http://www.thisisdorset.net/display.var.1477393.0.surgeries_charge_more_for_calling.php

<<
SOME doctors' surgeries in Bournemouth and Poole have introduced higher call charges and even earn money from patients booking appointments, the Echo has learned.

It is a double whammy following April's news of a 160 per cent price hike in calls from bedside phones in hospitals in Bournemouth and Poole. Service provider Patientline is raising charges from 10 pence per minute to 26p.

And now patients calling their GPs are paying more.

At least eight practices have abandoned their local numbers and now use numbers with an 0844 code.

So rather than paying 3p peak time and 1p off peak, callers will now pay at flat fee of 5p per minute from anywhere in the UK. Practices also get a rebate of up to 1.5p per minute on incoming calls.

Canford Heath Group was the latest to introduce such a number last Friday, but senior partner Anthony Howe said it was a vital upgrade to handle the volume of callers at peak times.

He said: "Many practices have decided to put in a more modern system to answer criticism from patients that they can never get through to doctors' surgeries because lines are engaged, particularly first thing in the morning."

The new system directs patients to all services and departments and holds them in a queue when lines are engaged.

Dr Howe added: "Hopefully 5p per minute is not going to break the bank (not for the good doctor it won't), and if it means patients can get through without the issue of a litany of engaged tones, then I think that is an improvement."

[...]


Member [Patient Public Involvement forums] Barbara Plumbridge said she had heard of a patient who rang their surgery and was told they were 20th in the queue.

She said: "If GP surgeries are making a profit out of these phone numbers, then their patients should be told."

She added: "The PPI Forum is an independent, voluntary group and if we can gather more information about this issue, we will act upon it, so please call us with your comments on 0845 4500 418." (pot/kettle etc!!!!)

[...]
>>

Why on earth they cannot just issue their 01202 43 22 88 number instead, I don't understand.

http://poole.gov.uk/familysupportdirectory/dispservice.asp?Service_id=1500&title=Handivan+(Help+and+Care)+%3A+Family+Support+Directory

Or is that an organisation which 'shares' the 0845 number?

idb wrote on Jun 19^th, 2007 at 2:09pm:

She added: "The PPI Forum is an independent, voluntary group and if we can gather more information about this issue, we will act upon it, so please call us with your comments on 0845 4500 418." (pot/kettle etc!!!!)

I Googled this 0845 number and it leads to a charity called Help & Care, based in Bournemouth. These people are either stupid or liars as they claim that 0845 is free!

Perhaps they pay their telephone provider and therefore think it is free......... What hope is there for fair telecoms when people are this naive?

And these people are in charge.

Their website has a box that says:

"Telephone us free on 0845 4500 418 to see how we can help you"

I suppose we had better give them the benefit of the doubt and just assume they are totally stupid!!

Someone needs to email / write to their Chief Executive, Mark Sharman and point out the error of their ways. He has a pretty impressive sort of CV....but then so did Pinocchio  ;)

mikeinnc wrote on Jun 19^th, 2007 at 9:28pm:

Someone needs to email / write to their Chief Executive, Mark Sharman and point out the error of their ways.

Mark Sharman's e-mail appears to be mark.sharman@helpandcare.org.uk - mine didn't bounce when sent to that address.

UPDATE 12:54 - they actually read e-mails!

The offending 'FREE' part has been removed and now reads like THIS (which, while no longer alleging calls will be free, now includes incorrect information about the cost).

No attempt to justify the use of the 0845 number though - just some blurb about '.... we have been advised that local calls cost up to 3½p/minute'

I emailed yesterday about the "0845 Free" lie, and they have now changed it .....


Thank you very much for bringing this error to our attention – we are always very concerned that the information on our website is accurate.  This has now been corrected, please accept our apologies for any inconvenience caused.  


Thanks again

Kind regards

Tiffany Kenyon

Communications Officer

This news story has been posted on the Help & Care website:

Quote:

Our 0845 Number We are grateful to members of the public who have pointed out to us that we were misleading people by suggesting that our 0845 number was free. We apologise for this genuine error. Help and Care is a charity that has strong values and we are dedicated to supporting people in all walks of life. Calls to our Information Gateway number 0845 4500 418 cost 4p per minute from anywhere in the country. We do not make a profit from this number. We did not intend to mislead the public, this error was an oversight that has occurred during the creation of our new website. We hope that people will continue to offer their feedback as we value the views of our website visitors. That way we can be sure that it is helping people in the best way possible.

Whilst I accept that it was a genuine mistake, the above text talks of the 0845 number costing the same from anywhere in the country. As well as being cheaper than 0845 for most people, that is the same for the proper 01202 number as distance is not a factor these days!

OTOH, for those using BT Together Option 1, the 0845 number will be cheaper to call than an 01 number between 6am to 6pm weekdays after 1/8/07 (6p connection + 2p/minute as opposed to 6p connection + 3¼p/minute).

Only if anyone is daft enough to use BT and not one of the override Nos like 1899,18185,18866,etc for 01/02 calls weekdays, i.e a 1 minute call on BT daytime 01/02 will cost 9.25 pence, whereas a call to 01/02 using 1899 will cost 5p regardless of duration of call, obviously the above is via a BT line or CPS allowing override Nos.

