OfcoN and it seems to me that this is a very significant statement.   The Times has picked it out and highlighted it, lets not be too critical.  If we can get the press on our side we could capitalise on this initial publicity.   Now we should be pressing OfcoN to do something about this - its their area of responsibility and within their remit.   We should urge our MPs to put pressure on Gordon Brown to insist that OfcoN start doing their job properly.   Make OfcoN prove that they are acting for the "citizen consumer".

As NGMsGhost says, perhaps we should start a "Campaign".   If Daniel won't initiate it then we should do it ourselves.  How about getting together for a discussion???   Who would like to attend?   Where?   I could arrange a venue somewhere in Berkshire.  Let me know what you think.   We could work towards getting that sensational headline, but more importantly, we want action by OfcoN or we want them sacked and a proper regulatory Authority installed.

I  agree to involving the Sun, Mirror etc.  The more publicity the better, but remember, it is only a means to an end.   We only want fair play for the citizen and not to be ripped off.

NGMsGhost wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2007 at 8:45am:

loddon, And where were any comments from the Department of Health or from any offical bodies representing GPs in this article - nowhere it seems.  If Mr Rose had been more patient (sorry no pun intended) and waited till this week and done more research it could have been a much better article. ?

I  empathise with all you say NGMsGhost, and as you know I fully support your views on this and all related issues.
What you say here could well be a further line of enquiry by David Rose and I will suggest it to him.   I forsee another chapter in this saga quite possibly appearing in The Times next Monday.  

Although the scope of Rose's article is somewhat limited I think that is no bad thing.  It focusses on a specific issue of public concern that must be addressed.   It is only a start.   There is every chance that there can be a whole series of articles in the future if we raise awareness of the issues with the press.   It is up to us to continue to talk to the press.    

If anyone, as well as NGMsGhost, has a an idea for future topics, how we address them, or other routes to publicity I suggest they post them here on the Forum or send me a private message.   I will be happy to talk.

loddon wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2007 at 10:45am:

If anyone, as well as NGMsGhost, has a an idea for future topics, how we address them, or other routes to publicity I suggest they post them here on the Forum or send me a private message.   I will be happy to talk.

loddon,

Are you a marketing man or a public relations man by profession.

You seem to understand how to get publicity for an issue and how to gradually develop that issue and enhance its visibility in the world at large.

Unfortunately not.  Just an ex IT Manager.  My understanding of the Press, if I have any at all, arises from my general understanding of human nature -- what am I saying???) --- my wife would never stop laughing if she read this!!  Still I like to pretend.

Admittedly, there are more important, even life and death issues, around that concern me and generally they get their fair share of attention.   This is one of those lesser matters that can be ignored by the powers that be, albeit it has to do with matters of personal freedom and the ordinary person not being bullied, oppressed or ripped-off by big business.   So I think some of us need to devote just a little of our time and attention to getting something that is blatantly wrong put right.

Hi

The Daily Mail also run an article today.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/health/healthmain.html?in_article_id=470379&in_page_id=1774


One reply to the  Times article was very disappointing from a doctor. The guy seemed quite stroppy not very patient orientated.   The  previous entry on this forum from Leedslad explains the problems cleary about 08x numbers from abroad. Also patients may need to cancel long standing appointments from overseas with eg nurses  at the surgery  re routine checkups.

QUOTE "Those taken ill abroad may have difficulty contacting the doctor back home on an 0844 number, as many foreign networks will not connect to them. We are not responsible for your health when you are on holiday in another country you are meant to call the local doctor, we also don't do international visits." UNQUOTE

Dr Borrill, Midlands, UK

Also what is the NEG man in the Times article talking about an average of 2 mins wait for patients. Surely the bottleneck is in the receptionists answering the phone to book an apointment.


I think the Mail may be a good organ for anti 0844 newspieces. Should we try again giving them more ammo.


Alan

alan99 wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2007 at 7:48pm:

Hi The Daily Mail also run an article today. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/health/healthmain.html?in_article_id=470379&in_page_id=1774

Also an article in the Telegraph:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/07/23/ngps123.xml

This was mentioned last night on Real Radio Yorkshire's news. It was very brief and just said that GP surgeries are switching to "more expensive" 0844 numbers. They have longer news bulletins at 1pm and 6.30pm where they have extended reports and I hope that they will do a follow-up on this.

I think that this Times (and others) have certainly got the ball rolling.

There are really two aspects that must be reported:

1. Cost to callers, whether they be UK landline, mobile or public phone box.
2. Difficulty for calls to be made from overseas.

Dave wrote on Jul 24^th, 2007 at 6:55am:

There are really two aspects that must be reported: 1. Cost to callers, whether they be UK landline, mobile or public phone box. 2. Difficulty for calls to be made from overseas.

and also

3. Exclusion from 0844 SurgeryLine numbers from Inclusive Call Packages to all 01 and 02 numbers such as BT Option 3 that cost only between £4 and £8 per month these days

4. 0844 doctors calls therefore being part of a class of stealth premium rate business phone calls that are putting an extra £200 or more per annum on most domestic phone bills and/or mobile bills that should not be there.

5. That the regulator Ofcom is failing in its primary duty under the Communications Act 2003 to protect the UK citizen consumer by not using its backstop powers under the Communications Act 2003 to impose big penalties on businesses that middescribe these numbers as local or national call or low cost call like NEG.

6. That the regulator is failing in its primary duty under the Communications Act 2003 to protect the UK citizens consumer by not using its backstop powers under the Communications Act 2003 to prevent public sector contact centres using anything other than an 01 02 or 03 phone number for customer contact.

7. That the failure of the regular to adequately fulfil its primary duty under the Communications Act 2003 should be the subject of appropriate investigate by the relevant Parliamentary Select committee and/or by the Parliamentary Ombudsman.

8. That It appears that like the BBC, which Ofcom has so cheekily complained about over Premium Rate numbers that it allowed to exist, that Ofcom has entirely forgotten who it owes its primary duty to and that this primary duty is to the protection of the UK citizen consumer and not the profitability of UK businesses.

idb wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2007 at 10:03pm:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/07/23/ngps123.xml

Really a better article than the one in The Times because it is harder hitting and a lot stronger on saying "this is wrong and should not be happening".

But obviously still missing the key point about the exclusion of these calls from fixed price calling plans on landlines and mobiles so that the real difference is up to 40p per minute on a mobile vs zero p per minute on a mobile if that call was part of a bundle allowance of say 500 minutes per month.

Some comments by the general public on the Times article:----

Its about time the public realised that GP surgeries are private businesses whose primary objective is to make profits for the partners, the GP's themselves.
Remember that when you cannot get through to your GP on the phone it is because the practice decided to allocate the funding from the NHS in the way it choose. Look at the car your GP is driving next time you are at the surgery and you will see where much of the increase in funding to Primary Care has gone

Please why are doctors and NEG allowed to get away with this. Something should me done about it.


It's quite clear why companies or anyone switches to 084 and 087 numbers. It is so that the callers to these numbers are ultimately going to pay the ongoing costs such as rental etc. for them. I think It's daylight robbery that these people should be allowed to get away with it, because mark my words, when the funds need building up, the time that you are kept waiting will get longer and longer.

It is a disgrace the greedy GPs are allowed to make money this way. Surely Ofcom must do some thing about this and get them to change back to 01/02 numbers.

The best thing to do is vote with your feet. I changed surgeries and was also plesently surprised to also find a far superior doctor and far better reception staff. It was win win win and I recomend it. If a sugery pulls strokes like rip off phone lines they most likely are not very good on many fronts, this was my experiance

To answer Dr Borrill

If someone is taken ill overseas the doctor may need medical history and exact current medication. This could be vital. I know of someone whose foreign attending doctor couldnt get thro to the surgery in UK on a 0844 number, therefore denying patient best care.

BT has ringback service for 15p. If line is engaged then you will get ringback. Much better than holding on a 5p a min 0844 number.
Surgeries deliberately disconnect their 01/02 number on insistence of NEG to maximise income. Absolute disgrace.

I'd just like to say how gratefull I am that I am not one of Dr Borill's patients. Having had the experience of being injured abroad it was reassuring to be able to discuss the issues ( local op in 3rd World / fly home for private op / fly home and attend A&E) with my local GP on a regular BT landline

Given the free call packages offered by reputable providers - such as TelecomPlus or Utility Warehouse, dialling the normal surgery numbers doesn't cost the patient a penny. Now with the 0844 number, it costs money because it's not classed as a free number. How can they say it costs less because you're on the phone less??? Ridiculous, and another stealth cost. Not only do I now pay to ring my surgery, where I didn't pay before, I'm now in a heightened state of anxiety and worry over increased expenditure. Given GPs now earn over £200,000 a year, and still opt out of the 'Out of Hours' service, they earn far too much

immoral and unprincipalled

Edna, Blandford, Dorset

The massive rise in GPs salaries - no strings attached - has not resulted in a rise in productivity. No surprise there - anyone who has ever run a business could have told the government that simply paying someone up to or over their 'comfort level' is a strategy that only ever results in the recipient wanting to do less, not more work, to enjoy their new-found wealth. Our doctors see themselves as office workers: they do no out-of- hours work - that's given to locums - and home visits are virtually unheard of. If they also start charging the patients to make appointments, that will simply fit in perfectly with the general, offhand attitude we've come to expect. There was a time when doctors were much respected for their dedication and commitment, but there's little sign of that, now they're on their way to the Rich List.

sarah m, bournemouth

0845, 0844 and 087 numbers are being used by many companies and now by GP's to rip the public off. I wrote a letter about these numbers to BBC working lunch ( consumers ) programm but they did not even bother to reply. I think Government must authorise OFCOM to enforce the ban of the use of all these numbers by all public bodies and all other private companies. These days we have to use 087 number even to get a spare part for an appliance. Why consumer protection agencies do not staret a campaign against these numbers?

More comments by readers of The Times :---

That is absolutely disgusting behaviour. Patients don't ring the doctor unless they absolutely have to.

ARK, Norwich, UK

I'm thinking of getting an 0845 number installed at home. Registering the number with all my banks, building societies, do a load of online insurance quotes and quote my phone number.
When the phone starts ringing, and all their call centres start mithering me with products they wish to sell, I'll answer and tell them to hang on a second...
and watch the money roll in.

Richard Garland, Manchester, Greater Manchester

Not so long ago we could turn up for an appointment without booking, and therefore without any cost to the patient....!

I have today spent 19 minutes on hold to the 0844 number of my doctor's surgery. This is on top of the 8 minutes I spent on hold last Monday and the 7 minutes I spent on hold last Wednesday. I then spent between 1 and 2 minutes making my arrangements. This huge telephony expense shows lack of consideration of the patients at a time when GPs are handsomely rewarded

Rip off Britain at work again using the smokescreen which phone companies have used by quoting huge amounts of variable information about different charges. It works for the phone companies now it will work for the GPs. I detect the work of "managers" put in place to run a business and damn the patient.. Note the comment by DHM: If hospitals can fleece the patients why shouldnt the GP. These people are in the "care" industry, remuneration for GPs has gone up in advance of inflation but greed still drives some of them to further excess.

mike gee, bournemouth, uk

They now have an answer machine at my surgery, so instead of a engaged tone, the call is connected only to inform you that the lines are too busy and to try again. So I am paying for the privilege of being told I cannot speak to anybody. It's a farce!

Dan, London,

Just another way to rip off the longsuffering taxpayer - GPs are extremely well rewarded for doing less work that they have in the past

What old days you could never get through, I have never rung my Doctors without taking half a day to get through and then you are always put on hold I spent so long on the telephone thet B.T.suggested it for my family and friends numbers. What B.T. also forgot to mention is the minimum amount per call I can call anyone for an hour for 5p on evening and weekends (when Doctors are closed) but If I talk for 20 seconds it cost 5p and don't for get the VAT. What it does is penalize the sick. Who has tried to live on sickness benefit, I think they think because you are sick you do not need everyday thinks like Gas, electric Water and a house to live in, you know what most of your money goes on!

June Hart, Hockley Essex, U.K

08xx numbers are a racket. The so called 0845 local access numbers to 'save' money for callers is a nonsense for those with mobiles. Companies and organisations should be required by law to offer a national landline number if they have an 08xx number . To get through to my bank I have to use the international number on my mobile should I wish to call without charge. Does the bank know the issues this creates? Most definitely, but it is not in their financial interest to do anything about it.


At least we should be given the choice; to call a local number at less cost to the patient

More comments by the public on The Times :---

You can get around this problem by using the website "Say No to 0870" . This publishes the normal numbers that you can dial instead of the non-geographic premium numbers.

The link to the website is :
http://www.saynoto0870.com

Richard Wyld, Effingham, UK

Probably the biggest user of these "revenue sharing" numbers, and certainly the one with the longest calls is NHS Direct.

With calls averaging 25 minutes it could cost 75p to call which will not be included in any calling plan

GJ, Swindon, UK

It's simple really....patients should have to give a landline number to be contacted by their surgery. Then the surgery won't be paying out as much on calls and won't need to go down the line of 0844 numbers.
Maybe they should also start charging for missed appointments but that's another issue for another discussion.

Helen, Midlothian, Scotland

Surely Ofcom must do something about this scandal. Doctors should not be forcing patients to pay for their new phone systems. By doing this using NEG doctors are forcing patients to pay many thousands more than the true cost and this is no doubt amounting to millions of pounds nationally. This is nothing more than a rip-off perpetrated by NEG and their doctors. It is a disgrace to the medical profession.

Mike Kelly, Reading

No patient should have to pay a premium line to phone a doctor and no public service should have to phone a mobile (premium rate) number to contact a customer. The standard land line service is all that should be used.

jj, Cambs, uk

More comments on The Times website ;---

GPs and the iniquitous company NEG ARE "out to fleece their patients". NEG are out to make excessive profits out of sick people who are calling a health service. Calls to 0844 are always more costly. The public should be able to choose whether to call a premium rate or a normal number when calling an essential service such as a doctor.

Mike Kelly, Reading

If I call a doctor’s surgery that uses normal telephone numbers (01 or 02) it usually costs 3p/min, but as I pay my phone company an extra £10 a month, all my 01 and 02 calls are “free�.
If my doctor was using one of those dreadful 0844 numbers, the call would cost me 5p/min at all times, and they would receive about half of my call charges as a extra fee.

I would change my doctor.

kevin kearney, Liverpool,

To say that the 0844 number gives the advantage of a single contact number is disingenuous. The same can be achieved with an 01 or 02 number.

PaulK, Thornton

think it is terrible that the GPs surgeries telephone area code will cease and we will need to use 0844 numbers which are more expensive. It is already hard for pensioners to manage on their limited income and they are the ones who need the doctors most. Not fair on the other people who live on shoestring budgets either. It should not be allowed.

Lee To, Swindon, UK

It is shocking that even GP's are now ripping off consumers by using these types of numbers. It certainly isn't fair !!

JB, Manchester

Can I echo the earlier contributor and ask when the Times is going to do a story about the vast cost to the NHS of mobile calls?

Patients lack of a fixed line is costing the NHS millions as hospital secretaries, midwives, distict nurses and family doctors are forced to phone mobile numbers a huge costs compared to a local call.

I am also a GP and the costs of phone bills has risen more than any other cost in the last few years, mainly due to the large number of calls we have to make to mobiles.

Perhaps patients who do not have a fixed line should not expect to be phoned by their health care workers

Dr Trefor Roscoe, Sheffield,

My landline calls are free as I subscribe to Option 3. I pay 2p per minute to call one daughter in Hong Kong and 1 p to call another in Canada. It seems ridiculous to have to pay more to call my doctor down the road.

Stephanie McKenzie-Hill, Uckfield,

I pay a flat rate of £23.49 a month which gives me all 01 and 02 numbers 24/7 and includes the phone line rental. It used to be a good deal. Now more and more companies use 0870, and 084 numbers, and I have to pay for these calls on top. Why do they do it? There is only one answer. Greed.
Doctors should not be allowed to use these 0844 numbers. If I phone my surgery, which is an hour's walk away, it is only because I have to. There is no bus going there, and I don't own a car. Incidentally my surgery hasn't treated me in the past 3 years at all. Do they refuse to collect the allowance they get for having me on their List?
Beryl, WINDSOR, England


Sorry, but I couldn't understand why the change of numbers have occurred: were the doctors offered new mobile phones with the new prefix?

Bernardo, QUELUZ, Portugal

So why do GPs do it?
As the article states, the GPs pay for the installation of the system. This will run to thousands, so any suggestion of GPs profiteering from this system seems misplaced.
Maybe, just maybe, they are trying to provide their patients with better access to the surgery by phone.
I guess we could always go back to the old days when you could never get through. I suspect the same people moaning now were moaning equally vociferously then.

Simon, Poole,
The use of 0844 without providing a geographic alternative number is truly a scandal. It significant that Ofcom say "that use of the numbers by public sector bodies was “not appropriate� and there were cheaper options".
Surely, doctors must be compelled to provide an alternative geographic number to 0844 - otherwise this is another stealth tax on the public and a tax on the old and sick in particular!!


Mike Kelly, Reading

More comments on The Times article :---

Absolutely unacceptable.

Michael Harding, Tenterden, Kent

"Scott Russell, of NEG, said that patients calling the Surgery Line system spent two minutes on average on each call, compared with 5½ minutes before."

It will be of interest to have the full explanation for this reasoning. Many surgeries will only take appointment bookings at certain times of day and it it takes many attempts before a connection can be made. I cannot see that patients will spend any less time on these calls because of the prefix change.

Alan Challoner, Llanerchymedd, Wales UK

My surgery uses a normal local call telephone number. However the greatest rise in practice utilities over the last 5 years has been telephone calls because patients increasingly use mobile phones instead of land lines. GP's are paying premium rate to call patients on mobiles. Ofcom says that public sector shouldn't use 0844 numbers, but
GP's are encouraged by the Department of Health through the quality and outcomes framework to have a single access number for emergencies. The 0844 system allows this as calls can be automatically diverted out of hours to the out of hours provider without the need for an answering machine and the patient making a second call. Having just spent £12000 on a new phone system and an annual phone bill of similar size I resent the portrayal that GPs are out to fleece their patients. If hospitals can charge premium patient phone and car parking rates why shouldn't GPs be able to marginally offset the costs of a single access number which improves safety

DHM, chichester,

One way to get action taken over this immoral practice would be for all those whose surgeries adopt 0844 numbers to use the (free) 999 number instead - my guess is that a determined campaign along these lines would provoke the authorities to ensure all surgeries used normal, cheaper, numbers instead.Giles Falconer, Sleaford, Lincolnshire

loddon wrote on Jul 24^th, 2007 at 8:29am:

Alan Challoner, Llanerchymedd, Wales UK If hospitals can charge premium patient phone and car parking rates why shouldn't GPs be able to marginally offset the costs of a single access number which improves safetyDHM, Chichester

Would that be the same single access number that improves safety from overseas by either blocking all access to your doctor and/or turning it into a £1 per minute call? :o >:( :'(

Why does this doctor or NEG rep (he is claarly one of the two) not explain why they cannot use an 01/02 voip geographic number that can be redirected anywhere they want it to.

I have allways found doctors to be arrogant individuals who dictate to you as though you are a naughty pupil rarher than treating you as a valued customer who might take your business elsewhere if the service is not what customers want.

Speaking of which I would urge anyone with an NEG 0844 doctors surgery to move elsewhere and to make a point to the national newspapers that this is why they have chosen to do so.  However if another doctor refuses to take you on because you are moving to avoid 0844 then you should publicise that to a national newspaper and to the highest level of the NHS's official complaints procedure (which ends at the Parliamentary Ombudsman).

The Daily Mail article has managed to generate only one comment from the "public" so far!!!!  :----

With LIFT (Local Investment Finance Trust) gaining a bigger private foothold by the day in GPs' surgeries and Health Centres, and doctors threatened with bankruptcy and redundancy if they fail to balance their books, it's no wonder they'll do all they can to "make a swift buck". What we need is the people who thought this all up plus the ones who are happily carrying it out behind our backs to be packed off to the USA, where presumably they'd be happy surviving on private medical insurance.

- Bob Edwards, UK

I cannot find any public comments on The Telegraph website.  Do they have a facility for comment on their articles?   I cannot find it.

Michael Summers of The Patients Association has just been interviewed for several minutes on BBC News 24 (9.55am Tuesday July 24th).

He said that patients were generally happy with the actual treatment they receive from their doctors when they could get to see them but that the greatest issue patients had was with accessing their doctors at convenient times and then also mentioned the high cost of accessing their doctors on expensive non standard priced 0844 numbers.  Mr Summers seemed to feel strongly on this issue.

The BBC presenter then totally ignored this as most of them seem to be under strict instructions never to criticise 084/7 numbers for fear of their own 0870 numbers again coming under scrutiny.

So with great respect to loddon it is actually the current government survey of patients views that is driving media coverage but it provides the perfect opportunity for us to raise the issue because it has actually been raised in this survey as I understand it?

The Telegraph article also quotes Ofcon :---

"However, the telcoms watchdog, Ofcom, has said it is not appropriate for public sector organisations to use the more expensive phone lines. "

Also :----

"Joyce Robins, co-director of Patient Concern, said: “It is quite ridiculous. People should not pay more for their calls to their GP. I thought this had been stopped by the Government, but they have obviously found a loophole. "
“It can be very difficult to get through to your surgery in some cases and you can run up quite a bill.”

And NEG :---

"Scott Russell, of telephone service provider Network Europe Group (NEG), said that patients spent on average three and a half minutes less on the phone when calling the Surgery Line system.
He said it does not cost patients any more to make the call, it simply removes some of the profits made by the call providers."