Surely people now only take BT Option 1 to enable use of 1899 etc?

The savvy perhaps, but not the millions of pensioners.

I would like to hear from anyone who has complained to their doctor or their Primary Care Trust (PCT) about 0844/0845 numbers used by their surgery.   What was the response?   Has anyone pursued another authority about this issue, in particular have you written to your MP?

Clearly our public representatives have failed in their duty to promote the common good and have instead rendered the public hostage to unaccountable private interests. I took a look at the numbers being used by hospitals and doctors in the US and found that local calls are standard.

I just picked a hospital at random from US to see how much it costs to call patients there. I chose Alta Bates, a large hospital in Oakland, of California's East Bay. Incidentally, this is the same East Bay from which eBay originates. Note that 510 is the local area code for Berkeley and Oakland. From their website:


Quote:

How to Call A Patient Use the hospital numbers below to call the appropriate Campus in Oakland or Berkeley. Ask for the patient by first and last name, or by room number. Alta Bates Campus 2450 Ashby Avenue Berkeley, CA 94705 (510) 204-4444 View Map Herrick Campus 2001 Dwight Way Berkeley, CA 94704 (510) 204-4444 View Map Summit Campus Merritt Pavilion: 350 Hawthorne Avenue Providence Pavilion: 3100 Summit Street Peralta Pavilion: 450 30th Street Oakland, CA 94609 (510) 655-4000 View Map http://www.altabatessummit.org/

All this information is posted on the main page of the site, that is to say, the very first page you get when you go to their web address. Perhaps Alta Bates simply recognize that these numbers are one of the main reasons that visitors come to their site and simply give them the information they are looking for. How strikingly different this is from the British experience.

It only remains to wonder how these organisations can survive the crushing expense of these phone networks. Do they suffer from endless engaged tones? Perhaps we should call them and ask. I seriously doubt it. On the other hand, since it only costs them a few pence a minute, maybe the hospitals just decided to swallow the cost and not gripe about it.

Now take a look at this list of names, addresses and phone numbers of doctors in Berkeley, California. It's 510 numbers all the way down, without exception.

http://local.sanfrancisco.com/Berkeley/Doctors.zq.html

This trivial exercise can be repeated by anyone for anywhere in the US. There are a few exceptions.  For example, Holy Cross Hospital in Chicago uses an 888 number. Is that a premium rate number? No--it's classed as "domestic toll-free".

I could not resist taking the following from their excellent website:
"Television
We offer free TV for our patients. We ask that you keep the volume at a moderate level, and if you share a room, turn it off by 10:00 pm.

Mail
Mail, as well as any gifts from family and friends, may be sent to your room. Ask your nurse for the correct address. Please request that the sender include your full name under which you are registered and your room number when addressing letters or packages.

Telephones
Telephones are located in every room except for the critical care unit. You may make as many local calls as you wish for free; however all long distance calls must be charged to your home telephone or to a credit card.

You may receive calls in your room between 7:00 am - 9:00 pm. If you do not wish to be disturbed, ask your nurse to switch off your phone. When you wish to make a telephone call, simply dial "9" and then the number. For calls within the facility, dial the appropriate extension or room number."

The Times today carries this brief story : ---

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article2218148.ece

"The Patients Association has meanwhile voiced concern that a retired Leeds couple were removed from a GP list of patients after complaining about the increased cost for booking appointments when their surgery switched to an “0844” number."

How many more patients have attempted to complain about their doctor's switch to 0844 and then been treated like this?   This is a prime example of the breakdown in the doctor/patient relationship which is being caused by 0844 nyumbers.

By using 0844 doctors are, in effect, charging patients a "booking fee" for trying to make an appontment in contravention of a fundamental principle of the NHS --- that the NHS will be free at the point of use.

David Rose of The Times , who wrote the story on the 23rd July  "Why it will cost more to phone your GP", obtained statements from both Ofcom and the Department of Health (DoH).

He asked them both " why they had stepped in over 0870 and not 0844".   (They took action in 2005 to prevent doctors using 0870 numbers).    These are their answers :----

Ofcom told me the use of 0844 numbers by doctors was "not
appropriate". But it insists that its hands are tied under its legal
remit in the Communications Act 2003 so that it can not prescribe what
numbers businesses and NHS organisations use.

A spokeswoman for Ofcom said: "We stepped in over 0870 numbers because there was a
transparency issue where people did not know how much they were being
charged to call their doctors on 0870. Patients were given little or no
information about what the numbers would cost before they made the call.
There is no such transparency issue with 0844 numbers.

"If there was action to be taken it would need to come from the
Department of Health. There is a danger for us to start meddling in
affairs we have no remit for. We would step in if there was an obvious
complaint where consumers were under a misconception or could not know
how much their calls were costing."  

A Department of Health spokesman said:

"NHS organisations have a duty to ensure that they provide the best
possible service to patients without exploiting them. Ministers wrote to
Primary Care Trusts in December 2006 asking them to take action to
ensure that patients phoning GP practices do not pay more than they
would if they called an area code number.

"GPs should now consider using the 03 numbering range. Introduced
earlier this year, calls to these numbers cost the same as a geographic
call regardless of what type of line the call is made from. They can
also be included in inclusive or low-cost call packages."

Please see post below instead.