So Neg rake off the profits instead of some other 'call provider' ... and that makes it quite alright then??!!!  NEG can perpetrate a rip off with impunity because they are only diverting the ill-gotten gains from another exploitative greedy phone company.  Ofcon surely must do something about this outrage now.

loddon wrote on Jul 24^th, 2007 at 9:12am:

So Neg rake off the profits instead of some other 'call provider' ... and that makes it quite alright then??!!!  NEG can perpetrate a rip off with impunity because they are only diverting the ill-gotten gains from another exploitative greedy phone company.  Ofcon surely must do something about this outrage now.

To be honest, there is an extremely good chance that BT may still be involved in handling the call so BT still makes money (assuming NEG are referring to BT).  If it is BT NEG are referring to then how much BT charge for handling calls is determined by Ofcom cos BT are only allowed to charge what is necessary to carry the call and I assume a very small amount on top to make a profit.

Either way, the amount of money BT or any other provider makes on geographical calls is very, very small.  However, I'd say for 0844 calls that NEG themselves own then I'd say NEG prob get more money from an 0844 than they did from a geographical that.

I like it where Scott says, "... It does not cost patients any more to make the call....", because last time I went to school, a geographical call costing 3p/min (from BT but cheaper from most other providers) compared to an 0844 call costing 5p/min (or more from some providers), then a geographical number is cheaper to call.

His statement if completely flawed in my opinion.  Let's deal with fact:

Geographical numbers:

• Cheaper cost.
  
• You only get charged when they answer so therefore you only pay for the amount of time you are actually speaking to the surgery (with the exception of surgeries using IVR)

0844 numbers:

• Cost more per minute than geographical numbers
  
• You get charged even whilst waiting for surgery

So with the exception of not (or unlikely) getting an engaged tone I personally can't see any advantage for us patients.  The advantage is for the surgery and the fact they may be able to receive revenue from the call but the most advantage has got to be for NEG for the money they make.

I have just discovered that Daily Mail story only appeared in the paper today although it was on their website yesterday!   It has now accumulated about 10 comments from readers (although they seem to have ignored my 2 comments)  as follows :----

With LIFT (Local Investment Finance Trust) gaining a bigger private foothold by the day in GPs' surgeries and Health Centres, and doctors threatened with bankruptcy and redundancy if they fail to balance their books, it's no wonder they'll do all they can to "make a swift buck". What we need is the people who thought this all up plus the ones who are happily carrying it out behind our backs to be packed off to the USA, where presumably they'd be happy surviving on private medical insurance.

- Bob Edwards, UK

How long is it going to be before the "ripped off" people of Britain can no longer afford the expensive wheezes devised by the evil people at the helm of this poor country.

- G. Dawson, Halifax UK

Surely if the practice is giving a better service to patients this somewhat small increase is acceptable? My sister's GP uses a 0844 number and she seems to be able to get through all the time, whereas mine just rings and rings, for so long after a while the line goes dead. I have twice had to drive to the practice just to make an appt, and as for cancelling my appointments - I don't even bother to try anymore!

- Suzie Stone, Hereford, England

This is a very interesting article that manipulates the true cost of phone calls and ignores the reason GPs have switched to 0844 numbers in the first place – to eliminate engaged phone lines and provide better service to patients.

Results from a survey taken of patients NOT using 0844 numbers in order to establish their viewpoint tell a different story with 66% saying that had they have experienced problems in trying to make an appointment to see their GP.

Given the alternative between calling their GP and being put in a queue or hearing the engaged tone and having to re-dial, 71% said they would prefer to be put in a queue.

Patients were asked what was a reasonable price to pay to call their GP to book an appointment, find out test results etc. 82% agreed that the average tcall cost to an 0844 number of 9p was a reasonable charge and would have no issues paying this amount.


This is a great British idea that solves a real problem faced by patients every day.

- Alastair Campbell, Market Harborough

Email them instead. I refuse these excessive phone prices wherever I can... the clue is in the title: Network Europe Group... anything to do with Europe is bound to be expensive and useless.

- Samantha Jones, Bucks

What on earth do you expect with most of this country's subjects worshipping the god of money? Time to get back to what's important in life, and to stop trying to screw each other over for a few quid.

- Mark R, Coventry UK

Greed entered the medical profession more than a decade ago and because of the general stupidity of this government in not negotiating sound contracts with doctors in the last decade the British public are now paying more for less and will continue to do so. It used to be 'how fat is my cat', referring to fat cat businessmen but now it seems to be, 'how fat is my medic'.

- Ken, Suffolk, England

Switching patients' calls into a queue at twice the normal calling charge is hardly what I'd call progress. At the moment, if I get an "engaged" tone, I just re-dial at no charge at all until I'm connected.

- Will Hames, London, UK

The GP's have to fork out for ringing people on their mobiles instead of landlines nowadays which has massively increased costs to them.
People should keep a sense of perspective. NHS GP care is the best in the world at the moment.


- Gus Barker, UK

Has anyone noticed that the Dept. of Environment uses an 0845 (local call rate) Number for its flood risk emergency line instead of an 0800 (freephone) number?

They're all 'at it'!

- A.W., Wales

Two or three of the responses are clearly made by NEG staff or by members of staff in doctors surgeries that use NEG's product.

Everyone else seems to be against them.

loddon wrote on Jul 24^th, 2007 at 6:51pm:

This is a very interesting article that manipulates the true cost of phone calls and ignores the reason GPs have switched to 0844 numbers in the first place – to eliminate engaged phone lines and provide better service to patients. Results from a survey taken of patients NOT using 0844 numbers in order to establish their viewpoint tell a different story with 66% saying that had they have experienced problems in trying to make an appointment to see their GP. Given the alternative between calling their GP and being put in a queue or hearing the engaged tone and having to re-dial, 71% said they would prefer to be put in a queue. Patients were asked what was a reasonable price to pay to call their GP to book an appointment, find out test results etc. 82% agreed that the average tcall cost to an 0844 number of 9p was a reasonable charge and would have no issues paying this amount. This is a great British idea that solves a real problem faced by patients every day. - Alastair Campbell, Market Harborough

Could this possibly be THE Alastair Campbell?   He's obviously keen on quoting surveys.

The question arises -- what survey?  Who prepared it?  Was it entirely independent?

What about surveying patients where their doctor HAS moved to 0844?   What do they say then?

Anyway, doesn't this somewhat miss the point?   The benefits of different call management, queueing, storage and forwarding etc arise from the installed system, not from the number.   Systems can do all this stuff with any number, geographic or non-geographic.   0844 is there to generate revenue for funding ......... and profit.

loddon wrote on Jul 24^th, 2007 at 6:51pm:

I refuse these excessive phone prices wherever I can... the clue is in the title: Network Europe Group... anything to do with Europe is bound to be expensive and useless. - Samantha Jones, Bucks

Brilliant.  Well said Samantha!! :) ;) :D ;D ;D ;D

loddon wrote on Jul 24^th, 2007 at 7:40pm:

Could this possibly be THE Alastair Campbell?   He's obviously keen on quoting surveys.

This particular flavor of Campbell was connected with NEG at some point (search the archives here) and not the former Director of Communications for Blair. The so-called survey was probably an NEG initiative.

The NEG story has now been picked up by local media:

http://www.thisislincolnshire.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=156130&command=displayContent&sourceNode=242285&home=yes&more_nodeId1=156139&contentPK=17905234

<<
OVERCHARGING? NOT WHAT THE DOCTOR ORDERED

Doctors' surgeries across Lincolnshire may be charging patients over the odds for getting in touch, a new study has shown.

When GPs change their phone numbers from local dialling codes to 0844 numbers it means they charge patients up to 5p a minute.

And now communications regulator Ofcom has said it thinks it is "not appropriate" for public bodies such as GP surgeries to use those kinds of numbers.

An Echo study revealed about one in 11 GP surgeries in Lincolnshire now have 0844 numbers.

[...]

Alastair Campbell from Surgery Line, which runs many of the phone systems at Lincolnshire GP practices, said GPs introduced the new numbers for the benefit of patients.

"Calling these numbers costs the average person almost the same as calling a local rate number," he said.

"And what people don't realise is that a lot of public services use 0844 or 0845 numbers. NHS Direct is an 0845 number and a lot of police forces use them, too."

[...]
>>

And look at some of the comments already posted on the "Lincolnshire Echo" :----


I don't see how it benefits patients at all! Especially when the automated lady tells me to press one for this or 2 for that.....and when I finally get through the receptionist STILL asks how she can help! Plus with the number for my sugery now being so long I can't remember it off by heart. It now takes ages to get through to South Park surgery, and it's so annoying! Pathetic, expensive and a waste of time!
hayley, lincoln




I note the comment re the comments "Advantages to GP practices using these numbers, as they meant a patient would never be faced by an engaged tone when they called" What is wrong with the patient using the call back feature on the phone, Mobile have retry, land lines have press "5" or have the GP's specificaly asked this service not be available on their lines, so they can gain some income, also BT Virgin Media offer a service as do many mobile opperators, a FREE NATIONAL & LOCAL CALLS to ANY LAND LINE IN THE UK. Some what knocks off the Comments "advantages to GP practices ect" I must remember to ask my GP to pull the other it has a ring tone on it now!!  
wayne, Lincoln




I'm sorry! but how does charging us more to phone the doctors surgery benefit the patients? is this not just another excuse to squeeze that extra few pence out of the masses? and to reply with something like it's for your benefit is beyond belief. maybe we would not mind so much if we could get an appointment when we are actually ill. how long do we the public have to endure these sort of schemes that are 'for our own good' it may only be a few pence to you but it adds up! and a few pence could be a loaf of bread to some people. if the NHS was better managed by people who knew what they were doing maybe so much money would not be wasted on administration and would filter down, so the local surgeries would not have to try and raise their own cash from us.
Alister williams, Lincoln

My comments on Mr Campbell's response:

Quote:

This is a very interesting article that manipulates the true cost of phone calls and ignores the reason GPs have switched to 0844 numbers in the first place – to eliminate engaged phone lines and provide better service to patients.

Firstly, it criticises the call charges which pay for the system. Mr Campbell, why does this not operate on an 01/02 number?


Quote:

Results from a survey taken of patients NOT using 0844 numbers in order to establish their viewpoint tell a different story with 66% saying that had they have experienced problems in trying to make an appointment to see their GP.

Ahh, surveys and statistics.  ::)


Quote:

Given the alternative between calling their GP and being put in a queue or hearing the engaged tone and having to re-dial, 71% said they would prefer to be put in a queue.

So were these people reminded that an engaged tone is always free whereas a geographical call is free when on an inclusive tariff and always chargeable with this system (Surgery Line)? :-?

Of course, the system itself could still operate on an 01/02 (or 03) number...

Did all the respondees consider that a geographical number could have been used did they have a sufficient understanding of telecoms and economics to understand that the price should be set by the telco? I think not. It's really a leading question.


Quote:

Patients were asked what was a reasonable price to pay to call their GP to book an appointment, find out test results etc. 82% agreed that the average tcall cost to an 0844 number of 9p was a reasonable charge and would have no issues paying this amount.

Not sure how this "average" has been arrived at. :-/

The answer to such a question must be something along the lines of "market value for a telephone call to a UK landline." Was there a box for this on the survey sheet or must respondees give a monetary value? Has Mr Campbell forgotten that the price of a telephone call is set by telecoms companies for connecting parties A and B. It does not allow for the receiving party to dictate what this market price should be.


Quote:

This is a great British idea that solves a real problem faced by patients every day.

This idea is synonymous of Rip-Off Britain.

Quote:

Patients were asked what was a reasonable price to pay to call their GP to book an appointment, find out test results etc. 82% agreed that the average tcall cost to an 0844 number of 9p was a reasonable charge and would have no issues paying this amount.

What a very interesting 'statement'!

From 1/8/07, even a one minute call from a residential BT landline to a 5p/minute SurgeryLine 0844 number will cost 11p (6p call set-up fee + 5p for the first minute).  

It follows that, in 7 days time, the 82% who thought that 9p was a reasonable charge will then join the other 18% and make 100% who'll be dissatisfied with the minimum 11p cost of a call to their GP's SurgeryLine system!

Bearing in mind though that Scott Russell of NEG has said that patients calling the Surgery Line system spent two minutes on average on each call, the cost will be 16p (if you believe that 2 minutes claim).  In NEG-speak, that must be seen as "nearly double" the acceptable cost according to 82%.

OTOH, that'll be BT's fault for raising the call set-up fee to 6p.  Silly me.

Heinz wrote on Jul 25^th, 2007 at 8:07am:

OTOH, that'll be BT's fault for raising the call set-up fee to 6p.  Silly me.

Out of interest does that 6p connection fee get shared with NEG or does it all go in to BT's pocket?

I would imagine it all goes to BT and that this is why they are so jolly keen on bumping up these fees?  Also the idea is to force everybody on to BT's Option  3 by closing the price difference massively with BT Option 1 (note BT Option 3 is now only £7.99 per month) and thus guaranteeing a much higher average revenue stream from every BT customer.

A few more comments on The Times website about doctors 0844 numbers : ----

To Alan johnson, Leicester,
0844, which charges 5p per minute at all times, is substantially higher than a normal priced phone number. 01 and 02 numbers are free to people with a call package on both landlines and mobiles. Even the basic BT charge rate is much cheaper. So to my mind, 0844 IS a premium rate number -- it is MORE expensive than any normal call whichever way you look at it.
You may have been deceived by the phone industry and regulators. The meaning of Premium in the dictionary -- a sum of money paid in addition to a regular price. So your phone bill has it right. My phone bill describes 0844 as "Premium rate g6".
I don't think there is any confusion, ordinary people know when they are being overcharged!!
Mike Kelly, Reading,

My wife & I have been dismissed from our previous surgery, because I had the "audacity" to complain concerning this matter.And not only that, the surgery was being run on strictly military lines , with one only being able to make an appointment by phone Monday,Wednesday & Friday only at 8 AM, so everyone was waiting to get through at the same time. I never was able to make an appointment by phone and had to get in the car to drive to the surgery for 8 AM. If that isn't a rediculous state of affairs, I don't know what is, and have made an official complaint through the proper channels. This has occurred only recently, and am awaiting further developements.
Benjamin Sefton, Leeds, West Yorkshire

My gp surgery uses a 0844, i think through a company based in Basildon, and actually used to have a 0870 number. The 0870 number did cost me quite a bit more to call, but it was better than not being able to get through at all. Now they have a 0844, and it costs me about the same, so i have no problem with that.

We need easy access to our gp due to my partner's ill health. We seem to be connected straight away and then we can press an emergency option if we need to get straight through. Before it was ALWAYS engaged.
Leigh Healey, Huddersfield,

We recently had a 3rd party conduct a survey to the general public - findings showed that 66% had experienced problems contacting their GP, 71% said they would prefer to be placed in a queue rather than hearing the engaged tone all the time and 69% said they were frustrated when they were ill and could not contact their GP.
As regards to the cost of the call, only 3% said that they knew that 0844 was less than 5ppm (interesting, it is 4.2p + VAT), and the average cost of a call to a surgery with 0844 is just 9p. When asked if this was a reasonable charge 82% said it was, and they had no problem with it. More to the point, EVERY single call is answered first time every time and patients always know what is happening and can make informed choices. Surgeryline was designed very much from the patients perspective. One installation every day, for the last 3 years, proves this.
Jason Slade, Manchester, UK

To Alan Johnson, Leicester, I would say that the improvement in access to your surgery could easily have been achieved without using 0844. All it requires is a well organised telephone system which many other companies can supply. Ultimately someone still has to answer the call for you to make your appointment!
A normal 01 or 02 number could still be used. The problem is that your doctor decided to go with NEG, who promote 0844, because your doctor then has no capital outlay and other revenue costs, while his patients are paying through the nose, via the phone, for his new system (and for NEG's excessive profits). This is a very expensive solution but it is the patients who are footing the bill.
You may not see what the fuss is all about but for some people, old and sick, it can cost them many pounds per month which they cannot afford. While if they use a call plan their doctor calls could cost them nothing (all call plans exclude 0844). 0870, 0845 etc,
Mike Kelly, Reading,

To clarify the position when patients are abroad.

The consultation is deemed to be at the place where the patient originates the phonecall. As this call is abroad, the UK GP will not be registered with the medical regulatory authorities in that country and would be giving medical advice illegally.

Also, GPs will not be covered by medical indemnity and could be disciplined by the GMC for not registering as a working doctor in another country.

UK doctors when abroad are essentially lay, and have no medical privileges.

For their own protection, patients should not phone their home surgery when abroad and in all circumstances must contact local registered practising doctors for their medical care, and ensure they have appropriate travel medical insurance.
Dr C, Wales,

Dr Burrill says that he is not responsible for his patients' health while abroad, implying that he doesn't care if local doctors treating his patients are unable to get through to him on his 0844 number for details of medical history, drugs prescribed, etc. Has Dr Burrill forgoten his Hyppochratic Oath, or more recently (2006) the description by the General Medical Council of a doctor's duties:
Make the care of your patient your first concern;
Protect and promote the health of patients
A Schwartz, London, UK

The original comment on The Times website by a Mr Alan Johnson which provoked some of the above responses : --


Our surgey now has an 0844 number and finally I can get throught to make an appointment. I don't call up to make an appointment often, but before they were always engaged. For the price of a few pence a year for a better service I just don't understand what the full is about! Perhaps the confuion is that 0844 numbers are listed in the 'premium calls' rate section of my phone bill, but I know that premium rate calls start at 10p or more so this might confuse people. I'm happy to pay 5p a minute to get a better service from my GP.

alan johnson, Leicester, Leicestershire

A further 7 comments on the Daily Mail website about doctors 0844 numbers : ----

Is there no end to the display of sheer greed in British society today? These doctors have just been "awarded" a huge salary increase which obviously isn't enough, so they have to find other sources of revenue to support their abundant lifestyle.
- Kathab, Oxford, UK

It is a scandal that doctors should extract money from sick, old and vulnerable people who cannot afford it.

The bond of trust between patient and doctor is being put in jeopardy by doctors charging patients for phone calls. If doctors can be underhand, greedy and misleading towards patients on this matter how can patients trust their doctor on more important matters?

Even Ofcom are critical and say that public bodies and services should not allow higher cost phone numbers to be used. The use of 0844 should be stopped immediately. Or at the very least an alternative geographic local number should be also made available.

What are the BMA and GMC going to do about it?
- George Kendrick, Swindon Wilts

Yet another example of greed and rip off Britain.
- Alanjohn, Shoreham-by-Sea

GPs are paid outrageous salaries these days and now they have the nerve to fleece the taxpayers who pay their wages!
- Roger Kingston, York, North Yorks

Congrats on 10 years, Labour! It's much much worse than I remember pre 1997.
- Mr Reeve, London

But a spokesman for service provider Network Europe Group insisted its Surgery Line system helped patients by diverting them into a queue when lines were engaged.

Thereby creating a monetary gain where once there was none. If the surgery line was engaged people, just re dialed the number, now they are put in a queue that costs them money!

I wonder how many GP's practices would lose patients if it was more well known about these charges.
- A Connor, Blackpool, Lanc's

It is not possible to contact utility companies, banks, etc when you have genuine concerns or problems without paying through the nose for the calls. You then have to 'wait' on the line listening to a load of rubbish, then get put on hold while you wait for a 'busy' person to answer. It is about time the so called government watchdogs did something about it (by the way, you have to phone a premium rate number to get hold of them too!).
- Sp, Southampton

loddon wrote on Jul 25^th, 2007 at 10:43am:

Perhaps the confuion is that 0844 numbers are listed in the 'premium calls' rate section of my phone bill, but I know that premium rate calls start at 10p or more so this might confuse people. I'm happy to pay 5p a minute to get a better service from my GP. alan johnson, Leicester, Leicestershire

This guy must be an NEG empoyee or an NEG using doctor to make such precisely targetted comments to try to justify the NEG ripoff.

It seems clear NEG will fight to death for the right to keep their rotten ripoff system

loddon wrote on Jul 25^th, 2007 at 10:39am:

… The meaning of Premium in the dictionary -- a sum of money paid in addition to a regular price. …

Which is what I've been saying for ages and why, by definition, "standard" numbers can't vary in price.

Dave wrote on Jul 25^th, 2007 at 2:56pm:

Which is what I've been saying for ages and why, by definition, "standard" numbers can't vary in price.

What is the betting that Ofcom and New Labour use their own dictionary with different definitions of certain words from the ones that we are used to. ;) ::) >:( :'(

NGMsGhost wrote on Jul 25^th, 2007 at 3:35pm:

What is the betting that Ofcom and New Labour use their own dictionary with different definitions of certain words from the ones that we are used to. ;) ::) >:( :'(

I wonder what meaning they have for the word "premium?"

bbb_uk wrote on Jul 25^th, 2007 at 4:49pm:

I wonder what meaning they have for the word "premium?"

Extra dosh for us to stuff in our already money-laden pockets?

I have located and spoken to Mr Sefton of Leeds, who described on The Times website that he and his wife were dismissed from their surgery.   The dismissal is described by the doctor as due to his abusive behaviour and he acknowledges that he may have loosened his self control momentarily.   It appears that he was put under severe provocation by the surgery as he tried to complain about their use of an 0844 number.

Following his attempt to register his complaint he received a letter from his doctor telling him that he was removed from their list of patients and I quote : ---
" The receptionist who dealt with your query tried to explain our current practice appointments policy, but clearly you were not prepared to listen to her.   I personally explained to you that the 0844 number is not a premium rate number and that the practice itself makes no profit from the very small extra charge over and above the standard BT rate."

You could well imagine how this conversation must have gone which no doubt lead to utter frustration on the part of Mr Sefton.   It is a sad and disturbing tale.   Mr Sefton will not call 0844 numbers on principle, nor 0870, 0871, 0845 or any equivalents and I belive he may have told his doctor that.

If this is how doctors are now treating patients well into their 70s who try to complain directly about 0844, then no wonder trust and respect for doctors is rapidly deteriorating and soon they may be seen on an even lower professional level than estate agents and journalists (-- sorry that may be an insult to estate agents and journalists).  

GPs are already being referred to as greedy, profit seeking, disgraceful, rip-off merchants, overpaid, immoral and unprincipled by numerous people in recent days.    How bad will it have to get before the BMA, the GMC and the DoH do something to halt the extreme damage that use of 0844 numbers is causing?????  And then what about Ofcon getting a grip on this issue?   Any chance???

loddon wrote on Jul 25^th, 2007 at 5:14pm:

I have located and spoken to Mr Sefton of Leeds, who described on The Times website that he and his wife were dismissed from their surgery.   The dismissal is described by the doctor as due to his abusive behaviour and he acknowledges that he may have loosened his self control momentarily.   It appears that he was put under severe provocation by the surgery as he tried to complain about their use of an 0844 number. Following his attempt to register his complaint he received a letter from his doctor telling him that he was removed from their list of patients and I quote : --- " The receptionist who dealt with your query tried to explain our current practice appointments policy, but clearly you were not prepared to listen to her.   I personally explained to you that the 0844 number is not a premium rate number and that the practice itself makes no profit from the very small extra charge over and above the standard BT rate." You could well imagine how this conversation must have gone which no doubt lead to utter frustration on the part of Mr Sefton. …

Firstly, the reception is clearly arguing that it is not premium rate by the definition of the telecoms industry. But all of us who know better go by the dictionary definition of "premium" (as mentioned above in previous posts).

Secondly, I do not condone what Mr Sefton is reported to have done. But the receptionist should be trained in how to handle irate patients. In effect, telling them that they are wrong only builds barriers and is likely to inflame the situation and cause them more frustration.

A few more comments on The Times website :  ----

It's all of a piece with hospitals installing phones by the bedside which cost the earth to access. To make things worse, when you phone your ailing friend you have to listen to, and pay for, a needlessly long spoken introduction. Needless to say, the charges are similar when your friend phones out.
Who invents these schemes? To profiteer from the sick and the isolated is immoral.
I can remember a time (actually within living memory!) when we had a health service to be proud of. Hospitals were clean. Nurses nursed instead of gossipping round a "nursing station." Hospital acquired infections were rare. In hospital, one felt as safe as the technology made possible.
How did it all go so badly wrong?
Michael Bruce, Selby, Yorkshire

My surgery doesn't use an expensive code, it uses our local area code. They also listen to patients' views and have a policy of acting on patients wishes with regard to privacy and surgery availability. I am sure that if they considered an 0844 code, they would ask us beforehand and act accordingly. It couldn't be any better if it tried.
Jennifer Hynes, Plymouth, England

Although BT calls are charged at 3p per minute- BT also charge a 'Call Set Up' fee of 3p. So a one minute call from BT costs 6p, but a one minute call to an 0844 number only costs 5p. It's swings and roundabouts. I would be happy to pay a slightly higher call charge for an improved service like this.
Most places you call nowadays have an 0844/0845 number.
Liz Kerr, Leicester,

The manager of my surgery has said that they have spoken with NEG. He assured me that they won't be changing to 0844 as they don't consider it right that patients be asked to "subsidise the costs of a new telephone system at the practice."

loddon wrote on Jul 25^th, 2007 at 8:46pm:

... Most places you call nowadays have an 0844/0845 number. Liz Kerr, Leicester,

No they don't.
And the fact that most people used to use children to clean chimneys did not make it right.
Scamming people by using a rate that rides round the rules to trick people into calling revenue sharing numbers is wrong.
WRONG.

And yet more comments on the Daily Mail website : ----

This is intolerable. Making money out of the sick. The surgeries that have adopted these telephone lines should be severely reprimanded and have their funding reduced by the amount that is gained from this totally unacceptable method of adding to their income. We live in Britain - not the U.S.A. where such sharp practices may be acceptable. The NHS is free? Give me a break.
- Francis Nelson, Brighton and Hove, UK

This is nothing new. Years ago my local surgery replaced it's geographical number with an 0870 profit-making one. Only after the involvement of the local press did the practice manager relinquish his former denials that it was a money making exercise. The number was subsequently changed again, but not back to a geographical number (cheapest option). It's yet another obscene tax on the sick and vulnerable.
- Glyn, Southampton, U.K.

I am a GP at a practice which has an 0844 number. We dont make any profit from this at all. These are the facts:
1. Prior to implementation our old telephone system was obsolete and patient satisfaction at telephone access only 41% - they often got an engaged tone.
2. We applied for an NHS improvement grant on 2 separate occcassions and were turned down.
3. By going to a telephone company with an 0844 number, the income from the incoming calls offset the cost of the new telephone harware meaning we could offer a virtual queing system for incoming calls and telephone consulting. This has increased our telephone access satisfaction to 60% which is just above national average.
4. In April 2007 the average incoming call length was 2.23 min. At 1.2p extra per minute, the average call costs the patient 2.7p more. But the surgery doesn't profit from it - the patient profits with a better telephone access the NHS refused to pay for!
- Dr Tim Ramsbottom, Hitchin Herts

People on a low income will now have to think twice before phoning the GP surgery. This will affect the most vulnerable people such as the elderly or some of those with mental health problems. If the NHS needs more money why not charge people for missed appointments, or make a charge for the 40 per cent of A&E admissions which are alcohol related?
- Anonymous, UK

Quote:

I am a GP at a practice which has an 0844 number. We dont make any profit from this at all. These are the facts: 1. Prior to implementation our old telephone system was obsolete and patient satisfaction at telephone access only 41% - they often got an engaged tone. 2. We applied for an NHS improvement grant on 2 separate occcassions and were turned down. 3. By going to a telephone company with an 0844 number, the income from the incoming calls offset the cost of the new telephone harware meaning we could offer a virtual queing system for incoming calls and telephone consulting. This has increased our telephone access satisfaction to 60% which is just above national average. 4. In April 2007 the average incoming call length was 2.23 min. At 1.2p extra per minute, the average call costs the patient 2.7p more. But the surgery doesn't profit from it - the patient profits with a better telephone access the NHS refused to pay for! - Dr Tim Ramsbottom, Hitchin Herts

Don't make "any profit". How noble of you Dr Ramsbottom. So where do the call charges go that put this call over and above the price of an 01/02 call? Then in point 3 you refer to it as an "income", thus you are receiving something (the phone system) which you would have otherwise had to pay for out of your budget, leaving you with money to spend elsewhere. You have mentioned "profit" (and lack thereof) to cover the fact that you are really benefitting covertly at callers' direct expense and you consider this quite acceptable.

And the cost to your patients varies. A landline user will pay anything from 2 to 5 pence per minute on top of what they pay to 01/02 numbers. Mobile users pay anything upto 40p/min and those who have to call from a BT Payphone pay more than 10 times the price of an 01/02 call.

Now consider how much your callers actually pay to your 0844 in addition to what they paid when you used an 01/02 number. Aside from the fact that you are forcing them to pay for your new phone system, does the cost really reflect what the system is worth? If you receive 2p/min which you pass onto your providers (which I understand is a typical amount that surgeries receive), then the telco providing the 0844 which (presumably) the system's supplier appoints, keeps most of the other 3p/min. A small amount will be retained by the telco that the caller is with to carry the call.

So it is not even a case of your surgery using 2p/min of incoming call charges to finance the system. At 2p/min on a 40p/min or even 10p/min call, 2p/min is a tiny amount and reflects the inefficient way of being paid revenue from your callers [patients].

Moreso, the price of a system (product) such as this is usually determined by market forces. Supermarkets offer different ranges (brands) of the same type of product which usually vary in price. The price you (the customer) pays is the price on the shelf. It's clear to see and there is a competitive element which helps drive down prices and thus reduce "excessive" profit by the manufacturer (some may disagree with this, put in principal this is what happens for the good of the consumer).

With these telephone systems and with so-called revenue sharing NTS numbers this doesn't really exist because the pratice is the customer and gets patients to subsidise the phone system through an extremely inefficient transaction where telcos must be raking it in!

BTW, Dr Ramsbottom practices at Nevells Road Surgery in Letchworth.

Seen on the Anorak News Website :----

GPs Profit From Patient Calls      25th July

FIRST it was Richard and Judy, then Blue Peter and now we find that even the most trusted member of society, the family doctor, has been making money out of our phone calls.

According to the Mail, doctors are being accused of switching local surgeries to more expensive 0844 phone numbers in an attempt to boost their profits. The switch means that millions of patients face paying at least 40 per cent more to book an appointment with their GP.

patient Says:
July 25th, 2007 at 10:55 am
For training and quality purposes all calls will be recorded.
To be put through to a condescending, abrupt receptionist - please press 1.
To find out the results of your smear test - please press 2.
To check to see if we have your prescription or have lost it - please press 3.
To find out why your doctor can no longer make home visits - please press 4.
For any other enquiry, or if you would like to be placed on hold for 20 minutes in complete silence - please press 5.

We are sorry to keep you waiting. Your call is important to us …….


George Says:
July 26th, 2007 at 6:14 pm
This is immoral and unethical. It is a degradation of the medical profession and Hypocrates must be spinning in his grave. The grasping greedy extorting image that doctors are now creating is going to damage the profession for many years to come. If they want to use a non-geographic number then they should at least make their normal geographic number available to those patients who ask for it. Doctors should start putting their patients welfare first instead of robbing them through their phone calls. It is a disgrace.

And now in the Norwich Evening News   http://www.eveningnews24.co.uk/content/news/story.aspx?brand=ENOnline&category=News&tBrand=ENOnline&tCategory=news&itemid=NOED26%20Jul%202007%2009%3A25%3A24%3A793  

GPs criticised for costly phone numbers


26 July 2007 09:23

Doctor's surgeries have been criticised by patients for switching their phone numbers to expensive 0844 dialling codes.

While the numbers are not premium rate, they can cost up to 5p per minute for people who have call plans which would otherwise allow them inexpensive or free local calls.

Campaigners have called for an end to the practice saying it is unfair. The specialist surgery telephone service is used by several medical centres in Norfolk, including Costessey Medical Practice and Acle Medical Centre and costs 5p per minute.

Today, Jan Hardinge, practice manager at Costessey, said: “The only place you would pay more is when you have got a supplier where you get local calls included and they don't pick it up as a local call. Suppliers of price plans need to recognise 0844 numbers are local and put them in all-inclusive calls.”

Grace Yorke, of Acle Medical Centre, said: “We can't take into consideration what some people may or may not have in their own personal arrangements. The fact is we wouldn't charge any more than a local call.”

Telephone service provider Network Europe Group (NEG) argues the 0844 numbers allow surgeries to queue calls and divert them to a number of extensions so that patients are not just stuck with an engaged tone.

However, Joyce Robins, co-director of Patient Concern, said: “It is quite ridiculous. People should not pay more for their calls to their GP. It can be very difficult to get through to your surgery in some cases and you can run up quite a bill.”

Ü What do you think of the 0844 numbers? Write to Evening News Letters, Prospect House, Rouen Road, Norwich, NR1 1RE, email eveningnewsletters@ archant.co.uk or visit www.evening news24.co.uk/forums

There is a Petition on the No. 10 website which seeks to prevent the use of non-geographic numbers by GPs.

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/NGN-use-by-GPs/  Go here to vote now!!!

General Medical Practioners are being persuaded, by telephone equipment suppliers and service providers, to change from the use of local 01 and 02 geographic numbers to a non-geographic 0844 number to book an appointment and 0870 numbers for calls from overseas countries. The patient has to remember a 11 or 12 digit number as againt a 5 or 6 digit local call number. These numbers are also revenue sharing numbers and generate an income for the doctors surgery and/or the telephone service provider and encourage the queing of calls to generate extra revenue. It is not possible to make a 0870 call from most overseas counties and therefore you or a hospital will not be able to contact your doctor for information. After hours doctor services are also using the 0870 number for incoming calls This practice penalises the poor, elderly and other persons who do not have access to a home phone and must rely on a public phone box and is additional un-neccessary burden and cost on illness

Quote:

Today, Jan Hardinge, practice manager at Costessey, said: “The only place you would pay more is when you have got a supplier where you get local calls included and they don't pick it up as a local call. Suppliers of price plans need to recognise 0844 numbers are local and put them in all-inclusive calls.”

What planet is Ms Hardinge living on?  ::)

Yes, of course. She expects telephone companies (who originate calls) to pick up the tab and make a loss or increase their prices because she has chosen a revenue generating number. Pure greed and stupidity on this pratice's part!!!


Quote:

Grace Yorke, of Acle Medical Centre, said: “We can't take into consideration what some people may or may not have in their own personal arrangements. The fact is we wouldn't charge any more than a local call.”

Err, so why have you moved from an 01/02 number? Did you do some research or did you let yourself be brainwashed by your service provider (NEG??) ?

loddon wrote on Jul 26^th, 2007 at 5:26pm:

Telephone service provider Network Europe Group (NEG) argues the 0844 numbers allow surgeries to queue calls and divert them to a number of extensions so that patients are not just stuck with an engaged tone.

Not true.   It is the system that allows calls to be queued or diverted  --- NOT the number.   The system can just as easily perform these type of functions whatever the number, geographics included.

While yes the system located within the practice can queue calls, the 0844 allows something called Network Queuing. As most practices operate Advanced Access these days (ie book on the day appts) all patients tend to call at 8.30am when the practice opens. This usually results in a bottleneck as all the calls try to access the lines simultaneously. The 0844, or network, picks up each call (depending on the queue limit the PRACTICE has set) and feeds the calls to the practice as their lines become free. The number of calls in the queue is down to the practice and not down to NEG.  Some practices have an emergency option, ie 'Press 1 for an emergency' - meaning that these calls will get through straight away, whereas previously to Surgery Line the line would have been engaged as all lines were flooded with this bottleneck.

KVSimons wrote on Jul 26^th, 2007 at 6:18pm:

Some practices have an emergency option, ie 'Press 1 for an emergency' - meaning that these calls will get through straight away, whereas previously to Surgery Line the line would have been engaged as all lines were flooded with this bottleneck.

No, 999 is the emergency number - throughout the whole UK (since being introduced in the 1930s, I believe).

KVSimons wrote on Jul 26^th, 2007 at 6:18pm:

While yes the system located within the practice can queue calls, the 0844 allows something called Network Queuing. As most practices operate Advanced Access these days (ie book on the day appts) all patients tend to call at 8.30am when the practice opens. This usually results in a bottleneck as all the calls try to access the lines simultaneously. The 0844, or network, picks up each call (depending on the queue limit the PRACTICE has set) and feeds the calls to the practice as their lines become free. The number of calls in the queue is down to the practice and not down to NEG.  Some practices have an emergency option, ie 'Press 1 for an emergency' - meaning that these calls will get through straight away, whereas previously to Surgery Line the line would have been engaged as all lines were flooded with this bottleneck.

Miss Simmons,

Thank you for demonstrating to us that you do in fact have a reasonable technical mind and know full well how your system actually works.

People only became cross with you before when you tried to lie to deceive us by giving us the usual unbelievable NEG lie that 0844 was a local rate call.  I assume you have always known this lie to be untrue but as you have clearly managed to get away with it with the average non technically minded doctor or practice manager up to now you also thought you could pull the wool over our eyes?

Coming back to your helpful and unspun description of what your system is actually doing it is clear that all the system does is to provide a more egalitarian form of queuing that is less of a lottery but at the cost of patients paying more per minute, whereas engaged tones were previously free, even though redialling many times is undoubtedly frustrating.

Surely what patients actually want is a system where they can ring up any time after surgery has closed the previous evening and then enter a patient number via touch tones and be told by the IVR system  the appointment slot they have been allocated (or they could even request a slot and be told if it is still free and if not the nearest time to the requested time that is still free).  Also for all internet savvy customers its surely better to cut out the whole phone lark altogether and interact with a computerised doctors appointments diary.

However your system does not seem to be technologically advanced and still requires patients to interact with Beryl the receptionist with her biro who can only handle one call at a time and this ensures long queues at times which your company then directly or indirectly earns revenue share on.

Let me ask the following questions:-

1.  If we accept that small doctors practices are still in the dark ages and cannot yet allow direct interaction with their appointment diary online or they are worried that a computerised system would not prioritise patients in the greatest medical need then why did NEG not come up with a system using Voip 01/02 numbers which the doctor paid extra for to offer their patients a better system.  And if patients were actually allowed to shop around and choose the best doctor then they would choose one with a more modern and convenient interface and so doctors would be happy to pay the extra to have an increasing patient roll from which they make more money.

2.  Accepting that Beryl with the biro is disappointingly still the only one who can make the appointments then in order to offer patients the best service if the call queue is going to be over 1 minute then why don't you let the patient enter a phone number they can be called back on when call numbers have subsided and so they are left happy they did not have to queue any unreasonable length of time.

If Surgeryline actually cost patients no more than 01/02 calls but allowed the doctor to deliver a better service then everyone would be in favour but all it does is to accept the concept of a long queue without bringing in automation that could easily avoid it and also charges patients extra for the doctor's greater operational convenience

I must say you are a brave woman to come back to this thread in view of all that has been said about you and NEG, although like all good sales people you show yourself to have an incredibly thick hide and to never ever give up hope that you may wear a prospect down into submission if you spend long enough at it. ;) ::) :P

KVSimons wrote on Jul 26^th, 2007 at 6:18pm:

While yes the system located within the practice can queue calls, the 0844 allows something called Network Queuing. As most practices operate Advanced Access these days (ie book on the day appts) all patients tend to call at 8.30am when the practice opens. This usually results in a bottleneck as all the calls try to access the lines simultaneously. The 0844, or network, picks up each call (depending on the queue limit the PRACTICE has set) and feeds the calls to the practice as their lines become free. The number of calls in the queue is down to the practice and not down to NEG.  Some practices have an emergency option, ie 'Press 1 for an emergency' - meaning that these calls will get through straight away, whereas previously to Surgery Line the line would have been engaged as all lines were flooded with this bottleneck.

Ignoring the fact that calls to 0844 cost 2p/min more from a BT landline (possibly more from other providers and of course the fact that 0844 are excluded from inclusive packages), then can you explain why an 0844 would be cheaper for me?

My surgery uses a geographical and whilst they do have engaged tones I don't pay for this and I only pay when I actually get to speak to a human and then I'm on the call generally less than minute or two (max) to either book/cancel an appointment.

Now if my surgery adopts an 0844 numbers then I'd have to pay for being held in a queue before being answered by a human or worse pay whilst going through the endless IVR options that may be present before finally getting to speak to a human.

The 2p/min more expensive is based on calling from a BT landline on BT's lowest package.  However, there are many, many other providers out there that offer cheaper calls and cheaper inclusive packages to geographical numbers than BT so in most cases patients are probably using a cheaper alternative provider and/or on an inclusive package.

Some surgeries may try and say that its upto individual telephone companies (OCPs) whether they include calls to non-geographical numbers or not but in reality because of the high cost of carrying these calls, telephone companies dont include non-geographical numbers unless you pay a high monthly price and even then you only have a limited number of minutes (I'm referring to one of VirginMedia's telephone package).

bbb_uk wrote on Jul 26^th, 2007 at 7:53pm:

Now if my surgery adopts an 0844 numbers then I'd have to pay for being held in a queue before being answered by a human or worse pay whilst going through the endless IVR options that may be present before finally getting to speak to a human.

Indeed. Ms Simons admits that the 0844 queues calls on the network, which surely means callers pay more because they are waiting.

The reason we and patients are up in arms about this is because of the call charges. The system should be operating on a number which costs the caller no more than an 01/02 call.

Furthermore, either service providers are misleading surgeries and/or surgeries are under the impression that 0844 is "not much more expensive than" or the same as a "local" call. It is surely the provider's (eg NEG) duty to put them right on this and I refer you back to the article referred to here from the Norwich Evening News:


Quote:

Today, Jan Hardinge, practice manager at Costessey, said: “The only place you would pay more is when you have got a supplier where you get local calls included and they don't pick it up as a local call. Suppliers of price plans need to recognise 0844 numbers are local and put them in all-inclusive calls.”

Quite clearly Ms Hardinge:
1. has no idea of the real cost of a "local" call.
2. does not understand that 0844 numbers are revenue sharing (of which her surgery presumably shares in). Furthermore, she apparently expects other parties, namely originating communications providers, to fill the gap to pay for the revenue sharing! She does not have even a basic understanding of telecoms!!

I am glad that she doesn't run my GP's surgery as she clearly acts without finding out the facts.

I do not think for one min that I will convert you, I know when I am out numbered (!) - to quickly answer your questions (as I do actually have a life outside work), yes indeed patients can call their practice 265 24/7 and book, cancel and amend their appts if they wish. Hopefully this then means there are less patients then calling through at 8.30am the next day. The practice decides which appts to release to the automated system.
Surgery Line is VoIP ready and we have VoIP practices installed.
There are no practices using IVR as yet in the UK - if I am wrong let me know (!), this is a very very expensive option for primary care, so while it is being used by some NHS Trusts it isn't yet in General Practice. I think maybe you are confusing it with Auto Attendants.
I await your ever generous responses, they really do light up my day.