"There is no such transparency issue with 0844 numbers."

Really?

When NEG variously use expressions like, "...cost about the same as before" or "lo-call rates", I doubt whether Mr or Mrs average has a clue how much it costs to call their surgery's 0844 number.

As an example:

(1). How much is the BT 'call set-up fee' when calling an 0844 number?

• For someone with a residential landline on BT Together Option 1 - 6p
• For someone with a residential landline on BT Together Option 2 - 6p
• For someone with a residential landline on BT Together Option 3 - 6p

(2). How much per minute does it cost to call:

• 0844 620 1234 (g10 - 3p)
• 0844 550 2345 (g 6 - 5p)
• 0844 633 3456 (g11 - 4p)
• 0844 201 4567 (g22 - ½p)
• 0844 042 5678 (g 5 - 1p)
• 0844 833 6789 (g 9 - 2p)

Knowledgeable people on this forum are required to answer without consulting any tables.

Quote:

A Department of Health spokesman said: ........

Loddon, could you please provide a reference for the DOH statement? I would like to relay it to my PCT with whom I have been in correspondence about GPs signing up with NEG.

Lompos,

these statements were made to David Rose in answer to his questions.   He included them in his full article which, unfortunately, was not published in full.   He has given me permission to use and quote them in our campaign, so you may quote them authoritatively.   David Rose's direct line at The Times is 0207782 7634 if you wish to speak to him.

I would like to know what responses you get from your PCT, mine were pretty hopeless.

Hi Loddon

I have been engaged in lenghty correspondence with my PCT about a year ago and my experience is the same as yours.  They washed their hands of the 0870/0844 NEG scam.  However, never before have the DOH made a statement like the one you quoted from David Rose, that is why I would like to obtain an authoritative reference so that I can put it to them. I am taking The Times almost every day but have not come across David Rose's piece (may be I missed it), even if the DOH statement did not appear in full.

Do you have any further information about the DOH statement or, if not, what is David's email address?

Your post on 8 August was also interesting concerning the Leeds couple who were removed from their GP's list becaused they complained about the 0844 scam.  Is there any further information on this which could be put to their PCT in Leeds?

BBC Radio Gloucestershire are intending to broadcast a story/debate about doctors using 0844 numbers tomorrow morning, Tuesday 11th September just after 7 am.   A doctor is apparently lined up to put his side of the case and the BBC will no doubt be seeking views from other people.   The link to Radio Gloucestershire is : ----

http://www.bbc.co.uk/gloucestershire/  

On the righthand side of the home page is a button to use to listen to the broadcast live over the web.   No doubt those living in the area will be able to tune in on their receivers.

Of course, there is never any guarantee that such a feature will actually be broadcast due to editorial considerations, but we believe there is a very good chance that this item will make it on to the airwaves.

Good listening.

[edit]Discussion on this broadcast is here.[/edit]

~ Edited by Dave: Link to discussion thread added

Guess what!!!

BBC Radio Bristol are running an item on doctors and their telephone numbers tomorrow, Wed starting just after the 7am news and again after the 8am news.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/bristol/local_radio/       Ckick on Listen Live.

They told me it is being run as their main local story tomorrow.

The BBC Radio Bristol studio phone-in number is 0117 973 2211.   Also 0117 9238877 may get you through.

Broadcast on 95.5, 94.9 FM and 1548 AM & DAB Radio

Good listening.

You can watch the BBC Points West broadcast ( about 3 minutes) on this link : ---

http://www.bbc.co.uk/pointswest/

Click on the title "Doctors surgeries under fire" under "TOP STORIES".

Worth watching!

Tks Loddon.
And the interview carried the canard that some fancy new revenue-sharing number enabled more people to get through; simply by being a fancy new revenue-sharing number? Gosh, magic as well?

Our colleague 'Sherbert' has reported, on another thread that "HORSHAM'S Courtyard Surgery is the latest in the town to switch to a new phone system" : ---

http://www.wscountytimes.co.uk/news/latest-surgery-switchover.3206046.jp

Latest surgery switchover
HORSHAM'S Courtyard Surgery is the latest in the town to switch to a new phone system designed to make it easier for patients to contact their GP.

As of Tuesday September 25, the number that patients need to call will change to               0844 815 1157       .

Explaining the reasons for going ahead with the new system, despite negative reports in the local press, Janet Yeo, Practice Manager at Courtyard Surgery, said: "We are keen to stress to our patients that, despite what has been reported in some news articles, we will not be making a profit from our new phone system.

"It has been introduced solely to ease problems with call congestion.
"Call costs have also been exaggerated and misrepresented and we would like to assure our patients that it should cost them around the same to call the surgery with the new system.
Last Updated: 17 September 2007 9:22 AM

The Courtyard Surgery says this on the Practice website : ---

http://www.courtyardsurgery.com/Court_latest_news.htm

"TELEPHONE SYSTEM
Courtyard Surgery is all set to switch to a high tech phone system in use at 1,200 surgeries across the UK on Tuesday 25th September 2007.

Surgery Line has been developed especially for doctors' surgeries and uses call automation as well as additional phone lines to tackle call congestion.  The system includes a modern switch board with headsets, call recording facilities, and safety equipment for staff. The new numbers are charged at a lo-call rate, equivalent to BT's standard rate of 4.226 pence per minute (4.96 with Vat), making the cost of a 4minute call less than 20 pence.