KVSimons wrote on Jul 26^th, 2007 at 9:15pm:

I do not think for one min that I will convert you, I know when I am out numbered (!)

It is good to know that deep below the oodles of spin much preferred by your company there is a person who is well aware of the real facts.  I do accept that there are probably endless doctors out there using hideously primitive PSTN phone systems that need upgrading but I don't see why the patients have to pay for this directly any more than they should have to pay directly for any new medical instruments or consultation couches the practice may acquire.

To be honest I think people are being a little too hard when they vent all their spleen on this matter on NEG.  The fact of the matter is that as long as a useless and hijacked regulator allows the clarity of the UK telephone numbering systems to be totally corrupted and allows lower cost premium rate numbers to mascarade as local rate, while doing nothing whatsoever to even make false claims they are local rate or low cost illegal, there will inevitably be an NEG that takes advantage of the situation.  And ditto NEG could not exist without the active connivance of the NHS who is prepared to allow hidden extra taxation on patients paying directly for their doctors new swithchboard equipment rather than saying no this is wrong and that doctors must pay directly for their own infrastructure investment out of their existing budgets.

I must admire your boldness in posting in this thread, which does at least suggest a certain belief on your part in the democratic process of open and healthy public debate.  I suspect you are probably the exception that proves the rule at NEG and that none of your colleagues would probably have any time at all for an activity which might distract them from signing up yet more unsuspecting practices and thus further stoking up the monthly sales commission rolling in to their bank accounts. ;) :P


Quote:

I await your ever generous responses, they really do light up my day.

An NEG employee with a sense of humour would horribly shatter our illusions about a typical member of NEG's staff. [smiley=lolk.gif]

But how do you square all this with your conscience when you think of poor 80 year old pensioners with no phone at home using a public payhone and having to pay 13 times as much to call an NEG doctor's surgery as they would if their doctor still used an 01/02 number.

Ah I was forgetting that a conscience is clearly a disqualifying factor for being allowed to work at NEG in the first place. :o

A further question for Kath Simons.

So precisely just how many switchboard solutions installed in doctors practices by NEG actually utilise an 01/02 phone number for contact rather than an 0844 NGN then? ;) ::)

If you always give the doctors exactly what they want then surely at least some more discerning doctors surgeries will have selected the more expensive option of retaining their existing 01/02 numbers? :-/ ::)

KVSimons wrote on Jul 26^th, 2007 at 9:15pm:

I await your ever generous responses, they really do light up my day.

Your company exploits the public. It also lies regarding call costs. 'Nuff said.

http://www.pendletoday.co.uk/barnoldswick-earby-news?articleid=3065886

<<
Anger over doctors' surgery phone switch

By Alison King

THE Barnoldswick GP surgery's decision to switch to an 0844 phone number has provoked outrage among some of its patients.
But staff at the Park Road surgery insist the benefits of the new system are more significant than any minor inconveniences.

The surgery opted to change to the Surgery Line system, which has an 0844 number, last September after a survey identified telephone access as being a major problem.

Calls to the surgery are also no longer included in mobile phone networks' free minutes, and cannot be dialled from abroad.

Patients – particularly the elderly who regularly call the surgery – are struggling to remember the long number. One said: "We were all sent a letter telling us the new system would be brilliant, and cheaper than BT.

"This just isn't true. I've spoken to staff at the surgery and had letters back from them, but they're ignoring what I have to say. They simply haven't addressed the issues I've put to them regarding the difficulty of remembering the number plus the cost, including the fact they didn't add the VAT on to the cost of calls when they gave us an example.

"All they've said to me is that it's a better system, and we are now able to be held in a queue, but that's ridiculous. The old system worked fine and if it was engaged you just called back, instead of being charged to queue."

[...]

Network Europe Group, which supplies the Surgery Line system used at Barnoldswick, described the advantages the system brings to patients with a wide spectrum of medical issues.

Senior consultant Kath Simons said: "The benefits to patients are based around improved access. As the calls enter the practice in a more structured and controlled manner, this increases efficiency and productivity of the practice. Out of hours calls also go straight through to the local provider.

"There is a misconception that 0844 numbers are premium rate, but it costs the same as a BT local rate number."
>>

Ms Simons, you are a LIAR! When will you stop telling porkies, or is it simply not possible?! If telling lies is an obsessive and compulsive issue, then you need help girl. I can recommend a good doctor, and you won't have to call a premium number to make contact.

KVSimons wrote on Jul 26^th, 2007 at 6:18pm:

While yes the system located within the practice can queue calls, the 0844 allows something called Network Queuing. As most practices operate Advanced Access these days (ie book on the day appts) all patients tend to call at 8.30am when the practice opens. This usually results in a bottleneck as all the calls try to access the lines simultaneously. The 0844, or network, picks up each call (depending on the queue limit the PRACTICE has set) and feeds the calls to the practice as their lines become free. The number of calls in the queue is down to the practice and not down to NEG.  Some practices have an emergency option, ie 'Press 1 for an emergency' - meaning that these calls will get through straight away, whereas previously to Surgery Line the line would have been engaged as all lines were flooded with this bottleneck.

To Ms Simons,
so the system in the practice can queue calls.  Then "the 0844, or network"  also sets up a queue.   What do you mean by "the network"?    Do you mean, you (NEG) have a server on which you store the calls and then forward them to the practice?   Is my understanding correct or does it work another way?
 
What is the point of having 2 queues?   One feeding the other, what is the benefit?

"...most practices operate Advanced Access these days (ie book on the day appts) ..."    Don't you mean time limited access?  or restricted access?    Old fashioned retarded access?    Surely Advanced Access would be booking in advance, say next day or next few days?  Or even better, on-line access to the doctor's appointments diary for on-line booking using advanced techniques, as some practices already do?     Your use of the word Advanced seems to be an abuse of the English language --- or is it just another of the NEG lies designed to mislead and confuse the public (and maybe the doctors?)?

"Some practices have an emergency option, ie 'Press 1 for an emergency' - meaning that these calls will get through straight away..."     Do you mean these calls simply jump to the front of the queue?    They still won't be answered if the receptionist/s are engaged.     This is still not a benefit or feature of 0844 ---- it is a very simple bit of programming in the "system".    

"The number of calls in the queue is down to the practice and not down to NEG."     Which queue are you talking about here?     Can the doctor set the limit for both queues?    

Early Day Motions tabled between
23 - 27 July 2007

24.7.07
1989
Mrs Sharon Hodgson
COST OF CALLING DOCTORS' SURGERIES

1989 COST OF CALLING DOCTORS' SURGERIES 24:7:07
Mrs Sharon Hodgson
Bob Spink
Andrew George
Bob Russell
Mr Andrew Dismore
Stephen Williams
* 27
Mr Gordon Marsden Chris McCafferty Mr Neil Gerrard
Philip Davies Peter Bottomley Mr Phil Willis
Mr Edward O'Hara Mrs Betty Williams Clive Efford
Mr Colin Breed Mrs Ann Cryer Sandra Gidley

That this House strongly deplores the practice of doctors' surgeries setting up more expensive telephone numbers with an 0844 prefix, which are up to four pence a minute more expensive to call from a standard BT landline, through which patients have to book appointments, although the telephone watchdog Ofcom is rightly critical of the idea; believes that this unfairly penalises the less well off; and urges the greater use of geographical telephone numbers for such purposes.

Surely if the comparison includes mobile phones then it can be argued 0844 numbers are up to 30p per minute more expensive and the motion needs to condemn the sluggardly inaction of Ofcom over this issue rather than praising the evil conniving so and sos.

NGMsGhost wrote on Jul 28^th, 2007 at 7:01am:

Surely if the comparison includes mobile phones then it can be argued 0844 numbers are up to 30p per minute more expensive and the motion needs to condemn the sluggardly inaction of Ofcom over this issue rather than praising the evil conniving so and sos.

Your comments are just too important to allow them to be wasted.   Why don't you contact or email Sharon Hodgson MP who tabled this motion, telling her that contributors on this site are fully supportive, and suggest how she could make this motion more telling, informative and effective?

This is massive progress in our campaign (I think we can now feel that we are beginning to get a campaign under way) and to get MPs to initiate action like this is surely one of our prime objectives.   Considering we have not yet met to formally plan a 'campaign' and indeed as far as I know we don't yet have a plan as such, we are making remarkable progress.   '0870' is already dead in the water and is now awaiting its inevitable demise February 08, so, one down 3 to go!

loddon wrote on Jul 28^th, 2007 at 9:00am:

0870' is already dead in the water and is now awaiting its inevitable demise February 08, so, one down 3 to go!

But its deadly and more expensive sibling 0871 is waiting in the wings to almost fully replace it thanks to the connivance of double dealing, double talking Ofcom and ICSTIS. :o >:( :'(

And perhaps some like the BBC will instead go to 0844 at 5p per minute at all times where there is no ICSTIS control at all.  After all if doctors can use 0844 with the DH's approval then why not the BBC..................................

The Oxford Times carried this story back in May : -----

http://www.thisisoxfordshire.co.uk/search/display.var.1414452.0.high_cost_calls_cause_concern.php

Here is the text : -------

High cost calls cause concern
By Victoria Owen

Watchdogs are concerned patients are being forced to use high cost phone lines to call their GP surgeries.

The Oxfordshire Primary Care Trust patient and public involvement forum (PPIF) said the use of 0844 numbers by family doctors was placing an "unfair financial burden" on pensioners, the chronically ill and the disabled.

Members have complained to the trust and Banbury MP Tony Baldry, has raised its concerns with Health Minister Rosie Winterton.

advertisement
In a letter to the trust, the forum said: "The use of these high cost phone numbers for patients to contact their surgery or health centre not only places an unfair financial burden on those least able to bear it, but is discriminatory in placing an unfair financial burden on people with the greatest number of health needs.

"People such as old age pensioners, chronically sick and disabled others and any persons on low incomes are most disadvantaged by enforced use of these numbers."

Earlier this year, the Oxford Mail highlighted the problem after pensioner William Hughes, 78, of Compton Drive, Abingdon, complained that a 14 minute call to his doctor at the Malthouse Surgery, had cost 63p.

Two years ago, the Government said 0844 numbers would replace premium and national rate numbers to ensure patients did not have to pay for expensive calls.

Mr Baldry said there was confusion about the price of calling the code, which while costing 5p a minute from a BT landline, could cost as much as 35p a minute from a mobile phone.

He claimed some people ended up paying more under the new scheme, which was unacceptable.

He said: "It's the Gov- ernment's responsibility to ensure this change is enacted, and if it hasn't happened then the Department of Health is failing patients.

"However, I think the problem may be unintentional but no less damaging for patients' pockets. I understand that 0844 numbers can be charged at different rates."

One 0844 provider, Network Europe Group, said calls from the code cost about the same as calling a local BT number and should not increase if a patient phoned from a mobile.

Spokesman Alastair Campbell said the main advantage of the system was people calling their GPs did not have to spend time redialling after getting an engaged tone.

He added: "Sometimes, there maybe 20 people calling at a time, and with a BT number a GP would have to have about 20 lines into the surgery to eradicate this, which would be too expensive. With 0844 numbers, you can have as many lines as you like, so the patient can choose to wait or dial again later if it's not urgent.

"Studies we've done show the average patient spends about 5p more a year as a result, which isn't very much for the service."

Alison Brumfitt of Oxfordshire PCT, said: "0844 numbers are lo-call numbers and are in line with the Government's policy that GPs shouldn't use high rate numbers. If any patient gets their bill and finds they've been charged a premium rate by their surgery, they should contact us and we will look into it."

loddon wrote on Jul 28^th, 2007 at 2:21pm:

One 0844 provider, Network Europe Group, said calls from the code cost about the same as calling a local BT number and should not increase if a patient phoned from a mobile.

A case of liars, damned liars and off the end of the scale NEG liars! >:( >:( >:(


Quote:

Spokesman Alastair Campbell said the main advantage of the system was people calling their GPs did not have to spend time redialling after getting an engaged tone. He added: "Sometimes, there maybe 20 people calling at a time, and with a BT number a GP would have to have about 20 lines into the surgery to eradicate this, which would be too expensive. With 0844 numbers, you can have as many lines as you like, so the patient can choose to wait or dial again later if it's not urgent.

No Mr Alistair Top NEG Liar Campbell the main advantage of the new system is to you NEG because thousands of calls a week to every doctor's surgery that used to get the free engaged tone now all connect and earn you NEG and/or your doctor's practices revenue share money on every resulting connection charge, even if a huge percentage of patients then hang up before they speak to a receptionist.

As for only costing 5p per patient per year extra clearly that is just yet a further blatant bare faced lie but then NEG and its staff are all bare faced blatant wholly unprincpled liars who rely on selling their systems to imbecilic GP pratcice managers with a similar lack of conscience and principles who tell their GP bosses that they are getting something for nothing without mentioning that this involves stealing from the pockets of their patients every single time they call their doctor. :o >:( >:( >:(


Quote:

Alison Brumfitt of Oxfordshire PCT, said: "0844 numbers are lo-call numbers and are in line with the Government's policy that GPs shouldn't use high rate numbers. If any patient gets their bill and finds they've been charged a premium rate by their surgery, they should contact us and we will look into it."

Well according to the dictionary Ms Brumfitt calling an NEG doctor's surgery definitely involves a premium over normal 01/02 calls and BT call it a Special Rate Service number.  So do you still maintain these calls are only at lo-call rate?

Anyhow you are lieing on that too as the term "lo-call" was only ever relevant to 0845 numbers (which can be included in BT Friends and Family unlike 0844) and whilst now withdrawn by BT it was never ever able to be used for 0844 numbers, which have never had any connection with local call prices.

Does anyone notice a pattern here? It seems everyone who tries to defend NEG's ripoff service is forced to resort to bare faced lieing in order to do so. ;) :o >:( >:( >:(

NGMsGhost wrote on Jul 28^th, 2007 at 5:06pm:

Anyhow you are lieing on that too as the term "lo-call" was only ever relevant to 0845 numbers (which can be included in BT Friends and Family unlike 0844) and whilst now withdrawn by BT it was never ever able to be used for 0844 numbers, which have never had any connection with local call prices.

Indeed. 0844 and 0871 are referred to by BT as "ContactCall".

Details on how BT promotes 08xx numbers on its website here.

NEG mentions "lo-call" here, with respect to 0844 and, naturally, "national rate" with respect to 0870.

Dave wrote on Jul 28^th, 2007 at 8:10pm:

Indeed. 0844 and 0871 are referred to by BT as "ContactCall".

BT's phone books for many years referred to all 084 and 087 numbers as "Special Rate Services".

Whatever they call them they are still a Premium Rate number that is simply using another name.

 
Quote:

Details on how BT promotes 08xx numbers on its website here.

It is interesting that BT claim on their web site for 0844 that there is no revenue share with these numbers.

http://www.productsandservices.bt.com/btbusinessProducts/displayProduct.do?productId=BTB-6716


Quote:

Revenue share - No revenue share with this number

Does this actually mean that every 0844 surgery number is registered with NEG, who - of course - charge the full amount of 5p, making no co-payment themselves? They then - presumably - can determine if they give anything back to the surgery by way of rebate, or keep the entire call charge themselves


Quote:

Costs - Please note: If you decide to pay 1p per minute for the call, your customer will pay the remaining 4p per minute. If you pay 2p per minute, your customer will pay the remaining 3p and so on.

And...don't you just love the bare faced cheek of BT who really sit grinning like the cat that ate the cream. They can be seen to wash their hands of the whole scam - when, in fact, they are in it so far only the soles of their feet are showing! I've long maintained that this is where the REAL blame lies. Contact Call! Huh! Rip Off Call I'd term it.....

mikeinnc wrote on Jul 28^th, 2007 at 9:00pm:

And...don't you just love the bare faced cheek of BT who really sit grinning like the cat that ate the cream. They can be seen to wash their hands of the whole scam - when, in fact, they are in it so far only the soles of their feet are showing! I've long maintained that this is where the REAL blame lies. Contact Call! Huh! Rip Off Call I'd term it.....

Yes the real blame lies with BT and their major incumbent telco bretheren elsewhere in Europe who invented this ripoff revenue share concept and with the regulators OFTEL and now Ofcom who have consistently worked away in darkened smoke filled rooms (eg Ofcom NTS Focus Group) with the telco industry to widen and extend these abuses while tut-tutting and pretending that they are concerned about them to the citizen consumer.

NGMsGhost wrote on Jul 28^th, 2007 at 10:19pm:

Yes the real blame lies with BT and their major incumbent telco bretheren elsewhere in Europe who invented this ripoff revenue share

A few years back when an 0845/0870 cost the same as a local/national geo, did revenue share exist back then?  I'm sure that companies/gov depts had to contribute to the cost of the call (specifically for 0845 anyhow).  I realise that when different local/national rates were scrapped that meant more revenue for CPs which meant some of this revenue was then passed on to company/gov dept using the numbers and basically since then and the fact that CPs continued to market 08x as being local or national rate but with the added bonus of allowing revenue share to the company/gov dept then that's when nearly every company in the UK moved to an 08x.

bbb_uk wrote on Jul 29^th, 2007 at 8:29am:

A few years back when an 0845/0870 cost the same as a local/national geo, did revenue share exist back then?

It did for 0870.


Quote:

I'm sure that companies/gov depts had to contribute to the cost of the call (specifically for 0845 anyhow).

They had to pay the difference between local and national rate on non-local incoming calls on 0345 numbers.

Well, well, well.  Don't you seem to know rather a lot about this subject for somone who is allegedly only the director of a hospital radio station pw4. ;) ::) :P

NGMsGhost wrote on Jul 29^th, 2007 at 12:31pm:

Well, well, well.  Don't you seem to know rather a lot about this subject for somone who is allegedly only the director of a hospital radio station pw4. ;) ::) :P

I think you confuse me with someone else. I am involved in hospital broadcasting, but I am not a manager or 'director' of a station and have never claimed to be.  :-?

pw4 wrote on Jul 29^th, 2007 at 4:14pm:

I think you confuse me with someone else. I am involved in hospital broadcasting, but I am not a manager or 'director' of a station and have never claimed to be.  :-?

I knew you were involved in hospital radio and may wrongly have thought you were the MD of such a station.

Perhaps in fact you are merely involved in hospital radio but also a director of another business in the telecoms industry as well? ;)

NGMsGhost wrote on Jul 29^th, 2007 at 4:25pm:

I knew you were involved in hospital radio and may wrongly have thought you were the MD of such a station.

As I suspected: you were confusing me with DC.


Quote:

Perhaps in fact you are merely involved in hospital radio but also a director of another business in the telecoms industry as well? ;)

I've never been a director of anything. :(
My day job is in the broadcasting industry.
I worked for BT very briefly in the 1980s driving a yellow van, climbing up poles and putting A108s through people's letterboxes and such stuff.

pw4 wrote on Jul 29^th, 2007 at 4:40pm:

NGMsGhost wrote on Jul 29th, 2007 at 4:25pm: Perhaps in fact you are merely involved in hospital radio but also a director of another business in the telecoms industry as well? ;) As I suspected: you were confusing me with DC. I've never been a director of anything. :( My day job is in the broadcasting industry. I worked for BT very briefly in the 1980s driving a yellow van, climbing up poles and putting A108s through people's letterboxes and such stuff.

Actually I had forgotten about DC altogether.  But perhaps you and he have become a sort of amalgam in my mind.  Apologies for any incorrect associations therefore.

What is an A108 though?

NGMsGhost wrote on Jul 29^th, 2007 at 4:47pm:

Actually I had forgotten about DC altogether.  But perhaps you and he have become a sort of amalgam in my mind.  Apologies for any in correct associations therefore.

It's actually easy to distinguish us. I'm not going bald.


Quote:

What is an A108 though?

It was - possibly still is - a pre-printed postcard. The logo changed frequently, and the wording changed occasionally, but is along the lines of "I called. You weren't in. Tough.", with blank spaces for the technician's name, the date, and the time, which the technician would leave blank so that the subscriber couldn't point out that they were at home at the stated time but the technician hadn't rung the bell or knocked. The card quoted a number for the subscriber to call (from their phone that didn't work) to arrange an appoinment, and a different technician would be duly dispatched at a different time to that arranged and put another A108 through the letterbox.
Incidentaly, if the subscriber called to arrange an appointment from a payphone, the call would automatically cut off exactly five minutes after the ring tone started - whether or not it had been answered, but generally that was just as they were about to supply the convenient date and time for the appointment.

http://www.wigantoday.net/wigan-news?articleid=3069379

4 times dearer to call the doctor

By Andy Cooney

<<
Patients phoning the family doctor are being hit in the wallet as Wigan surgeries switch to a new call handling system.

The controversial new line, which can cost up to 400 per cent more than a standard landline call, has been adopted by at least three local clinics who have ditched the 01942 Wigan prefix in favour of an 0844 code.

Medicentre, on Wigan Road in Ashton, along with Hindley's Pennygate Medical Centre on Ladies' Lane, and Dr Burzar's surgery on Liverpool Road, have all adopted the higher price system.

Calls to the new 0844 number can cost patients up to 4p a minute more than calls to a standard BT landline and phoning the line from a mobile can cost as much as 35p per minute.

Callers pay a flat fee of 5p per minute from anywhere in the country rather than BT's local rate of 3p per minute at peak times and 1p per minute off peak under the Option 1 package.

None of the surgeries wished to comment but a spokesman for 0844 operator NEG, Alistair Campbell, contacted the Evening Post.

He said: "There are situations where the old system is cheaper but there are situations where we are cheaper, like if you call from outside the Wigan area for example.

"Callers to our lines tend not to spend as long on the phone and end up spending less overall.
[...]
>>

idb wrote on Jul 30^th, 2007 at 12:49pm:

None of the surgeries wished to comment but a spokesman for 0844 operator NEG, Alistair Campbell, contacted the Evening Post. He said: "There are situations where the old system is cheaper but there are situations where we are cheaper, like if you call from outside the Wigan area for example. "Callers to our lines tend not to spend as long on the phone and end up spending less overall..>

Mr Campbelll you are a bare faced liar.  It will always cost more to call an NEG Surgeryline number at 5p per minute than a national rate 01/02 number at 3p per minute on BT Option 1 from anywhere in the UK to anywhere in the UK.

Your whole business at NEG is based on telling disgusting lies to patients and doctors in order to con them in to believing it is not the ripoff that it in fact is.

You should be ashamed of yourself. :o >:( >:( >:( [smiley=thumbdown.gif] [smiley=thumbdown.gif]  [smiley=thumbdown.gif]

NGMsGhost wrote on Jul 30^th, 2007 at 1:15pm:

Mr Campbelll you are a bare faced liar.   Your whole business at NEG is based on telling disgusting lies to patients and doctors in order to con them in to believing it is not the ripoff that it in fact is.

NEG can lie as much as it wants as it knows that no action will ever be taken. Ofcom, HMG, ASA, DH, COI - all these bodies do not give a toss about how both surgeries and patients are being deceived despite each one having the authority to do something to stop these lies. NEG could probably even get away with referring to 0844 as free.

I think I need to contact the Evening Post to set the record straight with them on the cost of 0844 phone calls.

NGMsGhost wrote on Jul 30^th, 2007 at 1:15pm:

idb wrote on Jul 30th, 2007 at 12:49pm: He said: "There are situations where the old system is cheaper but there are situations where we are cheaper, like if you call from outside the Wigan area for example. Mr Campbelll you are a bare faced liar. …

Notice that the article mentions that it's cheaper to call at "BT local rate" of 3p/min than 0844. Mr Campbell was probably expecting to say that 0844 is BT local rate. Not phased by this, he pulls another mistruth (lie) out of his hat. The old chestnut about it being cheaper to call within the local area. He is clearly aware that the majority of residential tariffs do not distinuish between local and national calls and that most people are calling from within the local area anyway. Indeed, if they are calling from outside the area, they are likely to be away from home and therefore on their mobiles.

Perhaps NEG should change it's logo to something like this:
http://www.formanandfield.com/images/categories/f3020_lg.jpg

Dave wrote on Jul 30^th, 2007 at 8:51pm:

Notice that the article mentions that it's cheaper to call at "BT local rate" of 3p/min than 0844. Mr Campbell was probably expecting to say that 0844 is BT local rate. Not phased by this, he pulls another mistruth (lie) out of his hat. The old chestnut about it being cheaper to call within the local area. He is clearly aware that the majority of residential tariffs do not distinuish between local and national calls and that most people are calling from within the local area anyway. Indeed, if they are calling from outside the area, they are likely to be away from home and therefore on their mobiles. Perhaps NEG should change it's logo to something like this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/womanshour/02/media/pork-pie.jpg

Does BT Light User Scheme and In Contact Plus still exist and if so do they still charge 7p or 8p per minute for a national call peak rather than 3p per minute?

If so then I suppose that is the straw at which Mr Campbell is desperately clutching, even though only about 0.1% of callers in the weekday daytime could possibly be using this tariff.

NGMsGhost wrote on Jul 30^th, 2007 at 8:55pm:

Does BT Light User Scheme and In Contact Plus still exist and if so do they still charge 7p or 8p per minute for a national call peak rather than 3p per minute?

They still exist. There were rumours that BT Basic is to replace both ICP and LUS.  As for prices I'm not sure as it's very difficult getting pricing information from BT's website except for calls to geographical and mobiles.  It's difficult enough just finding webpages on ICP and LUS.  Personally, I'd say for LUS the prices are about 10p/min to geographical now but this is just a guess.

bbb_uk wrote on Jul 30^th, 2007 at 9:26pm:

… It's difficult enough just finding webpages on ICP and LUS. …

From the BT Price List, Light User Scheme is covered here and In Contact Plus is here.

Dave wrote on Jul 30^th, 2007 at 9:44pm:

bbb_uk wrote on Jul 30th, 2007 at 9:26pm: … It's difficult enough just finding webpages on ICP and LUS. … From the BT Price List, Light User Scheme is covered here and In Contact Plus is here.

But that means now NEG will have them too. :o :( :'(

http://www.wales.nhs.uk/sites3/Documents/222/14%20Sept.05%20-%20Joint%20meeting%20DLHB.doc

Joint Meeting

CLWYD COMMUNITY HEALTH COUNCIL
and
DENBIGHSHIRE LOCAL HEALTH BOARD

held on

Wednesday, 14 September 2005
Naylor Leyland Centre, Well Street, Ruthin


Most Recent Out of Hours Monitoring

The Director of Development and Performance Management tabled a summary report on the latest position.  She explained that the full monitoring document was very long but available to members should they request it.

There was still significant demand for the service.  Total contacts in July 2005 were 5029 and in June around 4000.  A number of callers were now hanging up when getting the recorded message that it was an emergency service; this lessened one of the problems previously encountered.  The new systems in place at the Out of Hours centre were working very well and the number of “ineffective calls” had dropped considerably.  Denbighshire appeared to have more patients attending face-to-face than other areas and this was probably due to the proximity of the centre permitting easier access.  

An important point to report was that Morfa-Doc had changed the contact telephone number because of increasing concern of the cost of the call which was significant to patients.  The new number was an 0844 number which mean it was a local-call charge.  It would cost the service more but the patients would have cheaper access.  At present anyone dialling the old number would be diverted to the new one.  All the latest patient information contained the new number.  The change had taken effect from 1 September 2005 and no problems had been reported to date.  The CHC were asked to let the LHB know if they received any such reports. The LHB Chair said this was good news as there had been concerns about the use of premium numbers in some parts of the country.  It was good to know that Denbighshire had a “low-cost” number.  There was a point raised over the use of mobile phones as it was believed “low-cost” calls were charged at the normal rate.  This would be looked into.

The Chief Executive confirmed that a statement would be made in County Voice and the local press at the end of September.  The CHC queried whether it was going into Talking News and the Chief Executive said he would check that point

http://www.wales.nhs.uk/sites3/Documents/201/PCSGMeeting-7October2005.pdf

Unconfirmed Minutes of the
Primary Care Steering Group
Meeting held on the 7th October 2005 at 10.30am
in the CHC Office.

7: 0870 & 0844 Telephone Numbers in General Practice
There were currently three practices using the above telephone systems; The DOH in
England has issued regulations to stop practices transferring to this system, the CHC has
contacted WAG and they are currently working on regulations and advice to LHBs was to
not allow practices to use these systems however, these regulations will be issued however
no timescale has been identified.

http://www.hastingsandrotherpct.nhs.uk/pct_documents/2006_documents/2006-01-26_mins.pdf

HASTINGS AND ST LEONARDS PRIMARY CARE TRUST AND
BEXHILL AND ROTHER PRIMARY CARE TRUST
JOINT BOARD MEETING
Minutes of the meeting on Thursday 26th January 2006
at Battle Memorial Hall

7.6. Questions from the Public: The following questions were received from the
public:

2. Can the Board tell this meeting what percentage of GP Practices in
Hastings and St Leonards have opted to use 0844 telephone number for their
surgeries? How does that compare with the national take up? What is the
percentage for Bexhill?
The Chair responded: None of the GP Practices in Hastings and St Leonards
use 0844 numbers, in Bexhill and Rother three of the eleven practices now
have an 0844 telephone number which equates to just over 27%. We have
asked the Department of Health for the national take up figures, but as yet,
they have not been able to supply us with this information.
3. Given that submissions made by the practices that they have converted to
0844 numbers included the claim that they would be able to fund additional
nursing staff from the additional revenue, how many additional nursing staff
are employed by those practices?
The Chair responded: The claim that revenue generated from a telephone
system would be used to fund additional nursing staff was made by one
practice who originally installed an 0870 national rate number. Shortly
afterwards they changed to an 0844 number, which as a low-call number,
does not generate the same revenue and would not be enough to fund
additional nursing staff.
4. Given the mobility of many patients, what information is provided to holiday
makers and long term vacationers to contact their practices should the need
arise, from outside the UK?
Of the three practices in Bexhill and Rother with 0844 telephone numbers, all
are amending their practice leaflets to include the number to telephone from
abroad. Practice websites are also being updated and one practice has
displayed the information on posters at the surgery.

NEG got around the criticim that GPs cannot be called from abroad on their 0844 numbers by allocating 0870 numbers to the practices they managed to con into contracting with them.

For instance my GP group practice now gives out the following numbers:

Tel: 0844 xxx xxxx    
Out of Hours: 020 xxxx xxxx    
From Overseas: +44 870 xxx xxxx
Fax: 0871 xxx xxxx  
Repeat Presription Fax: 0845 xxx xxxx  
NHS Direct: 0845 46 47

lompos wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2007 at 4:38pm:

Out of Hours: 020 xxxx xxxx

I'm amazed your out of hours uses a geographic number - the one in my area uses an 0845 number unfortunately :(.

Quote:

I'm amazed your out of hours uses a geographic number

Out of hours services are usually provided by agencies and it is unlikely that your agency got its 0845 number from NEG. If you posted the details a search may come up with their geog number.   ;)

lompos wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2007 at 5:10pm:

Quote: I'm amazed your out of hours uses a geographic number Out of hours services are usually provided by agencies and it is unlikely that your agency got its 0845 number from NEG. If you posted the details a search may come up with their geog number.   ;)

The number is 0845 120 3161. This document (http://www.bradfordairedale-pct.nhs.uk/NR/rdonlyres/32DA787D-A978-4625-8D89-08DFDF13E833/0/Publication1_2.pdf) seems to suggest it is via NHS Direct, so I doubt a geographic number could be found. However, it is run by a company called Local Care Direct - their website suggests their three call centres are in Bradley, Leeds and Wakefield, and that the centres are linked (the 0845 number probably works as their call management system - redirecting calls if the line is busy).

Quote:

The number is 0845 120 3161 ....  so I doubt a geographic number could be found. However, it is run by a company called Local Care Direct

If you ring a GP surgery out of hours in the Bradford and Airedale PCT area they are supposed to transfer you automatically to the Local Care Direct out of hours service.  However, this is not true for all GPs, but I found one which transfers automatically;

01274 637 115

If you ring this number out of hours Local Care Direct answers and it starts with a menu asking you to give your location, e.g. Leeds, Bradford, Wakefield, etc.

That's useful to know - thanks :). Do you think that would be worth adding to the database?

I have added Local Care Direct to the database with a note that the geog number should only be used out of hours.  :)

--Admin edit 13/08/07 18:52 - Posts by Simmond001 also removed in reply to this misunderstanding.

NGMsGhost wrote on Aug 12^th, 2007 at 9:01pm:

The notorious Kath Simonds from NEG ... is now accusing me of libelling her company.

Well, let's hope she does so.

It's some time now since I've enjoyed following the McLibel trial which lasted 2 1/2 years so another with a similar result would mean I can stop watching BB.  ;D

http://www.mcspotlight.org/case/index.html

No, it's NOT me or any relation, colleague or otherwise!! I don't really appreciate the accusasions, maybe next time facts should checked?! But why am I surprised when you have never made contact with me or NEG to get the facts on NEG and Surgery Line?!!!

KVSimons wrote on Aug 13^th, 2007 at 2:54pm:

No, it's NOT me or any relation, colleague or otherwise!! I don't really appreciate the accusasions, maybe next time facts should checked?! But why am I surprised when you have never made contact with me or NEG to get the facts on NEG and Surgery Line?!!!

Apologies for the confusion on the identity question caused by the remarkable coincidence of the poster in the Petrolheads forum with a similar surname going to such lengths to defend NEG's commercial position.

As to the facts I think we know what they are other than the question of the economics of where the revenue share from the 5p per minute goes and who gets what cut out of it.

If you can enlighten us further on that point it would certainly be of great assistance.

A proportion of it is retained by the carrier, the remainder of it is given to the practice. However, this amount can only be enough to pay for the actual service itself, as the practice can not make a profit. I am being guarded as to how much we give back as we are not the only 0844 providers to surgeries, many other companies in the UK now mimic Surgery Line, as it has been so successful  - we are installing 30 a month - so I can't disclose too much financial info.

 

KVSimons wrote on Aug 13^th, 2007 at 3:24pm:

A proportion of it is retained by the carrier, the remainder of it is given to the practice. However, this amount can only be enough to pay for the actual service itself, as the practice can not make a profit. I am being guarded as to how much we give back as we are not the only 0844 providers to surgeries, many other companies in the UK now mimic Surgery Line, as it has been so successful  - we are installing 30 a month - so I can't disclose too much financial info.

So of the 1200+ surgeries using 0844 numbers by no means all of these use NEG Surgeryline?  Or do NEG have 1200 and then more still use clone services of Surgeryline?

I can't imagine that the telco would need more than 1p a minute based on revenue share also being a viable possibility for internet service providers using 0845 numbers.  They probably only take 0.5p per minute.

Ms Simons you obviously understand perfectly well how this model works.  Whilst clearly one discussion to be had is as to whether it is ethical for doctors to be able to use a call rate above 01/02 geographic rates (and which mobile phone companies and BT Payphones division then seem to use as an excuse for adding a far bigger surcharge still on the basis that they seem to believe callers of these numbers are locked in to the service and have no alternative), the other matter which we find totally objectionable is NEG personnel (including yourself) actually going out of their way to misleadingly claim that an 0844 number is only a local, lo-call or low cost call.

What do you have to say for yourself in that regard given that on your own admission you are an intelligent woman with a masters degree who clearly understands perfectly well the real situation regarding the cost of these calls to doctors patients.

Yes, there are 1200 practices using Surgery Line and this number is on the increase. They do not have to use 0844, however they choose to so that the vast majority of the system is paid for.

It is classed as a lo-call rate (the 0844) as you know. We did not make this up, it's the way it is.  

I am also a patient using a 0844 surgery number; I actually have to pay for the call due to my free call package at home. This will cost me probably less than £1 a year, and for this it means that I can get through to my dr.

My father is driven potty with his dr as he can't get through, and when he does all the appts have gone. So now he gets into his car and drives to the surgery.

I know which method I, and to be fair, the majority of the public would prefer.

Of course, you are perfectly entitled to your opinion and I respect that, nor do I expect to change it.

We are aware of the arguments for and against 0844, which is why to avoid placing all our eggs in one basket we are becoming more diverse with our products, meaning 0844 is not compulsory for practices or PCTs.

KVSimons wrote on Aug 13^th, 2007 at 4:11pm:

They do not have to use 0844, however they choose to so that the vast majority of the system is paid for.

They don't have to use 0844, but I wouldn't be surprised if you make it seem more attractive if they use an 0844 number. Ofcourse they are going to flock to 0844 if they don't have to pay NEG any more money (and I suspect your 01/02 rates aren't exactly "BT standard rate")...


KVSimons wrote on Aug 13^th, 2007 at 4:11pm:

It is classed as a lo-call rate (the 0844) as you know. We did not make this up, it's the way it is.

No it isn't - according to BT, it is actually called Contactcall - http://www.productsandservices.bt.com/btbusinessProducts/displayProduct.do?productId=BTB-6716.


KVSimons wrote on Aug 13^th, 2007 at 4:11pm:

I know which method I, and to be fair, the majority of the public would prefer.

Do you have any statistics to back up your claim that "the majority" would prefer an 0844 number? I've always been told that you should never say "the majority" if you can't back up your claim. You may prefer an 0844 number, but from what I've seen, my "majority" would prefer a normal geographic number that costs nothing extra to them.

KVSimons wrote on Aug 13^th, 2007 at 4:11pm:

They do not have to use 0844, however they choose to so that the vast majority of the system is paid for.

But what they are not told is that their patients pay many times the value of their so called "free" system in extra revenue share on the calls going direct to NEG and its telecoms supplier.


Quote:

It is classed as a lo-call rate (the 0844) as you know. We did not make this up, it's the way it is.

No "Lo-Call" is a very specific brand only ever used for 0845 numbers by BT and now not used even for those (as it is NOT TRUE).  As you know full well 0844 and 0871 numbers were introduced much later as further more granularly priced "revenue share" numbers by Ofcom with prices between 1p and 5p and 6p and 10p per minute at all times.  Unfortunately ue to the infiltration of the regulator with lots of former employees of companies vending these kinds of services they disgracefully then allowed the 0844 and 0871 number codes to be used to try and confuse customers that there was a connection with local and national rate - they should have mandated the use of 9 numbers.  And you and your unscrupulous and dishonest colleagues at NEG have continually sought to exploit this confusion and the weakness of Trading Standards in failing to take legal action against your company over this matter.  You also exploit the fact that the ASA does not govern the signs doctors put up in their surgeries that you give them apparently saying your 0844 number is a "low cost call".  13 times as much to call from a BT Payphone as an 01/02 number - I think not.

Remember who we are Ms Simons and that there is no point in telling us the lies you clearly habitually tell to doctors and practice managers.  Your company is ripe for investigation by the BT Whistleblower or File on Four program in terms of its selling methods.  A hidden cam from an undercover reporter accompanying you on sales visits during their training would I am sure be fascinating.


Quote:

I am also a patient using a 0844 surgery number; I actually have to pay for the call due to my free call package at home. This will cost me probably less than £1 a year, and for this it means that I can get through to my dr.

£1 here, £1 there and before you know it 35% of all your calls are to 084/7 numbers and £150 or more a year has been  added to your phone bill that ought to have been covered by your 01/02 calls plan.  How do you sleep at nights I wonder thinking of the trail of over priced phone calling you are personally responsible for leaving in your wake.


Quote:

We are aware of the arguments for and against 0844, which is why to avoid placing all our eggs in one basket we are becoming more diverse with our products, meaning 0844 is not compulsory for practices or PCTs.

Of course you are which is why it drives us completely mad when you try to lie to us by telling us that 0844 is "lo-call".  You may get away with that lie with your doctor clients or the dimbo personell of NHS health trusts but you won't get away with it in this forum.

A lie remains just that - a lie! :o >:( [smiley=thumbdown.gif] [smiley=thumbdown.gif] [smiley=thumbdown.gif]

Just thought I would point out that the total signatures at http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/NGN-use-by-GPs/ has now reached 2,723.  Up about 300 since this time yesterday.

At this rate it won't be long before it is on Page 1 by size of the 10 Downing Street petitions website. ;) :P [smiley=thumbsup.gif] [smiley=thumbsup.gif] [smiley=thumbsup.gif]

KVSimons wrote on Aug 13^th, 2007 at 4:11pm:

… They do not have to use 0844, however they choose to so that the vast majority of the system is paid for.

That is most interesting. So the NEG salesperson explains the pros and cons of each then?


KVSimons wrote on Aug 13^th, 2007 at 4:11pm:

It is classed as a lo-call rate (the 0844) as you know. We did not make this up, it's the way it is.

It is referred to, by Ofcom, as a "Special Services" number. As jgxenite points out, BT market 0844 as Contactcall. I think I have mentioned this before on this thread, so it might fall on deaf ears, but BT now refer to 0845 (when marketing it to companies) as BT0845. It used to be called 'lo-call' and this term was used on some BBC charity shows such as Comic Relief and Children in Need.

The fact of the matter is that NEG is not being forced to use the "lo-call" term, but it does so of its own choosing. In much the same way as NEG's website mentions "national rate" with regards to 0870 numbers.

We have also seen various spurious comments made by both NEG representatives and practice's management about these 5p/min 0844s being no more than a "local call" rate.

My goodness you really are very suspicious!! As I said, you are entitled to your own opinion and there aren't enough hours in the day for me to even attempt change your mind, or even for me to attempt make you listen to another side of the argument.

Yes we do have stats by the way; we recently had a 3rd party company carry out a survey on the pulbic to get a feel for 0844 numbers and queue systems. 71% said they'd prefer to be placed in a queue, and 82% agreed that the average cost of a 0844 call was a reasonable amount if it meant being able to get through.

Surgery Line gives surgeries a state of the art phone system and improves patient access. Patients were asked whether Doctors should use the latest technology to improve the experience of patients 89% agreed, that they should.

The Survey was conducted by IMC research between July 16th and July 20th 2007 across a 4 English cities representing a spread of backgrounds, ages, ethnic diversity etc. Three hundred people were polled in total.

Don't forget the majority of our work is done through referrals, practices recommending other practices. If patients were so unhappy, and therefore the practices then this wouldn't be the case. Many, many practices comment to us how their survey's show a marked improvement on telephone access since the introduction of Surgery Line.

I will leave it there for now, sleep well.

KVSimons wrote on Aug 13^th, 2007 at 4:11pm:

It is classed as a lo-call rate (the 0844) as you know. We did not make this up, it's the way it is.

BT, Ofcom and the ASA don't class them as lo-call.  Only Communication Providers use this term because it implies it's a low cost call.

You should be aware that I've actually made an official complaint to Trading Standards over your claims that 0844 is lo-call even though BT, Ofcom and the ASA disagree with this.

Using logic, the term 'lo-call' implies the cost of the call is low but as a geographical call can be made for around 3p/min from a landline (less on some other landline providers) but yet your 0844 numbers cost 5p/min from BT landline but upto 40p/min from a mobile so surely you can see for yourself that NEG are incorrectly describing 084x numbers and this is what I mentioned to Trading Standards and why they are investigating it.