To make the changeover as smooth as possible, any patients who dial the old number in error will hear a recording with details of the new number they need to call. Our new number, from Tuesday 25th September, will be 0844 815 1157. "

BT's standard rate is 4.226 pence per minute?   Where did they get that?   They are saying "Lo-call rate" yet again ignoring instructions from ASA Ofcom NHS etc.

"phone system in use at 1,200 surgeries across the UK " --- this is claimed by NEG but trawling the NHS website register of GP Practices only shows about 500 are using 0844!

loddon wrote on Sep 21^st, 2007 at 7:20am:

"phone system in use at 1,200 surgeries across the UK " --- this is claimed by NEG but trawling the NHS website register of GP Practices only shows about 500 are using 0844!

NEG have consistently proven to be utterly shameless liars so why not lie about the number of surgeries too to make it sound as though the use of these numbers is more widely accepted.

As Horsham is only 7 miles from me I'm tempted to knock up some leaflets about why 0844 is not local rate and about the new 03 numbers NEG could have used instead and with the URL of the 10 Downing Street petition and drop them at addresses within about a mile of these two doctors surgeries in Horsham.

loddon wrote on Sep 21^st, 2007 at 7:20am:

Our colleague 'Sherbert' has reported, on another thread that "HORSHAM'S Courtyard Surgery is the latest in the town to switch to a new phone system" . . . . .

I thought I would email this surgery (incidentally it is not mine but fear mine will go over eventually) and point out that their facts are wrong about this paragraph....

"It has been introduced solely to ease problems with call congestion.
"Call costs have also been exaggerated and misrepresented and we would like to assure our patients that it should cost them around the same to call the surgery with the new system.

But guess what? There is no email contact. Yet in the local press some weeks ago it was ::) said that on line appointments would be an option.

NGMsGhost wrote on Sep 21^st, 2007 at 7:55am:

As Horsham is only 7 miles from me I'm tempted to knock up some leaflets about why 0844 is not local rate and about the new 03 numbers NEG could have used instead and with the URL of the 10 Downing Street petition and drop them at addresses within about a mile of these two doctors surgeries in Horsham.

All that would be needed is:

• to clarify that the Surgery's new 0844 costs more than their previous number
  
• Calls can in fact cost upto 35p/min from a mobile
  
• Calls to 0844 are excluded from any inclusive price plan unlike the surgery's current 01 number
  
• It's a revenue sharing number so it's possible that the surgery does receive money from each call
  
• Calls can't really be answered sooner unless more staff are available to take more calls

Indeed... you don't want to be on the receiving end of an ASA query, toothless though they are.  Absolute proof of each claim at the time you distribute the leaflet (not afterwards!) is required.  details here.

I just had confirmation from them that they are recommending upholding a complaint re an unpriced 0871 (among other things) on an ad I forwrded them a couple of months back..  So it's definitely going to be worth forwarding all others I come across now..

Report GPs who claim 0844 is "local rate" to trading standards. I have heard that this works.

irrelevant wrote on Sep 21^st, 2007 at 6:12pm:

Indeed... you don't want to be on the receiving end of an ASA query, toothless though they are.  Absolute proof of each claim at the time you distribute the leaflet (not afterwards!) is required.  details here.

I won't be any advertising anything though will I.  Only providing information. ;)

I believe it stil counts; I've seen adjudications against leaflets from various presure groups before..

I suppose it depends how good a friend of the directors of the ASA you are and how often you take them out to lunch in terms of which big businsss complainants about private individuals they listen to. ;)

A neighbour/friend needed to call the doctor this morning and it took from 8.30 until about 8.57 in order to get through to make the appointment.   Of course it is an 0844 number, but here is the puzzle, she was not put in a queue!    The friend kept getting the engaged tone and had to redial continually.    Having got through the appointment time offered was within 25 minutes, barely time to get to the surgery.

Does anyone know of a similar incident.   This seems to be counter to Mr. Campbell's claim, quoted in many papers and on radio, that one of the main benefits of the NEG 0844 sytem is that " a patient may be put in a queue instead of needing to keep redialling."

That always assumes that your caller was receiving external, e.g. BT, engaged tone and not an internal engaged tone. Redialling for that would cost the call set-up fee and the minimum charge.
Now there's a way for them all to make (even more) money; none of this tying up of costly circuits.

Precisely what I was thinking Tanllan after reading the previous post and before reading yours.

It seems this lady may see a large number of short duration calls to a single 0844 number on her next phone bill. ;) :o

Tks NGMsG. I hardly dare suggest that said lady takes this up with OfCom. I recall that Oftel took a dim view of such applications of tone.

Tanllan wrote on Sep 24^th, 2007 at 6:58pm:

I recall that Oftel took a dim view of such applications of tone.

OFTEL actually made running a blatant scam illegal. :-? :o :-/

Clearly once OFTEL was turned in to Ofcom such blatantly and shamelessly anti monopolistic behaviour by OFTEL was soon brought to an early end by the many telco industry moles that found their way aboard the overpaid Ofcom Gravy Train. >:( [smiley=thumbdown.gif]

BBC Breakfast TV carried a report by Graham Satchell today, that some doctors are using 0844 numbers to make patients pay for their new phone systems.

A lady patient, who had lost a leg due to cancer and has to call her doctor frequently, showed her phone bill and complained that calls to her doctor are not included in her prepaid call package.   She said calls to a doctor should be a local call on a local number.

MP Howard Stoate who is a practicing GP was interviewed and was very critical of doctors using 0844.

The practice manager at Coldharbour Surgery in South London said that "using Surgeryline they have done away with the engaged tone when people phone in."

Satchell said that doctors receive 2p per minute from calls to pay for their phone system.

Satchell reported that this contravenes the NHS priciple that NHS services should be "free at the point of use".

Satchell reported that the Gov't said that doctors should look at using the new "03" numbers instead.

The presenters said there had been many comments to the programme about this and they were split between being very critical of doctors, and some comments from a doctor, or doctors, saying that the report was just criticising doctors unfairly.   They only read out one comment at 7.15 from a doctor, and read out no comments at 8.20.

Sounds an interesting and well researched item by BBC standards.

It doesn't sound like they mentioned or gave the URL for the 10 Downing Street petition though? :(

Of course its fortunate that the BBC's services do not have to be free at the point of delivery.  Otherwise they would need to be asking about the BBC's use of revenue earning 0870 numbers and what is going to happen to them after 1st February 2008. ;) ::)

I had hoped that the BBC would put the Satchell report on their Breakfast TV website together with comments received.    It is not available at present, as far as I can see.    

I called the BBC, using the number in our database for the BBC swtchboard, to ask about this.    I didn't want to call their programme number which is of course 0870 ....      The nice receptionist asked me if I was making an enquiry or a comment about an item on "Breakfast".    I said it was an enquiry so she read out the 0870 number.   I said "well, its more of a comment really" so she read out the same 0870- number!    I said I cannot dial 0870 numbers, can she put me through to the programme staff.    She said no, she could only refer me to the 0870 number.    We then had an extended exchange of views during which she became less "nice" and rather heated and ultimately put the phone down on me.   I remained polite and even throughout.

Thats the BBC for you.

NGMsGhost wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2007 at 8:52am:

Sounds an interesting and well researched item by BBC standards. It doesn't sound like they mentioned or gave the URL for the 10 Downing Street petition though? :( Of course its fortunate that the BBC's services do not have to be free at the point of delivery.  Otherwise they would need to be asking about the BBC's use of revenue earning 0870 numbers and what is going to happen to them after 1st February 2008. ;) ::)

Yes, it was well researched, and well presented.   The limitation of this sort of programme is, however, that they cannot give more than a few minutes to a topic.   It is necessarily brief.   There was no time to mention the Petition or the Early Day Motion or even to read out viewers comments, though they did say at 7.15 and again at 8.20 that they had received many comments.   I would really like to see those comments and have emailed the programme asking about them.

The strongest part of the item was the one-legged lady complaining about her telephone bill.   She perfectly illustrates the public's complaint about all this.   We need the DoH, GMC, BMA, Ofcon, PCTs, MPs and doctors all around the country to look at this, take note and DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT.

I am currently contacting the press about this item to see if any of them wish to follow it up with their own story.

Your comment about the BBC is worthy of a campaign all to itself.   If only I had the time I would really like to take the BBC to task on this.    Are there any volunteers out there, ready and willing to plague the hell out of the BBC on this?    I am sure many of us would help.

loddon wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2007 at 9:28am:

Your comment about the BBC is worthy of a campaign all to itself.   If only I had the time I would really like to take the BBC to task on this.    Are there any volunteers out there, ready and willing to plague the hell out of the BBC on this?

I think an FOI asking the BBC's plans for its 0870 contact numbers post 1st Feb 2008 is the most appropriate route at the moment.

And then depending on the response (for instance if they intend to move to 5p per minute 0844 or won't say what their plans are) to that FOI a complaint to the BBC Trust's directors would no doubt be the best route to take.

Complaining to the BBC via its normal channels is a waste of time as its main feedback call centre is run by Capita who take a cut on the 0870 numbers.

It was I that added the Belfast geographic number for reaching BBC Information to the database but unfortunately after cheerfully putting calls through to the Capita run BBC Information call centre that operates in a BBC Belfast building without question for some months the switchboard operators were then suddenly given strict instructions from on high that on on account are they to any longer do this and to instead direct callers to the 0870 numbers. >:( :o [smiley=thumbdown.gif] [smiley=thumbdown.gif] [smiley=thumbdown.gif]

NGMsGhost wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2007 at 9:44am:

I think an FOI asking the BBC's plans for its 0870 contact numbers post 1st Feb 2008 is the most appropriate route at the moment.