I believe the reason for Communication Providers (CP) such as NEG to continue these lies is that it's good selling practice.  You would have major trouble selling these numbers by saying "they cost more than a local/national call" even though this is the truth - instead you tell potential customers (ie surgeries) that they can get a brand new system for free (self funding) and all their patients pay is a lo-call (or local/national as you've used in the past)

KVSimons wrote on Aug 13^th, 2007 at 5:25pm:

If patients were so unhappy, and therefore the practices then this wouldn't be the case.

Have you read other posts on this subject? Patients who complain about your 0844 numbers, or call charges, either get it shrugged off or removed from the patient list of that surgery!

Why can you not provide the underlying geographic number for surgeries? That would give people the choice of calling the 0844 number or the normal geographic number. It would also mean the surgery and NEG would lose out on the profit for that call, but if 82% agree that the call charge is OK, you shouldn't be too out of pocket  ::).

KVSimons wrote on Aug 13^th, 2007 at 5:25pm:

My goodness you really are very suspicious!! As I said, you are entitled to your own opinion and there aren't enough hours in the day for me to even attempt change your mind, or even for me to attempt make you listen to another side of the argument.

Of course we are suspicious when you can only succeed in selling your rotten product by lieing to doctors and to the NHS about the real cost of 5p per minute 0844 calls and the fact that they are actually covert premium rate calls with a small p (see the dictionary definition of the word premium).  Most despicable is the fact that you could probably at least have used an 0845 number at 3p per minute and the economic model would still have worked but the greed of NEG's directors stopped it from doing so.  Instead you take many multiples of the amount the doctors receive to pay for their overpriced "free" switchboard" which their patients have to pay for 5 or 6 times over in extra priced covert premium rate phone call costs.


Quote:

Yes we do have stats by the way; we recently had a 3rd party company carry out a survey on the pulbic to get a feel for 0844 numbers and queue systems. 71% said they'd prefer to be placed in a queue, and 82% agreed that the average cost of a 0844 call was a reasonable amount if it meant being able to get through.

My brother in law worked for a couple of years at a so called market research company of the kind you mention. He left in a disgust after a couple of years to retrain as a teacher due to his unhappiness at the way he was constantly asked to fiddle the research to produce the results his clients wanted.  We all know what the answer would be if 1,000 patients were asked if they wanted to call a normal priced 01 or 02 number or a higher priced covert preium rate 0844 number costing up to 40p from mobiles and uncontactable from overseas!

Ms Simons you are the last of the bouncy unstoppable sales people who simply keep up on springing up with the same misleading message no matter how often you are knocked down because you have no conscience and no principles that prevent you from doing so.

What did you sell before this.  Double glazing or timeshares perhaps?

[edit]by bbb_uk: The next few posts were split off from this thread and merged with this thread[/edit]



NGMsGhost wrote on Aug 13^th, 2007 at 5:03pm:

Dave wrote on Aug 13th, 2007 at 4:41pm: Did the nice salesman from the telephone company not explain this to you?  ::) How do we know that NEG doen't act as its own telecoms company given the number of UK calls it now generates? If not which bunch of unprincipled so and sos is it currently in bed with?

Why have you highlighted NEG again? BT are the biggest provider of NGN's in the UK.

What is unpricipled?

Why don't you use your own name, and advise what business you are in.

simond001 wrote on Aug 13^th, 2007 at 5:13pm:

I welcome some of the cost saving benefits that sites like moneysaver.com promote, where they are a true value for consumers, and the number search side of this website (that i have used previously and promoted to my clients).

Since you apparently and remarkably welcome the 01/02 alternatives number search side of this website could you possibly be good enough to provide us with a spreadsheet of the geographic 01/02 alternatives for all of NEG's Surgeryline practices? ;) ::) :P

Then patients could take a view as to whether the so called enhanced networking queuing features of your 0844 product are actually worth paying for or whether they would rather take their chances with an old fashioned 01/02 number and the engaged tone. :-/

How you can possibly, and with a clear conscience, subscribe to your own fixed price 01/02 calls plans on your home landline and then use this website to avoid as many other 084/7 numbers as possible yourself, while then spending all your time converting doctors surgeries to 0844 numbers for which NEG withholds the alternative numbers, is utterly beyond me. :o :o :o [smiley=thumbdown.gif] [smiley=thumbdown.gif] [smiley=thumbdown.gif]

Clearly you seem to lack an ability to focus on what is morally consistent or principled and instead seem to focus only on what brings you in a large salary to fund your own probably quite unnecessarily high spending lifestyle.



Edited by bbb_uk: This post was split off from this thread and merged with this thread.

NGMsGhost wrote on Aug 13^th, 2007 at 5:25pm:

simond001 wrote on Aug 13th, 2007 at 5:13pm: I welcome some of the cost saving benefits that sites like moneysaver.com promote, where they are a true value for consumers, and the number search side of this website (that i have used previously and promoted to my clients). Since you apparently and remarkably welcome the 01/02 alternatives number search side of this website could you possibly be good enough to provide us with a spreadsheet of the geographic 01/02 alternatives for all of NEG's Surgeryline practices? ;) ::) :P.

 

No, as i keep teling you i dont work for them (or with them, nor had i heard of them prior to today)



How you can possibly, and with a clear conscience, subscribe to your own fixed price 01/02 calls plans on your home landline and then use this website to avoid as many other 084/7 numbers as possible yourself, while then spending all your time converting doctors surgeries to 0844 numbers for which NEG withholds the alternative numbers, is utterly beyond me. :o :o :o [smiley=thumbdown.gif] [smiley=thumbdown.gif] [smiley=thumbdown.gif]

Again, I dont work for them, with them etc etc...

"Clearly you seem to lack an ability to focus on what is morally consistent or principled and instead seem to focus only on what brings you in a large salary to fund your own probably quite unnecessarily high spending lifestyle."


How is my lifestyle relevant. Nor do you know my lifestyle. This is just a prejudiced opinion as you know i have a few cars.  This is exactly the bigotted comments that i have just written about.  Again. If you wish to converse pleas euse your own name and stand up for yourself.


Edited by bbb_uk: This post was split off from this thread and merged with this thread.

Oops sorry.

I confused your post with one from KVSimons who has just made several posts in another this thread.

Sorry I didn't mean to do that

But as to why NEG's scheme is worse than others its because it involves scamming elderly and sick doctors patients who have little choice but to call the 0844 number and usually little alternate choice of doctor's surgery if they do not drive.


Edited by bbb_uk: This post was split off from this thread and merged with this thread.

KVSimons wrote on Aug 13^th, 2007 at 2:54pm:

No, it's NOT me or any relation, colleague or otherwise!! I don't really appreciate the accusasions, maybe next time facts should checked?! But why am I surprised when you have never made contact with me or NEG to get the facts on NEG and Surgery Line?!!!

You are joking aren't you?! The accusations occur as you, and your wretched organization are LIARS. The NEG 0844 scam is one big public swindle (not my words, but that of The Sun, which doesn't normally mince its words:

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2007370302,00.html

Doctors' call line cash swindle

DOCTORS have been accused of using “rip-off” telephone lines to cash in on their patients.

More than 1,000 medical practices now use profitable 0844 numbers.

Calls made from a mobile cost 40p a minute and landline calls are 4p more a minute than ringing standard numbers.

Doctors claim the system saves time and people redialling.

Watchdog Oftel wants the British Medical Association to ban the system and pressure group Say No to 0870 called it a “national scandal”.

The NHS and GPs have already been banned from using 0870 numbers.

You know full well that 0844 numbers are not, and never have been, described as 'local' or 'lo-call' or 'low-call' or any other permutation designed to deceive, yet you and your organization constantly spout this description in either this forum or in comments to the media.

You know full well that, at the moment, you can get away with describing 0844 numbers in whatever misleading manner you desire as you know that no regulator gives a flying whatsit, and you have carte blanche to rip-off patients.

Enjoy while it lasts, because at some future time, the lies WILL catch up with you, and eventually, some action will be taken to stop your LIES.

You and your organization are morally bankrupt - you simply do not give a toss that some callers to 0844 surgeries have to pay, in my money, nearly a dollar a minute just to make an appointment. Now tell me, without telling LIES, that a buck a minute is lo-call.

KVSimons wrote on Aug 13^th, 2007 at 4:11pm:

It is classed as a lo-call rate (the 0844) as you know. We did not make this up, it's the way it is.

No it isn't. You are a LIAR. You use these lies to exploit the patient. Don't let the FACTS get in the way of a good LIE.

Quote from KV Simons

Quote:

Surgery Line gives surgeries a state of the art phone system and improves patient access

Does it improve patient access?  I don't think so. Patient access depends on how many receptionists there are to answer the phone.  If there aren't enough no telephone system in the world is going to alter that. Hanging on and paying for the privilege is no improvement. In most cases it would be cheaper to use BT's automated fixed charge call back service rather than pay for holding on.

Quote from KV Simons

Quote:

Patients were asked whether Doctors should use the latest technology to improve the experience of patients 89% agreed, that they should.

Lies, damned lies ... and statistics. Did the so called "survey" ask whether patients wanted to fund the installation of the latest technology? Of course not. Using the NEG logic why not ask patients to pay for the latest blood pressure meter, surgical instrument or computer system for the surgery? GPs are self employed business people who pay their business expenses themselves which are then amply and generously refunded by the NHS. Remember recent income hikes for GPs - they now earn £100,000+.  No need to feel sorry for them.

From watching this debate, I see two separate issues being discussed.


The first is the question of whether NHS GPs should use "state of the art technology" to provide the best service to patients, at a price which those responsible for managing NHS budgets find reasonable. I cannot see the problem, nor understand what legitimate interest NEG could have beyond this point.

The second is the contentious political issue of NHS funding - is this about the quality of service that NHS GPs provide to their paying customers?


As citizens we may all express personal views on this subject. I cannot see why a company, or someone speaking as its representative rather than as a citizen, would wish to get drawn into a political debate. Perhaps the NEG representative could explain this to me, either directly or through the forum.


I offer thoughts on the second issue, as a citizen.


We have become trained to see ourselves as consumers of services provided to the public. We behave accordingly, demanding "value for money" and "choice". It is therefore natural that many reject the principle of funding NHS services through taxation.


It is absurd to offer "value for money" by providing the most health care to those who pay the most tax, as they may not want it. "Value for money" is only delivered if those who use NHS services the most are those who pay the most.

Unless some options are inferior, there is no meaningful "choice". "Value for money" demands that we pay less for an inferior service (e.g. a doctor using an inadequate telephone system for booking appointments).


Charging fees for booking appointments can help meet the objective of ensuring that people only see their doctor when they really need to. For a serious "choice" to be made when considering booking an appointment, some alternative potential expenditure must have to be sacrificed.

This does not work when the level of the fee is insignificant. The NEG survey referred to in this thread shows that only 18% are sufficiently poor or miserly to be put off from using their doctor with the fees for calling 0844 numbers at their present level.

The NEG representative admits that the fee is too low to affect their own behaviour. The 18% reduction in those competing for the doctor's time actually helps to make it even easier for them to get through to book an unnecessary appointment.

The market is not working properly, as a considerable amount of resource may be being wasted.


To be properly effective, the appointment booking fee would need to be set at a level where all but the very rich (immune to any effect on behaviour by financial imposition) were discouraged from wasting money on unnecessary appointments.

This would also provide an additional benefit by placing doctors under pressure to deliver "value for money" to their customers. If the customer only pays the doctor a few pence for the appointment, demanding "value for money" does not compel the highest standards of care.


If a practice set its charges at an appropriate level it would probably get rid of some patients altogether, which would naturally improve the quality of its services still further. The principle of "choice" would not be lost for the poor and miserly as the demand in the market would doubtless be met by the charitable sector, or private social entrepreneurs, staring up alternative "free to use" services outside the administrative constraints of the NHS.


As NEG appears to wish to claim credit for having helped bring financial pressure to bear on as many as 18% of potential time-wasters, then it is perhaps to be congratulated on this modest achievement.

NEG is a business that is responding to the consumer society. It operates in a free market providing services that its customers choose to buy.

One must assume that NEG is sufficiently open and honest about the prices of its services to its customers to remain within the law. These customers fail to declare the prices they charge to those who become their own customers, or even fail to disclose the fact that they are making any charge. That is however not NEG's responsibility, unless it wishes to admit complicity in this fraud.


Picking a fight over unexceptional levels of hyperbole and misrepresentation in marketing, when NEG has what is seen as convincing consumer research to show the effectiveness of its solution, seems to be a rather fruitless exercise in a consumer society.


If PCTs and other NHS commissioning bodies allow GPs to raise revenue by charging fees, then it is for them to defend this decision against any challenge, through their own channels of accountability. NEG is only accountable through the market, to its potential future customers.

Let the government and the NHS organisation openly declare adoption of consumerism in the NHS. Let them confirm and salute the consumerist definition of "democracy" which proudly allows the preferences of the majority to override the interests of a minority as significant as 18%.

Let us decide whether we wish to be regarded as citizens or consumers in our relationship with the NHS and other public bodies. As with Ofcom's statutory principal duties (repeatedly referred to in this thread), these are distinct roles that may conflict.

(As I am formally retired from campaigning efforts, I cannot conduct extended discussion of these points in this public thread. I can be contacted by email.)

David

SilentCallsVictim,

You enter in to a long academic treatise about the rights and wrongs of charging for doctors appointments and whether charging a significant fee should be used to deter what you characterise as timewasters.  Of course in political terms many of the worst "timewasters" like widows over 70 and the long term chronically sick and disabled would have to be exempted from such charges in the same way as they are already exempt from prescription charges.

Wether or not people should pay significant fees to visit their doctor falls outside the scope of this campaign and website and this discussion forum.  The objection of this website and this campaign to doctors using 0844 numbers is that they are a non standard call rate number that are a form of premium rate number that is not being adequately disclosed to consumers.  The construction of the product by NEG and their selling methods are precisely the reason why that extra charge to callers is deliberately hidden and both many doctors and their patients are being hoodwinked in to not realising it exists.

The objection of this website and its members is of the totality of the impact of those 084/7 charges on phone bills in often adding £30 to £50 a quarter on to the phone bills of retired and chronically sick people on low income who cannot afford it and that the charges are anti competitive as unlike 09 calls the existence of the charge is repeatedly hidden from callers.

You campaigned againt Silent Calls which you had a bee in your bonnet about.  Personally I found them happening only very occasionally and a much greater nuisance was voice calls and voice synthesised automated calls from organisations trying to sell me things despite my TPS registration.  I would have thought your Silent Calls campaign ought to also have also encompassed dealing with those nuisance calls as well.

SilentCallsVictim when you suggest the main debate here is about people having to pay a fee to access their doctor you are mistaken. The debate instead is about any service using a non standard priced phone number on which it earns directly or indirectly revenue and then trying to hide the fact that these numbers are not standard rate from their customers.  You will note that members of this site do not normally campaign against 09 numbers, the charges for which are obvious and appreciated by most callers.

So SilentCallsVictim are you with us or against us as from your post I am confused as to your motivations in becoming a member of this website.

Here! Here! NGM's Ghost!   A couple of points to the preceding post by Silentcallervictim - 1) It is NOT miserly to resent being charged twice for the same service ie by call package charge and then being charged again for a particular call, especially when this is for an essential service where one may have no real choice of provider.   2)   The point about NEG providing services in a free market to those who are prepared to pay is nonsense - those who are paying are PATIENTS WITH NO CHOICE!   If the doctors were paying for the systems, yes, that is up to them but that is not the case here, they are choosing to buy the system, their patients are paying for it.   3) Why this reference to a "majority" and an 18% minority being insignificant - these figures produced by NEG were based on a sample of a few hundred and cannot legitimately be translated for represent the views of nearly 60 million people!   (yes, they are ALL patients, as you don't have to be an elector participating in democracy to be affected, babies are!)  Also, does anyone on this forum know anyone who was surveyed on behalf of NEG for this poll - I wasn't and I don't?   The question was also so slanted, most people, when asked the question about should doctors used latest technology would think of medical equipment NOT phone systems!

I believe that I share many views in common with NGMsGhost, although we have our differences, notably my distaste for ad hominem argument.

My personal approach to citizens campaigning is to focus on a simple point that is easy to communicate and hard to oppose, and therefore likely to achieve results from the efforts which a small number of people (perhaps only one) can contribute. I offer this brief response here to the point about the campaign which led to me adopting a typically silly alias for forum postings. I would see it as seriously off-topic to discuss that campaign any further, although I see an opportunity for a similar approach (narrowing the issues) to be used to good effect if seeking progress with this particular matter.

If I have misunderstood the membership criteria for this forum, please accept my apologies.

I had noted the issue of whether or not people should pay fees to make an appointkment to visit their doctor (i.e. the revenue sharing issue raised by use of 0844 numbers, as distinct from other NGNs) being discussed in this thread. I see that point as most significant and I aimed to develop it in my contribution with the intention of helping members to focus their thoughts. I am very sorry to find that a leading contributor not only disagrees with me, but rules my contribution to be invalid.

There is also much technical (if not "academic") discussion of the wording used in marketing material aimed at GPs. I see that as being of no great significance in the public domain. I see the way in which NHS GPs react, and are permitted to do so by those who commission their services, as the issue which is of significance for citizens. I do not believe that this central issue is affected to any degree by whether NEG is a bunch of crooks or an honest business with sound prinicples.


If these views, unlike those of representatives of NEG, disqualify me from participation in this forum, then I will reluctantly withdraw altogether, having expressed them once more and offering any necessary apology in advance of a predictable response.

David

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Aug 14^th, 2007 at 11:45am:

If these views, unlike those of representatives of NEG, disqualify me from participation in this forum, then I will reluctantly withdraw altogether, having expressed them once more and offering any necessary apology in advance of a predictable response.

SilentCallsVictim,

Anyone is allowed to express their views in this forum, including those from the opposition such as employees of NEG or other NGN number vending and installing organisations.  This is not a forum of the moderator on drugs who regularly closes threads just because the discussion goes in a direction that disagrees with their personal opinions.

However I find it very hard to comprehend that anyone who is opposed to large faceless marketing organisations randomly making unidentified calls to private residences does not also have a problem with a company that has persuaded endless doctors surgeries to change to using a covert premium rate number (see the dictionary definition of premium) covertly.

You even seem to also fall for the "its only a few pence per call extra for this call so what are you complaining about" argument, which seems to show a total lack of appreciation of the scale of the covert premium rate 084/7 abuses in the UK and the £100 to £200 per annum that they add to most UK domestic phone bills that would not be there if the calls were not at a normal price.

Patients of doctors do not pay a price for the service and cannot easily shop around and anyone who tries to move doctors without having also moved addresses is usually regarded with suspicion by the doctor they want to move to as probably being a troublemaker.  This indicates that GP services have all the hallmarks of a state controlled, state run system as in the private sector businesses are nearly always happy and faling over themselves to see new customers.

I applaud and support your succes on your Silent Calls campaign but I am puzzled that you now of your own volition bring yourself to this site and yet do not seem to properly embrace our opposition to all premium rate services operated by private businesses which are covert (by using 084 and 087 numbers) and to all premium rate services operated by any sector of government or any government agencies be they covert or overt.

KVSimons wrote on Aug 13^th, 2007 at 4:11pm:

It is classed as a lo-call rate (the 0844) as you know. We did not make this up, it's the way it is.

LO-CALL is a trade mark of BT! do you have the authority to use it?

BT, the Piper Device, CONCERT, It's good to talk, BESTFRIEND, BT FREEFONE and LO-CALL are trademarks of British Telecommunications plc. All other third party trademark rights are hereby acknowledged.

From the bottom of this page:- http://www.btplc.com/report/1997-98/shareholdernoflash.html

NGMsGhost

My dear friend, we doubtless agree on far more than you may believe. Please contact me off-line if you wish to continue these personal exchanges, as they do little to advance the debate for others.

I seek only for campaigning to be effective. There may be 100 perfectly valid points, but if only 5 of them are likely to enable progress, then I may be ready to bite my lip on the 95, even if that number includes those about which I feel most passionately. This may enable me to work together very closely with anyone who shares the 5, even if we disagree profoundly on all of the 95.

I see the underlying issue across this matter and many others as being our willingness to adopt the role of individual consumers on matters where we should be fighting together as citizens. Those who believe in freedom must accept that there is a place for markets and consumerism, with both the good and ill that results.

I would not disagree with anyone who chooses to describe "faceless marketing" (along with administration, computers, HR departments and commercial lawyers) as a necessary evil arising from business. Marketing inevitably includes making unwanted approaches and lying, just as all the other items listed have their flaws. Within the limits imposed by law and regulation, one must rely on those who participate in the market to sort this out.

There is however such a thing as society, so we must draw a clear line around those aspects of public life where consumerism is simply unacceptable. Each consumer or stakeholder has a value proportionate to their spending power or capacity to influence other consumers. Each citizen must have an equal value, although we recognise both their capacity to contribute to society and what they need from it.

I see both "Silent Calls" and the relationship with NHS GPs as issues for "citizens".

I hope this exposition of my personal position may be helpful to those who have reacted to the points raised in my earlier contribution. THis was intended to promote thought, easpecially from those who are content to see themselves as consumers of NHS services.

David

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Aug 14^th, 2007 at 10:11am:

Let us decide whether we wish to be regarded as citizens or consumers in our relationship with the NHS and other public bodies. As with Ofcom's statutory principal duties (repeatedly referred to in this thread), these are distinct roles that may conflict.

SilentCallsVictim, you make some interesting points. It's food for thought.

The views about whether it's right to charge 5p/min to book to see your doctor expressed by the two members who posted in reply to yours are subjective ones. Some may deem it misery, some may see it as acceptable and not bat an eyelid.