Surely, seeing as the BBC usually say that they do not make money from 0870 and that it "costs the same to call from anywhere in the country" then they should leave all the 0870s in place because from then they will not be revenue sharing and will "cost the same from anywhere in the country", but do we think that they will?   ::)

NGMsGhost wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2007 at 9:44am:

loddon wrote on Oct 2nd, 2007 at 9:28am: [quote[Your comment about the BBC is worthy of a campaign all to itself.   If only I had the time I would really like to take the BBC to task on this.    Are there any volunteers out there, ready and willing to plague the hell out of the BBC on this? I think an FOI asking the BBC's plans for its 0870 contact numbers post 1st Feb 2008 is the most appropriate route at the moment. And then depending on the response (for instance if they intend to move to 5p per minute 0844 or won't say what their plans are) to that FOI a complaint to the BBC Trust's directors would no doubt be the best route to take. Complaining to the BBC via its normal channels is a waste of time as its main feedback call centre is run by Capita who take a cut on the 0870 numbers. It was I that added the Belfast geographic number for reaching BBC Information to the database but unfortunately after cheerfully putting calls through to the Capita run BBC Information call centre that operates in a BBC Belfast building without question for some months the switchboard operators were then suddenly given strict instructions from on high that on on account are they to any longer do this and to instead direct callers to the 0870 numbers. >:( :o [smiley=thumbdown.gif] [smiley=thumbdown.gif] [smiley=thumbdown.gif]

Enjoying the joys of day time television today I came across a new show on BBC1 Homes Live, they were using an 0871 number to contact the show.  So it looks like they will not be using 0844 numbers but going over to the even more expensive 0871 in the new year.

loddon wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2007 at 9:12am:

I had hoped that the BBC would put the Satchell report on their Breakfast TV website together with comments received.    It is not available at present, as far as I can see.

There is a link on BBC news:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7023792.stm

<<
Sue Davis is not happy. She is reading her phone bill and looking at cost of the calls to her local GP.
"You would expect your doctor's surgery around the corner to be a local call," she said.

"Those calls should actually appear on this page with all the zeros. It shouldn't cost me anything."

Sue lost her leg to cancer and often has to call her GP.

She is annoyed because her surgery has changed its phone line to an 0844 number.

Sue gets all her local calls free, but 0844 numbers don't count as local calls so she is paying 5p a minute.

So why are more and more GP's moving to 0844 numbers?

It is to avoid the dreaded engaged tone.

With an 0844 number GPs get an automated telephone system called "Surgery Line".

It has a recorded message which helps to filter and direct calls.

It allows patients to cancel appointments by leaving a message.

Doctors who use it say it speeds up access.

Sim Kumar, the business manager at Coldharbour Surgery in Bexleyheath, south east London, put in "Surgery Line" at his practice in July.

"We don't have the engaged tone anymore," he said.

"Yes, there is music when people are waiting but we don't have the engaged tone and that's got to be a benefit for everyone."

NEG, the company behind Surgery Line, supply the hardware for the system for free.

The system is paid for - over time - by the charge paid by patients.

0844 numbers are so-called revenue sharing: Part of the charge goes to the telephone company, part goes to the GP.

Sim Kumar said: "When patients call the surgery, 2p of that call is coming back to us to help us fund the system.

"I would hope the extra cost which they are paying is not so detrimental and is far outweighed by the better service they are provided."

But should patients be paying for their GP's phone system?

Howard Stoate is the only MP who also works as a GP.

At his surgery they have also fitted a whiz bang new system. But they paid for it themselves.

"It's a simple point of principle" said Dr Stoate.

"GPs should provide better services, which is why the government pays GPs quite well to provide these services.

"They should not be passing those costs on to patients because that is simply wrong."

The British Medical Association, which represents doctors, says many GPs were forced to take the Surgery Line system by local health authorities who refused to pay for upgraded phone systems themselves.

The government is allowing GPs to use 0844 numbers.

But the Department of Health said patients should not be charged more than the cost of a local call to contact their doctor.

In time it said GPs should start using the new 0300 numbers, which are charged at a local rate.

But for Sue Davis getting patients to pay for their doctors' phone system is the thin end of the wedge.

"What next?" she said.

"Will they charge us for car parking? It would be more honest if they sent the hat round and asked for contributions from their patients."
>>

There is also a video link, at least for now (and viewing from the US) at http://news.bbc.co.uk/player/nol/newsid_7020000/newsid_7023300/7023328.stm?bw=bb&mp=rm&asb=1&news=1

which includes the words of wisdom:

0844 calls are premium rate!

Follow this link for the report on BBC Breakfast this morning which also includes the piece in the studio with Graham Satchell (the above link doesn't include this interview):

http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediaselector/check/player/nol/newsid_7020000/newsid_7024000?redirect=7024026.stm&news=1&nbwm=1&bbwm=1&nbram=1&bbram=1

idb wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2007 at 12:53pm:

There is also a video link, at least for now (and viewing from the US) at http://news.bbc.co.uk/player/nol/newsid_7020000/newsid_7023300/7023328.stm?bw=bb&mp=rm&asb=1&news=1 which includes the words of wisdom: 0844 calls are premium rate!

Did you see the poster, ( 46 seconds in), where it states at the bottom," this call is charged at a Lo-call Rate"

I have only just stumbled upon this –
http://www.glospct.nhs.uk/content/news/2007/september/news110907.html.

(I have taken a copy of this page and suggest that others may wish to do the same).

On 11 September 2007, after public and private briefings that enabled it to know better, Gloucestershire PCT announces:


Quote:

Calls to 0844 numbers from landlines cost the same as a BT standard local rate charge

Not only is this technically incorrect, it is also meaningless, because nobody actually pays “BT standard local rate charge”. There is much else in this piece that could be torn apart.