I quote my post previously and NGMsGhost's reply:


NGMsGhost wrote on Jul 24^th, 2007 at 7:57am:

Dave wrote on Jul 24th, 2007 at 6:55am: There are really two aspects that must be reported: 1. Cost to callers, whether they be UK landline, mobile or public phone box. 2. Difficulty for calls to be made from overseas. and also 3. Exclusion from 0844 SurgeryLine numbers from Inclusive Call Packages to all 01 and 02 numbers such as BT Option 3 that cost only between £4 and £8 per month these days 4. 0844 doctors calls therefore being part of a class of stealth premium rate business phone calls that are putting an extra £200 or more per annum on most domestic phone bills and/or mobile bills that should not be there. 5. That the regulator Ofcom is failing in its primary duty under the Communications Act 2003 to protect the UK citizen consumer by not using its backstop powers under the Communications Act 2003 to impose big penalties on businesses that middescribe these numbers as local or national call or low cost call like NEG. 6. That the regulator is failing in its primary duty under the Communications Act 2003 to protect the UK citizens consumer by not using its backstop powers under the Communications Act 2003 to prevent public sector contact centres using anything other than an 01 02 or 03 phone number for customer contact. 7. That the failure of the regular to adequately fulfil its primary duty under the Communications Act 2003 should be the subject of appropriate investigate by the relevant Parliamentary Select committee and/or by the Parliamentary Ombudsman. 8. That It appears that like the BBC, which Ofcom has so cheekily complained about over Premium Rate numbers that it allowed to exist, that Ofcom has entirely forgotten who it owes its primary duty to and that this primary duty is to the protection of the UK citizen consumer and not the profitability of UK businesses.

As you can see, points 3 to 8 are most probably not likely to get reported in newspapers anytime soon. That does not mean that they are any less valid discussion topics on here or that 1 and 2 will get media coverage.

But I agree with you in that to take Say No To 0870 forward, we need to focus on the bits that people associate with. This may be the cost of 084/087 calls versus 01/02 ones and the potential for companies using them to earn revenue; or it may be the charges made by GPs to book an appointment. Or is there another way of promoting it?  :-?

My Dear David,

I feel unable to draw any significant distinction between the role of citizens and the role of consumers in this matter in the way that appears to be important to you.  Indeed I would say that all adult citizens are normally consumers (unless they are in prison or a mental institution and even then they consume a limited range of services over which they may have some choice) and all consumers are always citizens depending on whom you define as a citizen.

Parliament seems to have had the same problem in differentiating meaningully between the duties of Ofcom to citizens rather than consumers under Section 3(i) of the Communications Act 2003.  It appears to express its duties to the two groups as amounting to the same thing.

I think to win this argument we have to keep it at The Sun speak or least Daily Mail speak level and I fear that in the rather esoteric and subtle distinctions you have tried to draw here that we are being sidetracked away from the main issue of people paying too much for their phone calls.

Some of your arguments seem to suggest that you think it is actually ok for people to have to pay extra to call their doctor for an appointment, as in your view many of them do so for frivolous reasons?

Also NHS doctors patients are not consumers in the conventional sense as they do not enjoy a meaningful choice of doctors and are not able to easily choose between them based on either price or quality of service.  Also due to imperfections in the market the actual process of switching doctors whilst living at the same address creates many impediments that deters most normal rational citizens and consumers from making such a change.

Dave wrote on Aug 14^th, 2007 at 3:24pm:

As you can see, points 3 to 8 are most probably not likely to get reported in newspapers anytime soon.

I would have thought that Point 3 was an entirely newsworthy point, especially for a newspaper's personal finance and/or consumer affairs reporters.

NGMsGhost wrote on Aug 14^th, 2007 at 3:35pm:

I would have thought that Point 3 was an entirely newsworthy point, especially for a newspaper's personal finance and/or consumer affairs reporters.

NGMsGhost, I think you're splitting hairs here. I agree, but it is covered by my first point: call costs.

The reason for me referring back was to illustrate that the media doesn't tend to report on (not at first, at least) the in depth ins and outs of a subject which has had little coverage to date. If it catches the public's interest, then perhaps they will go into more detail, covering other points you make.

NGMsGhost wrote on Aug 14^th, 2007 at 4:31pm:

I'm not splitting nearly as many as SilentCallsVictim in terms of the difference between citizens and consumers and their relationship with their doctors. ;)

I think he has a point. The fact is that the DOH says that 0844s are acceptable.

We are told that we must have choice in everything. You only have to visit the NHS homepage and you are bombarded with "NHS choices", note the lower case 'c' in the logo, probably cost hundreds of thousands that.  ::)

Choice means that, whatever the providers are providing, they must set themselves apart from one another. In this case, GPs are operating within the boundaries which the DOH set; that is that they allow 0844 numbers.

Some people don't like them, and as SilentCallsVictim has pointed out, people who object are in the minority. I do not read into that that he is justifying the GP/0844 cartel. He is pointing out that as patients get choice, so too do GPs and they are exercising their freedom (within the rules).

So, on the one hand you expect choice (consumerism) where you may leave one doctor for another if you consider that one is better than the other. In which case what I think SilentCallsVictim is saying is that it is the rules that need changing and thus he is really on our side.

Dave wrote on Aug 14^th, 2007 at 5:06pm:

So, on the one hand you expect choice (consumerism) where you may leave one doctor for another if you consider that one is better than the other. In which case what I think SilentCallsVictim is saying is that it is the rules that need changing and thus he is really on our side.

Well I wish he would say what he actually meant rather than approaching this as a game of forum chess.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Aug 15^th, 2007 at 5:35pm:

I find it totally unacceptable for GPs to use revenue sharing numbers.

Well that is what 0844 numbers supplied by NEG are - revenue sharing numbers - so surely you oppose them then?

The revenue share is used to covertly pay for the free doctors switchboard and a far larger amount of the revenue share goes to line the pockets of the directors of NEG and their staff for the supposedly highly skilled task of selling and installing these systems in doctors surgeries.

If you do not like "ad hominem" argument then I regret this is not the place for you since the style of most campaigning against 084/7 numbers is distinctly "ad hominem" in approach in usually directing the attacks on to those we see as being primarily guilty for the decisions taken to swithch to using these numbers.  "Ad hominem" argument is in fact frequently used to great effect in political circles but I find it is eschewed by those who might be characterised as lofty eggheads or as overpaid civil servant such as Mr Matt Peacock from Ofcom who found it unacceptable that he should be attacked for continuing to work at a body where commitments he had personally given on BBC Radio 4 about providing alternatives to 084/7 numbers were not then honoured by Ofcom.

You may have been able to conduct your previous campaign on a basis that avoided an "ad hominem" approach because almost everyone actually supported the point you were making and all that was required was a sligh technical enhancment in databases and caling systems.  But no one in the call industry lost any serious money as a result.

But this campaign involves fighting tooth and nail against ruthles entrenched 084/7 interests who will stop at nothing to lie and cheat and mislead about the reals cost of 084/7 calls in order to protect their hidden billion pound a year industry.  Often such campaigning seems to require an "ad hominem" approach to make its point.

The fact that you even seem to feel guilty about using the list of 084/7 alternative numbers as though it was somehow illegal suggests to me that you also lack the ability to see it as being immoral that the regulator repeatedly allows more and more normal priced numbers to be turned in to covert premium rate numbers, in the processing wiping out most of the so called efforts made by Ofcom to increase competition in the telecoms market over the last few years.

I have no wish to disgaree with someone who has done such good work on combatting another telecoms menace but it does seem clear to me from the comments you have posted on the forum that you are not by nature really a saynot0870er.  Ever since I came to this website and this discussion forum around three years ago I have always found one of its most attractive features to be the almost complete synergy of mindset about this issue that exists between virtually all of the most longstanding campaigners.

Once you start saying that you think it is alright for some services to charge the caller through hidden call charges as you do then the logical consistency of your being able to object to any 084/7 number conversions begins to be almost totally undermined.

If of course you can offer us valuable advice on campaigning, even whilst not shaing all our objectives, then it would certainly be welcome to hear from you about that.

Although you say you are not comfortable posting your views on this forum as things stand virtually the only way members of this campaign to communicate with one another is through the forum.  So if you are not comfortable with that this is another stumbling block to you being an active part of this campaign....................

http://www.stamfordtoday.co.uk/news?articleid=3116459

Published Date: 17 August 2007
Source: Stamford Mercury
Location: Stamford

GP surgeries defend phone number move

<<
GP surgeries have defended their decision to switch to a new and more expensive phone number.
The 0844 code, which is being used by more and more surgeries in the country, has been criticised for being too expensive.

But practices in Stamford, Billingborough and Rippingale, which switched to the number this year, have insisted the change is necessary to improve the service patients receive.

Nikki Kelley, practice manager of the Sheepmarket surgery in Stamford, said: “We moved to the new number after a customer satisfaction survey we are obliged to do each year.

“One of the emerging concerns was that people couldn’t always get through to the surgery so we made it a priority to do something about it.”

The new number was implemented by the surgery two months ago and Mrs Kelley admits there were complaints.

She said: “We did have some bad comments and there were a few problems with the changeover in the beginning but these were quickly ironed out. We are now getting a lot of comments from people who are very pleased with the new system.”

A spokesman for the New Springwell surgeries in Billingborough and Rippingale, which have been using the new number since February, has also defended the move.

She said: “Our main priority is to give better access to our doctors for our for patients. On the old system you could be waiting to speak to the one or two person on reception but with the new system you have options to go straight to who you need to speak too. Patients will end up spending a lot less time on the phones with the new system.”

The main complaint with the switch to the 0844 number has been the cost.

Mrs Kelley said the company which implemented the phone number in Stamford said all calls would cost 3.7p per minute. This was also agreed by the New Springwell practices.

In comparison, on the BT Option 1 landline, a local rate call at peak times is 3p a minute and 1p a minute during off-peak times.

Critics of the system say 0844, 0845, 0870, and 0871 numbers are often not included in the free minutes allocation of many call packages, where they are classed as premium rate numbers.

And despite the new numbers being endorsed by the Department of Health, telecoms industry regulator Ofcom has expressed its concern, claiming it is “not appropriate” for public bodies to use an 0844 number because of a “lack of transparency”.
>>

idb wrote on Aug 17^th, 2007 at 1:13am:

http://www.stamfordtoday.co.uk/news?articleid=3116459 << Nikki Kelley, practice manager of the Sheepmarket surgery in Stamford, said: “We moved to the new number after a customer satisfaction survey we are obliged to do each year. >>

Since when has Ms Keeley had paying customers?

Did this only start when they indicated a preference to opt out of the NHS in a satisfaction survey?

What other services would they prefer to obtain on a private basis?

Quote:

Nikki Kelley, practice manager of the Sheepmarket surgery in Stamford, said: “We moved to the new number after a customer satisfaction survey we are obliged to do each year. She said: “Our main priority is to give better access to our doctors for our for patients. On the old system you could be waiting to speak to the one or two person on reception but with the new system you have options to go straight to who you need to speak to. Patients will end up spending a lot less time on the phones with the new system.” The main complaint with the switch to the 0844 number has been the cost. Mrs Kelley said the company which implemented the phone number in Stamford said all calls would cost 3.7p per minute. This was also agreed by the New Springwell practices. In comparison, on the BT Option 1 landline, a local rate call at peak times is 3p a minute and 1p a minute during off-peak times.

I like the idea of "options to go straight to who you need to speak to" when I call.  I'll speak to my doctor personally every time in future then and not have to deal with the jobsworths I usually get!  Hang on though, at 8.30am, when I ring to make an appointment, I need to speak to those same one (or two?) people - so what good is that?  

It's interesting to note that surgeries have to run " a customer satisfaction survey we are obliged to do each year".  So, when next year's survey reveals multiple complaints about the high cost of calling the surgery since the change, they'll change back to geographical numbers, won't they?  

Oh dear, there's that quoting call prices without VAT trick again!  Clever - 3.7p per minute sounds so much less. Wait a minute though, they've even lied about that.  5p/minute would be 4.2553p/minute without VAT (the 3.7p quoted would be 4.3475p after VAT has been added - and there's no such charging range in the 0844 numbering scheme).  It's still vastly more than the 'free' calls people with inclusive calls packages can make though.

idb wrote on Aug 17^th, 2007 at 1:13am:

Mrs Kelley said the company which implemented the phone number in Stamford said all calls would cost 3.7p per minute. This was also agreed by the New Springwell practices.

I'm sure they cant display costs without VAT included if its aimed at normal consumers, etc.

Besides 3.7p/min without VAT still doesn't come close to the 5p/min (inc VAT) it actually costs.  I think it should be around 4.2p/min without VAT.

I bet you Mrs Kelly and the surgery have been telling their patients that to make it look like they're paying less than a penny a minute more.

OK I am puzzled now in relation to 0845 numbers and why they cannot be included in all phone packages?
Because from the 1st August 2007 BT reduced the cost of 0845 to 2p per minute daytime, and increased calls to 01/02 numbers to 3.25p per minute,(62.5% more than an 0845), now as calls to 0845 cost less than calls to 01/02, why are they not being included in phone packages?

I know the evening rate is different, but 0845 are only 0.5p per minute, so revenue share cannot be available on that cost!

derrick wrote on Aug 17^th, 2007 at 10:34am:

Because from the 1st August 2007 BT reduced the cost of 0845 to 2p per minute daytime, and increased calls to 01/02 numbers to 3.25p per minute,(62.5% more than an 0845), now as calls to 0845 cost less than calls to 01/02, why are they not being included in phone packages? I know the evening rate is different, but 0845 are only 0.5p per minute, so revenue share cannot be available on that cost!

This is obviously being done in anticipation of 1st Feb 2008 so that 0845 number users can still turn round and say they are giving theit customers a cheaper deal with BT than if they had an 01/02 number .  It is clearly an attempt to reverse out the tactical marketing error made on 1st July 2005 when national calls became the same as local calls on BT Option 1.  I expect it has even been demanded by some of the major 0845 users like HMRC to justify them not changing to 03.  It is clearly an attempt to defeat pressure on 0845 users to switch to 03.  It will also be used to try and defeat any claims that 0845 are not lo-call or local rate.

BT can afford to do this from the increased connection charge and by slightly cutting their own revenue share on these calls while leaving most of the revenue sharers money intact.

Clearly it is all part of a cunning attempt by the NGN industry and BT (who provide the largest proportion of these numbers) to try to undermine the ability of our campaign to launch an onslaught on 0845 being the new covert premium rate come 1st Feb 2008.

The connection charge and per minute charging is all part of a massive hidden price rise that Ofcom has sanctioned and is now being used to support these phoney call price cuts.

derrick wrote on Aug 17^th, 2007 at 10:34am:

OK I am puzzled now in relation to 0845 numbers and why they cannot be included in all phone packages? Because from the 1st August 2007 BT reduced the cost of 0845 to 2p per minute daytime, and increased calls to 01/02 numbers to 3.25p per minute,(62.5% more than an 0845), now as calls to 0845 cost less than calls to 01/02, why are they not being included in phone packages? I know the evening rate is different, but 0845 are only 0.5p per minute, so revenue share cannot be available on that cost!

Bt could easily include 0845's in call packages. There is a minimal rebate available daytime to carriers, but a cost is incurred by carriers evenings and weekends. There is no justification for not including them as a non Bt ngn is terminated at a telehouse, which saves the egress charge. For Bt originated NGN's they have an ingress and egress charge, and a cost associated with the IN platform. On the basis that a Geo ingress and egress makes money, there is no reason for and NGN not to.

We also have the added implication that early next year rebates will not be paid to carriers for 087 ranges. This means that Bt will charge 087 at their National rate applicable to each client. Obviously for corporate acounts this will be significantly less than for domestic accounts.  This will have the added burdon on businesses that they will be charged a fee (similar to the 0800 fee) by the carrier to recieve 087 calls.

A large portion of the cost of a phone call cost is retained by BT and not passd on to the carrier. we need to remember that BT have employed  360,000 people, half of which are now drawing a BT pension. This has to be paid for.

My advise is simple. get a job where you work 8am - 6pm. You wont ever pay daytime call rates. G ;)et a job with a Gov pension and you will work 4 years and retire on 80% final salary indexed linked
(or complain about phone companies who dont make the rules and have to compete with a monopolistic marketplace.)

Just to point out that the petition against 0844 doctors surgery numbers on the 10 Downing Street website now has over 3600 signatures and is shortly about to make it on to page 1 (top 50 petitions) of the 10 Downing street website ordered by size.

derrick wrote on Aug 17^th, 2007 at 10:34am:

OK I am puzzled now in relation to 0845 numbers and why they cannot be included in all phone packages?

Clearly, the overall charge for inclusive call packages is enough for telcos to pay the termination charges for all calls to 01/02 numbers for people on those tariffs. I accept that tariffs where 01/02 numbers are chargeable may subsidise inclusive ones.

The point is that if an NGN of some description is also included, and this particular number has a higher termination rate, then, in theory, it will push up the price of the inclusive package and/or any 01/02 calls which are subsidising it.

If this were to happen, then we would end up paying 'inflated' call charges as we do now. Thus, the only solution is to make the termination rate for 03 and any other prefix which is to be included the same as that for 01/02.

PS. Send Mrs Kelley an email to nikki {at} sheepmarketsurgery {dot} co {dot} uk  ;)

Normally posted in the 'parliamentary update' thread, but perhaps more relevant here:

House of Commons Hansard Written Answers for 26 Jun 2007 (pt 0002)

NHS: Non-geographic Numbers

Mr. Lancaster: To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to the answer to question 138605, whether national health service organisations using 09 or 087 numbers established before April 2005 are still able to use them. [144976]

Andy Burnham: Regulations came into force in April 2005 which prevented national health service dentists, NHS opticians, general practitioner practices and out of hours providers from establishing new premium rate telephone numbers for patients seeking to contact services. Existing numbers were not affected. Ministers decided not to issue directions to enforce a migration of existing numbers to low-cost alternatives such as 0844 or 0845 in the light of Ofcom's decision to review its numbering system. Ofcom has now created a new country-wide number range 03 for public and not for profit bodies, which are charged to the consumer at the local rate, and has now started allocating numbers using the 03 prefix.

The Department expects decisions on telephone numbers in primary care to be based on what is in the
best interests of patients taking account of the Central Office of Information guidance on cost to the citizen.

NHS trusts and foundation trusts are not affected by the aforementioned regulations.

idb wrote on Aug 18^th, 2007 at 12:42am:

Ofcom has now created a new country-wide number range 03 for public and not for profit bodies, which are charged to the consumer at the local rate, and has now started allocating numbers using the 03 prefix. The Department expects decisions on telephone numbers in primary care to be based on what is in the best interests of patients taking account of the Central Office of Information guidance on cost to the citizen.

So does that not clearly demand that all NEG Surgeryline number now move to the 03 area code where the doctors pay for their extra convenience and are in a position to drive down the contract cost with NEG or take their business elsewhere.

Or have I missed something obvious?  I am sure there is a get out somewhere that will allow the scammers like the annoying simmond001 to continue on with their work.  Speaking of which I really wish he would push off back to the Petrolheads forum where he clearly belongs.

And what of Patientline numbers.  Are they not telephone numbers used in primary care? ;) :-/ ::)

03 numbers lie at the heart of the NEG issue and many related matters introduced to this thread.

Ofom has proposed this as a solution for the public and not-for-profit sectors, but both we and Ofcom have yet to see just how it will work, and therefore how effective a solution it will be. That is why 084 has been left in a mess. We may be cynical and pessimistic, as history provides us with strong justification for such views. We must however wait, and do all we can to ensure the best possible outcome.

We cannot however wait for totally unacceptable behaviour to be ceased. Patients paying providers for NHS services is so clearly unacceptable that this must be treated as a separate issue in its own right. The effect of high third-party costs incurred in accessing services is perhaps identical, but the issue is separate.

It may take a little time in sorting out what to do with those already signed-up, but there must be no more such contracts (or renewal of existing contracts) and the illegitimacy of what is happening must be clearly recognised.



Ben Bradshaw, Andy Burnham's successor, is engaged in correspondence on this issue and has so far repeated the same line, which fails to recognise the significance of the revenue-sharing feature of 0844. The correspondence continues and we hope that the key point will be recognised and lead to necessary action.

Members may wish to add weight to this by getting more MPs engaged.



I note the suggestion to contact practice managers of those using 0844 numbers. It may be better to contact the relevant PCTs. The PCT is a public body with a duty to serve the public interest, rather than the narrow duty to what a practice manager may see as a group of customers who are happy to pay for the service being delivered by a private body under contract to the PCT.



Members better acquainted with the detail of these matters and Ofcom's proposals for 03 may be able to help us understand an important issue for the medium term future.

03 is intended to enable NGNs to be used with the same call charges as 01/02. Where special features, such as network queueing, are presently paid for by higher call charges, this obviously cannot be done with 03 numbers. Forcing up the cost of calls to 01/02 to cover this by cross-subsidy cannot be part of Ofcom's proposal as this would be found to be totally unacceptable. Surely, where such features are to be deployed on 03 numbers, they must be paid for by the renter of the number either as used, or by an adjusted rental charge. One must assume that this is what Ofcom has proposed

I would be grateful if someone could help throw more light on this important aspect of what will be happening. It may be that we need to take advantage of the delay in introducing 03 to ensure that it happens properly.

David

http://www.worcesternews.co.uk/news/wnnewslatest/display.var.1628840.0.doctors_cash_in_on_phone_rip_off.php

Doctors cash in on phone rip off
By James Connell


<<
DOCTORS have been accused of cashing in on their patients after switching to high rate telephone lines.