In addition to the extensive local TV, radio and press coverage of the issue, the Chief Executive, Jan Stubbings, has been personally briefed on telephone call charges and other related matters. The figure of “approximately 500 GP practices across the country” comes from one of those briefings, referring to the size of an incomplete list. I know of no other source for this figure.

The people of Gloucestershire deserve better from their public servants.

If Ms Stubbings and her staff wish to use the freedom granted by the government to cause the people of Gloucestershire to have to pay fees to contractors for NHS services, through use of revenue sharing telephone numbers, then they must come forward and say so.

It is the telephone system that provides the improved service, not the telephone number used to access it. GPs have exercised a "choice" to fund new telephone systems by collecting money from patients, rather than paying for them in the proper manner. By its support of this decision, the PCT has approved, or even encouraged, a breach of the principle that NHS services are “free at the point of need”.

I cannot understand why a public body would also see the need to deliberately publish information that it knows to be false and meaningless, in what can only be seen as a foolish and ineffective attempt to conceal what is going on. Most PCTs are now quietly reviewing the situation. Gloucestershire has chosen to draw attention to itself.

The time when ill-informed public servants could get away with publishing nonsense such as that seen here has now passed. This is a deliberate attempt at obfuscation.

Contact details for Ms Stubbings, BBC Radio Gloucestershire, BBC TV “Points West” and local press and MPs are all available.

This misleading publication must not simply be withdrawn; it must be covered by a correction and apology.

David

Interesting to find that the contact number for the Chief Executive Gloucestershire PCT is 0845 6583800-well what did you expect!

And yet another surgery has gone over to the 0845 scam. This time the Holbrook surgery in Horsham. Also their fax is an 0845 number as well. When is ever going to end? I fear it wont, in spite of all the complaints, petitions, letters to the news papers and the brilliant work on this site. The doctors I guess will want to fund their week end opening this way. Why do we let everyone screw us in this country? >:( >:( >:( >:( >:(

This is what they have to say about the matter....yea, right, which telephone company will put an 08 number into a package.. >:(

There has been a lot in the press about the new telephone system that the surgery is installing in October.

You may or may not be aware that part of the GPs contract with the NHS is that surgeries have to have annual patient surveys and act on improving any areas that are highlighted as being a problem.   Most of this survey is about access to the surgery and how easy it is to contact the surgery by telephone.  The results of these surveys and frequent comments from patients are that they do experience difficulties when phoning the surgery.  Comments range from the telephone ringing constantly with no answer, or it is engaged all the time.

Currently we have 2 separate lines for appointments and enquiries, but find patients often try each number in turn hoping to get through during busy periods and this causes a great deal of confusion for all.  Calls then have to be manually transferred internally to connect the patient to the correct person/number.  Our current system is configured as efficiently as it can be, so to rectify these problems we had to look at other systems.

The new system that is being installed allows you as the patient to choose the most appropriate selection from a single telephone number.  It will then notify you as to how busy the lines are at the time you have called so you can call back at a different time if the problem is not of an urgent nature.

The selection you can choose will be as follows and prioritised in order of the most frequently used:

	1.	Appointments
	2.	Visit requests
	3.	Repeat prescriptions
	4.	Test results
	5.	All other Enquiries

This will also allow us see what selection has been made so the call can be handled in a more efficient manner.  

The cost of calling this new number has caused a lot of confusion and there has been a lot of misquoting of prices in the press.  The calls are charged at BTs local call rate on a standard line, it is NOT a higher rate 0870 type number.  If you have a ‘telephone package’ which promotes ‘free’ local calls they sometimes exclude the 0844 number.  If that is the case, ask your provider to include our number to the free section of your contract.  The cost for a 4 minute call to a 0844 number is under 20p from a landline, but will vary with calls from a mobile.

We have given a great deal of thought before moving to this new system and have canvassed surgeries in West Sussex who have had it installed for some time and there is an overwhelming feeling of success and positive feedback from the patients and staff of those surgeries.

I've sent this email:


You state on your web site that

"Calls to 0844 numbers from landlines cost the same as a BT standard
local rate charge and are not premium rate lines as some have reported."

This just isn't true.

Firstly there isn't such a thing as a BT standard local rate and hasn't been
since 2004.

The 0844 number costs more than a call to a geographic number and
therefore by any definition is a premium rate call. In particular there are no
packages which allow 0844 numbers to be included so for instance
anyone on say BT Together 2 or 3 or using Friends and Family will be
paying substantially more.

And mobile phone users or people calling from telephone boxes will be
paying the earth for such a call.

This statement is very misleading.

Good for you Keith. Well put and look forward to seeing what the reply is.  [smiley=thumbsup.gif]

Quote:

And yet another surgery has gone over to the 0845 scam. This time the Holbrook surgery in Horsham.

They still answer on their geographic number for appointments:  01403-755901.

Have they announced a future change to 0844 (I expect the 0845 you quoted is a mistake)?

9th October I believe....Yea it is 0844 for phone and fax

redant wrote on Oct 4^th, 2007 at 1:04pm:

Interesting to find that the contact number for the Chief Executive Gloucestershire PCT is 0845 6583800-well what did you expect!