At least two practices in and around Worcester have switched to 0844 numbers.

More than 1,000 medical practices now use profitable 0844 numbers, including St John's House Surgery in Bromyard Road, Worcester, and Ombersley Medical Centre.

Both practices declined to discuss the adoption of the number which can cost 40p minute from a mobile and 4p more a minute than an ordinary landline number.

But Watchdog Oftel has called on the British Medical Association to ban the system.

Malcolm Cooper, a former chairman of the North Worcestershire Health Authority, said: "I think it's really unfair of any health professionals to try to increase their income at the expense of patients.

"I would have thought there were plenty of opportunities for low cost telephone landlines to be able to give benefit to service users. There's no need for the health service to make a profit out of people's misfortune and illness."

All three St John's ward councillors - David Candler, Margaret Layland and Samuel Arnold were against patients being forced to make premium rate calls.

Coun David Candler, who represents St John's ward, said: "It's unfortunate that general practioners feel the need to exploit their patients in this fashion. They should bear in mind that the income levels of people in St John's are well below the national average and for them to pay this sort of additional charge is quite extraordinary and regrettable."

Coun Layland, a former patient at the practice, said: "Particularly at a time when you're vulnerable when you're ringing a doctor, the last thing you want is to be charged a high rate for your phone call."

One patient, who uses the surgery but declined to be named, said: "It's a bit of a stealth task in a way. There's nothing on the recorded message that indicates what the cost of the calls are going to be. The fact that it's an 0844 looks similar to the local rate 0845 number misled me."

Janie Thomas, chairman of the Worcestershire Primary Care Trust Patient's Forum, said surgeries were trying to reduce the time it takes to get through to on the phone, "I don't think they have necessarily thought about the cost," she said. "But the cost is a problem, there's no two ways about it."
>>

Quote:

Janie Thomas, chairman of the Worcestershire Primary Care Trust Patient's Forum, said surgeries were trying to reduce the time it takes to get through to on the phone, "I don't think they have necessarily thought about the cost," she said. "But the cost is a problem, there's no two ways about it."

You bet your sweet a**s they have thought about the cost!! That's why they have done it!  >:(

Just thought, being new to this forum, that I would kick off by saying that the doctor's surgeries down here in West Sussex have followed this appalling trend of using these numbers.  >:(

sherbert wrote on Aug 21^st, 2007 at 7:55am:

Just thought, being new to this forum, that I would kick off by saying that the doctor's surgeries down here in West Sussex have followed this appalling trend of using these numbers.  >:(

Welcome to the forum sherbert.

Can I trust that you have signed the petition against these ripoff 0844 doctors numbers at http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/NGN-use-by-GPs/ and will be advising anyone else you know who uses this doctor's surgery to also do so.

Ok, will do.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Aug 18^th, 2007 at 10:29am:

Patients paying providers for NHS services is so clearly unacceptable that this must be treated as a separate issue in its own right. The effect of high third-party costs incurred in accessing services is perhaps identical, but the issue is separate. It may take a little time in sorting out what to do with those already signed-up, but there must be no more such contracts (or renewal of existing contracts) and the illegitimacy of what is happening must be clearly recognised.

A doctors practice is not a charity. It is not a department of the NHS. It is not public purse funded.

The doctors are paid to provide a service. They have to provide their own premises, equiptment, staff, pensions etc.. the same as all other private businesses.    

Unless they are offered subsidised services and premises by the government or by the NHS, why should either party dictate what business model they decide upon.  

When doctors were given the option to opt out of certain services,and paid extra for others it llowed the practice to decide the future of their own business. Increasingle the practice manager will have commercial skills in line with running a business.

I also read a post discusing how this would not be allowed in USA. That is correct, but in the USA that average visit to a doctors is $63 for non emergency. For emergency teladoc (a telephone based out of hours service) it is $80.

5pence per minute sounds cheap to me! (but then, I see the benfefit of instant access, auto appointment booking and call forwarding out of hours).

simond001 wrote on Aug 21^st, 2007 at 9:35am:

The doctors are paid to provide a service. They have to provide their own premises, equiptment, staff, pensions etc.. the same as all other private businesses.

And are they allowed to charge their patients directly for their premises or staff, pensions etc?  No of couse not, they are meant to pay for it out of what they get paid to operate the surgery.  The same thing goes for their phone systems which is why they should not be able to pass on the costs of running and buying them to patients.

If we follow your logic then it will be 5p per minute for the phone call this year and 50p per minute in 5 years time.............


Quote:

5pence per minute sounds cheap to me! (but then, I see the benfefit of instant access, auto appointment booking and call forwarding out of hours).

No I think that you and your chums who make a living out of vending services that use NGNs actualy see the benefits to your personal bank balance which in turn allows you to drive the sporty little numbers that you then like to discuss over at www.petrolheads.com/gassing/

Quote from simond001

Quote:

The doctors are paid to provide a service. They have to provide their own premises, equiptment, staff, pensions etc.. the same as all other private businesses.

PRECISELY. See my post No. 189 on this thread:


Quote:

Using the NEG logic why not ask patients to pay for the latest blood pressure meter, surgical instrument or computer system for the surgery? GPs are self employed business people who pay their business expenses themselves which are then amply and generously refunded by the NHS. Remember recent income hikes for GPs - they now earn £100,000+.  No need to feel sorry for them.

or, indeed, should patients contribute to the redecoration of the surgery, cleaning costs and the cost of paperclips?

Remember that NHS services are supposed to be free at the point of use.  Doctors should be prohibited from introducing hidden charges to patients, such as 0844 telephone costs.

We are paying for the health service through our NI contributions.

Of course doctor's surgeries are funded pubicly, that is why doctors get paid by the goverement as do the practice nurses and they get a sum of money for every patient on their books, I believe. When they do minor surgeries at the surgery they get the money back from the NHS.

NGMsGhost wrote on Aug 21^st, 2007 at 9:55am:

simond001 wrote on Aug 21st, 2007 at 9:35am: The doctors are paid to provide a service. They have to provide their own premises, equiptment, staff, pensions etc.. the same as all other private businesses. And are they allowed to charge their patients directly for their premises or staff, pensions etc?  No of couse not, they are meant to pay for it out of what they get paid to operate the surgery.  The same thing goes for their phone systems which is why they should not be able to pass on the costs of running and buying them to patients. If we follow your logic then it will be 5p per minute for the phone call this year and 50p per minute in 5 years time.............

I'd like to treat that as a serious concern but it obviously isn't.  The cost of changing numbers is high, and unless the whole NGN and PRS industry was deregualted this could never happen for appointment booking.  The cost os the call also covers the cost offorwarding the call out of hours for a lot of prctices, which saves the caller having to redial an out of hours service.


Quote:

[quote]5pence per minute sounds cheap to me! (but then, I see the benfefit of instant access, auto appointment booking and call forwarding out of hours).

No I think that you and your chums who make a living out of vending services that use NGNs actualy see the benefits to your personal bank balance which in turn allows you to drive the sporty little numbers that you then like to discuss over at www.petrolheads.com/gassing/[/quote]

Again, i plead with you to try and stay focused. The fact that i like cars does not in any way affect my thoughts. Reality is that i earn less that most GP's, so i am in the same position as the majority of users of both this site, and my local GP (who does use a 0844 number). My main business has been telecoms for ten years, and within NGN's I do not deal with any PRS 090 services or services that i do not agree with.

I urge you to accept people for who they are, regardless of their income, status or any other petty jealousies that you have. It is not conducive to your campaign.

simond001 wrote on Aug 21^st, 2007 at 11:33am:

I urge you to accept people for who they are, regardless of their income, status or any other petty jealousies that you have. It is not conducive to your campaign.

Its just that I find most people who earn their living selling 084 and 087 prefixed numbers to businesses seem to have no problem at all with being economical with the truth and misleading their clients in order to sell their wares.  NEG being a case in point.

If all these services were on 09 and there were clear pre and post call charge announcements and line subscribers could restrict access to 09 by other household members through PIN number access (indeed that restriction was enabled by default) I would have less problems with the activities of the premium rate number industry (of which the 084/7 industry is a clandestine part).  But even then I would ban all national and local government services and the emergency services from being allowed to use such premium rate numbers for contact by the general public.

You go on about how its more convenient for the call to be rerouted out of hours etc, etc.  Well fine that allows that doctor to have a better image with the patient that may allow him to get more patients and improve the profitability of his practice.  But with that being so why isn't the doctor paying this extra marketing cost of his business. ::)

NGMsGhost wrote on Aug 21^st, 2007 at 11:57am:

simond001 wrote on Aug 21st, 2007 at 11:33am: I urge you to accept people for who they are, regardless of their income, status or any other petty jealousies that you have. It is not conducive to your campaign. Its just that I find most people who earn their living selling 084 and 087 prefixed numbers to businesses seem to have no problem at all with being economical with the truth and misleading their clients in order to sell their wares.  NEG being a case in point.

who is most people? a very sweeping statement. I'd like to understand the research you have put into this. Please advise.

~ Edited by Dave: Quote box tidied up

simond001 wrote on Aug 21^st, 2007 at 2:08pm:

who is most people? a very sweeping statement. I'd like to understand the research you have put into this. Please advise.

I would suggest the ethical part of your industry has only sold 0800 and 0845 numbers and in respect of the 0845 numbers the ethical members of your industry would now be working very hard to sell their clients a replacement 03 calls solution.

The 0844, 0870 and 0871 number ranges are all about nothing other than hidden revenue sharing that is reliant on the fact that many members of the public wrongly believe them to be ordinary local (0844) and national (0870 and 0871) rate calls. The only exception is the use of these numbers by dial thru calling services who are completely transparent about the cost of the calls and state it at the outset in the same way as they do for the 09 numbers they also use to provide the service.

All the NGN number vending salesmen who have appeared in this forum and the weasel words they have then used to justify their hidden premium rate services, yourself included, have only served  to reinforce my views on the matter.

NGMsGhost wrote on Aug 21^st, 2007 at 2:55pm:

simond001 wrote on Aug 21st, 2007 at 2:08pm: who is most people? a very sweeping statement. I'd like to understand the research you have put into this. Please advise. I would suggest the ethical part of your industry has only sold 0800 and 0845 numbers and in respect of the 0845 numbers the ethical members of your industry would now be working very hard to sell their clients a replacement 03 calls solution. The 0844, 0870 and 0871 number ranges are all about nothing other than hidden revenue sharing that is reliant on the fact that many members of the public wrongly believe them to be ordinary local (0844) and national (0870 and 0871) rate calls. The only exception is the use of these numbers by dial thru calling services who are completely transparent about the cost of the calls and state it at the outset in the same way as they do for the 09 numbers they also use to provide the service. All the NGN number vending salesmen who have appeared in this forum and the weasel words they have then used to justify their hidden premium rate services, yourself included, have only served  to reinforce my views on the matter.

Effectively you have no basis for your bigotted thoughts. You have not researched this subject. You have no knowledge or understanding of the work that is going on within the industry to ensure that numbers are used correctly, that a smooth transfer can be achieved from 087 to other ranges.  

In all industries there is good and bad. Unfortunately you have decided to ignore the good and you have a prejudiced view of all telecoms employees working within the NGN industry. You have accepted that in some instances NGN's can be used (whether 0870 or other) if it benefits you financially. You do not appreciate a business case that does not suit you personally. Against all advise you have continued your tirade, with some of the worst marketing ideas i have ever heard.  

I have never before been told i use weasel words. This is just another of the many improper and unjust slants that you use against anybody that does not agree with you in every instance of your campaign. This should not be a for or against argument, but one of understanding, education and ethics.  

You will not gain the respect of those who you need on side until you learn to use these yourself.

Every time i read these posts and believe that i can help with your cause, i am reminded that you have serious personal issues with the industry. I have therefore decided that i will not participate in this forum any more.

simond001 wrote on Aug 21^st, 2007 at 8:56pm:

I have therefore decided that i will not participate in this forum any more.

[smiley=2vrolijk_08.gif] [smiley=bath.gif] [smiley=vrolijk_26.gif]

It seems you genuinely find it baffling when the usual range of lies and half truths used to successfully missell the conversion of normal numbers in to covert premium rate numbers doesn't actually work with us.

Can I offer you a clue that in trying to express your pro NGN views here you are likely to get about as much sympathy as a member of Brake would over at www.petrolheads.com/gassing ::)

simond001 wrote on Aug 21^st, 2007 at 11:33am:

My main business has been telecoms for ten years, and within NGN's I do not deal with any PRS 090 services or services that i do not agree with.

Now I am puzzled. I thought that the whole problem was that 09X numbers are reasonably well badged as Premium Rate (revenue share), whereas 08X are not; it is the undeclared revenue sharing that is the whole problem.
08X numbers were not originally used in that way. The convenience was from the (then) marginal national to local ratio funding the handling. I know, I was there...
Everyone's gripe is from the underhand and dishonest way of skimming money. UGH.

Tanllan wrote on Aug 21^st, 2007 at 11:14pm:

The convenience was from the (then) marginal national to local ratio funding the handling. I know, I was there... Everyone's gripe is from the underhand and dishonest way of skimming money. UGH.

And of course 0844 and 0871 are even more despicable and inexcusable than 0845 and 0870 since they were never ever linked to local or national rate and were allowed by a cynical and telco scams enhancing Ofcom purely to give telcos further hidden premium rate revenue opportunities without most consumers even realising that they were paying a premium rate for making the call. :o >:(

I think simond001's problem is that he has actually started to believe his own propaganda and so can't understand it when others don't.

NGMsGhost wrote on Aug 21^st, 2007 at 11:57am:

PIN number

It's PIN not PIN Number

PIN = Personal Identification Number.

PIN number = Personal Identification Number number

Why do people feel the need to duplicate the word number ?
 

A few others:-

It's PAC not PAC Code, it's MAC not MAC Code,  it's ATM not ATM Machine, it's LCD not LCD Display, it's DVD not DVD disc....

 ;)

derrick wrote on Aug 22^nd, 2007 at 11:00am:

PIN = Personal Identification Number. PIN number = Personal Identification Number number Why do people feel the need to duplicate the word number ?

Why do you feel the need to be pedantic Derrick.

I thought we were both on the same side. ;) :P

idb wrote on Aug 20^th, 2007 at 11:46pm:

http://www.worcesternews.co.uk/news/wnnewslatest/display.var.1628840.0.doctors_cash_in_on_phone_rip_off.php Doctors cash in on phone rip off By James Connell [...] >>

As a follow-up:

http://www.worcesternews.co.uk/display.var.1634166.0.inquiry_into_cost_of_calling_doctor.php

Inquiry into cost of calling doctor

By James Connell

<<
HEALTH chiefs have vowed to investigate GP surgeries who force patients to use premium rate telephone lines.

Worcestershire Primary Care Trust has launched an immediate investigation after your Worcester News revealed at least two practices - St John's House surgery in Bromyard Road, Worcester and Ombersley Medical Centre - were using expensive 0844 numbers.

Paul Bates, chief executive for the PCT, said the trust had no power to ban the numbers.

"The PCT itself cannot ban these numbers and cannot impose restrictions outside the national GP contract arrangements," he said. "Nevertheless, we are going to investigate their use and we will work with local GPs to identify alternative options which GPs will be encouraged to use.

"The PCT is aware that some practices in Worcestershire do use 0845 and 0844 numbers. We do not approve of this but cannot stop it."

Since we published our story on Saturday, the practice manager at Ombersley Medical Centre has said she is flabbergasted and gutted" to discover the phone lines are costing patients more.

Some calls to 0844 numbers can cost 40p a minute from a mobile and 4p more a minute than an ordinary landline.

But Debbie Weston said she had been led to believe the calls were at a local rate by their supplier.
"People need to be aware that as far as we're concerned we're not expecting patients to pay any more than they should be. I was flabbergasted and gutted by the article," she said.

[...]
>>

idb wrote on Aug 22^nd, 2007 at 11:35am:

Paul Bates, chief executive for the PCT, said the trust had no power to ban the numbers. "The PCT itself cannot ban these numbers and cannot impose restrictions outside the national GP contract arrangements," he said. "Nevertheless, we are going to investigate their use and we will work with local GPs to identify alternative options which GPs will be encouraged to use. "The PCT is aware that some practices in Worcestershire do use 0845 and 0844 numbers. We do not approve of this but cannot stop it."

At last a PCT chief executive who has guts and sticks up for patients rather than looking to only say what is politically correct.

Bates for CEO of the NHS I say.

Also give that journalist a medal.  One of the best articles against 0844 misuse I have seen.  If only they had also mentioned the 10 Downing Street petition against these numbers.

NGMsGhost wrote on Aug 22^nd, 2007 at 11:33am:

derrick wrote on Aug 22nd, 2007 at 11:00am: PIN = Personal Identification Number. PIN number = Personal Identification Number number Why do people feel the need to duplicate the word number ? Why do you feel the need to be pedantic Derrick. I thought we were both on the same side. ;) :P

Just a minor irritation,(we all have them), same as interviewers, presenters, especially on radio, who constantly sprinkle their conversations with "yaknow" every few words, bl**dy annoying.  ::)

NGMsGhost wrote on Aug 22^nd, 2007 at 11:42am:

idb wrote on Aug 22nd, 2007 at 11:35am: Paul Bates, chief executive for the PCT, said the trust had no power to ban the numbers. "The PCT itself cannot ban these numbers and cannot impose restrictions outside the national GP contract arrangements," he said. "Nevertheless, we are going to investigate their use and we will work with local GPs to identify alternative options which GPs will be encouraged to use. "The PCT is aware that some practices in Worcestershire do use 0845 and 0844 numbers. We do not approve of this but cannot stop it." At last a PCT chief executive who has guts and sticks up for patients rather than looking to only say what is politically correct. … give that journalist a medal.  One of the best articles against 0844 misuse I have seen. ….

An unqualified “here here” from me.

Mr Bates seems to believe that the national GP contract which he is obliged to use when commissioning local services does not include any prohibition on GPs charging patients for NHS services. I am presently highly sceptical on this point.

It is unlikely that the contract could anticipate every devious way of collecting money from patients directly in the course of delivering NHS services so that each could be specifically prohibited. There surely cannot be any clause that allows GPs to enter into a commercial relationship with patients in respect of the delivery of NHS services, even if that relationship uses the patient’s telephone service provider as an agent.

If PCTs cannot vary the terms of the contract so as to make it particular and thereby confidential, where is this document, issued by a public body, published?


Even if PCTs cannot stop use of 0844 numbers, they have a duty to advise all patients of charges made for the NHS services for which they are responsible (although not necessarily a duty to publish an up-to-date and comprehensive table of telephone call charge tariffs).

(For campaigners: PCTs have a very important role in this as they are the lowest level publicly accountable body involved. They also publish these telephone numbers as a key part of their role. Looking through their latest “Guide to local services” is a good way of finding where 0844 numbers are being used.)

David

http://www.expressandstar.com/2007/08/22/probe-due-on-gp-call-costs/

<<
Patients fear they are being charged over-the-odds for phone calls to premium-rate lines at doctors’ surgeries in the Wyre Forest and elsewhere in Worcestershire.

Now health chiefs have launched investigations into the use of high-cost telephone systems by some GPs. The probe follows complaints about call charges and officials say they will check out patient’s concerns.

Checks will be made on the 67 doctors’ surgeries throughout the county and Worcestershire Primary Care Trust says it will be “working with GPs to put an end to the practice”.

Concerns about the cost of calls to doctors through telephone systems that charged callers at premium rates were first voiced across the country two years ago.

Then the Minister for Health John Hutton introduced regulations banning the use of 087, 090 and 901 numbers to protect patients from paying premium and national rates to call GPs and dentists.

He called for practices to change to numbers which offered patients a guaranteed low rate and said that sick people and their families should not be expected to pay “over-the-odds”.

Paul Bates, chief executive of Worcestershire Primary Care Trust, said: “The Primary Care Trust itself cannot ban these numbers. It also cannot impose restrictions outside the national GP Contract arrangements. Nevertheless, we are going to investigate the use of these numbers.”
>>

idb wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2007 at 1:21am:

Nevertheless, we are going to investigate the use of these numbers.” >>

One wonders what their investigation will reveal? :-/

NGMsGhost wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2007 at 4:57am:

One wonders what their investigation will reveal?

That over 1200 NHS GPs' surgeries have already been hoodwinked into changing over and NHS patients, who have already paid for the NHS and GPs' (generous) salaries via overt and covert taxation, are now also having to pay rip-off rates for their calls and, thereby, are putting more money into GPs and NEG's pockets whenever they wish to contact their surgery?

Heinz wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2007 at 9:15am:

That over 1200 NHS GPs' surgeries have already been hoodwinked into changing over and NHS patients, who have already paid for the NHS and GPs' (generous) salaries via overt and covert taxation, are now having to pay rip-off rates for their calls and, thereby, are putting more money into GPs and NEG's pockets whenever they wish to contact their surgery?

Clearly one certainly can hope so.

But one has a terrible feeling that pressure may be applied from on high to this PCT CEO and threats about the security of his job made if he does not find that this new high tech system cannot be satisfactorily funded unless the NEG 0844 model is used.

Of course perhaps this CEO is a maverick and/or is on the verge of retiring or wanting to move on to another kind of job.  In which case he may be prepared to produce a report that tells the truth about the grotesque misuse of these covert premium rate numbers.

What this does show though is that all of you who have a doctor's surgery that uses an 0844 number must go through the complaints procedure to the top level at your PCT in order to hopefully cause other similar reviews of the appropriateness of the use of NEG 0844 numbers to take place.