I have just emailed Ms Stubbings and received an auto reply saying she's out of the office. Urgent matters should be directed to her PA on a 0845 number similar to the main one quoted here. Looks like they may have a block for DDI purposes.

Well well, numbers beginning 0845 658 are allocated to Opal Telecom, date 06/2006. They used to advise 0845 was "local rate".

Got the following reply:


Dear xxxx,

Thank you for your e-mail dated 4 October 2007.

The PCT is aware of the concerns regarding the use of 0844 numbers and
continues to keep this matter under review.

Thank you for raising this issue with us.

Yours sincerely


Rosemary Fewings
PA to Jan Stubbings
Chief Executive
Gloucestershire Primary Care Trust
1250 Lansdowne Court
Gloucester Business Park
Gloucester GL3 4AA

Tel:  0845 658 3827
Fax: 0845 658 3801

e-mail: rosemary.fewings@glos.nhs.uk

Tel: 08454 222861

My reply:


Rosemary,

Thank you for your reply - it is appreciated.

Are you going to change your web site? The statement is very misleading regarding
the call price and can be changed very easily. It is plain untrue to say they cost the
same as BT Local rate charges.

If this were a commercial advertisement the ASA would order this to be changed as
they have now done numerous times. Surely if a commercial organisation is not
allowed to state this then a public body definitely shouldn't. After all the public is
much more likely to trust a public body statement.

Regards

I also emailed Ms Stubbings to complain about this ridiculous situation.

Here is what I wrote (with some thanks to SilentCallsVictim!):

Dear Ms Stubbings

I wish to most strongly complain and disagree with the statement that is currently displayed on the PCT web site with regard to GP Surgery telephone systems, dated 11 September 2007 and found at http://www.glospct.nhs.uk/content/news/2007/september/news110907.html.

In this statement, the comment is made that "Calls to 0844 numbers from landlines cost the same as a BT standard local rate charge and are not premium rate lines as some have reported."

This is totally incorrect and it is an absolute deleriction of your duty as a public servant to allow it to be displayed. It is very well known and accepted that the 0844 numbering range is a 'revenue sharing premium rate' range. 0844 numbers are NEVER included in the total call packages of either landline or mobile calls that most subscribers have today, and must always be paid for separately. In addition, since there is no longer any such charge as a "BT standard local rate ", it is totally meaningless to make such a comparison. For the very small number of subscribers who still pay a per call rate (which is the same for a call to any geographic location with a 01 or 02 number, regardless of distance), a call to 0844 is of the order of 2p per minute more expensive. That is very clearly a ' premium' over 'normal' landline call rates. For mobile phones, the situation is even worse. Most operators charge between 35p and 40p per minute for a call to a 0844 number - a very considerable premium over 'normal' 01-02 call rates. The concept of revenue sharing makes the situation even worse. If the surgery is busy, and the caller is forced to wait and listen to some 'soothing' music, I'm sure they are suitably impressed to know they are paying between 5p and 40p per minute for the privilege. Indeed, there is now every suggestion that the surgery will be encouraged to put the caller on hold, since they are then getting a (hidden) revenue stream, reputed to be of the order of 2p per minute, from the call.

There is absolutely no reason why this situation should continue. If GPs have exercised a "choice" to fund new telephone systems by collecting money from patients, rather than paying for them in the proper manner, then by your tacit support of this decision, you are approving, or even encouraging, a breach of the principle that NHS services are "free at the point of need". It is the telephone system that provides the improved service, not the telephone number used to access it - and exactly the same facilities could be provided with a normal landline number (01 or 02) or one of the new 03 numbers that have recently been introduced by Ofcom. (They are charged in exactly the same way as 01 and 02, and must be included in call packages which means that for most subscribers, the incremental cost of a call to their surgery is zero.)

I cannot understand why a public body such as the PCT would see the need to deliberately publish information that is known to be false and meaningless. It appears that it is a foolish and ineffective attempt to conceal the true and widely understood state of affairs. The time when ill-informed public servants can get away with publishing nonsense such as that seen in your statement has long passed. This is a deliberate attempt at obfuscation, and I demand that you both retract the false information and publish a clear and unambiguous apology.

I look forward to an early and positive reply from you.

Yours sincerely

I got the same reply as Keith:


Quote:

Dear xxxx, Thank you for your e-mail dated 4 October 2007. The PCT is aware of the concerns regarding the use of 0844 numbers and   continues to keep this matter under review.

What a pathetic bunch of weasel words!   >:(

mikeinnc wrote on Oct 5^th, 2007 at 1:55pm:

I also emailed Ms Stubbings to complain about this ridiculous situation. Here is what I wrote (with some thanks to SilentCallsVictim!): Dear Ms Stubbings I wish to most strongly complain and disagree with the statement that is currently displayed on the PCT web site with regard to GP Surgery telephone systems, dated 11 September 2007 and found at http://www.glospct.nhs.uk/content/news/2007/september/news110907.html. In this statement, the comment is made that "Calls to 0844 numbers from landlines cost the same as a BT standard local rate charge and are not premium rate lines as some have reported." This is totally incorrect and it is an absolute deleriction of your duty as a public servant to allow it to be displayed. It is very well known and accepted that the 0844 numbering range is a 'revenue sharing premium rate' range. 0844 numbers are NEVER included in the total call packages of either landline or mobile calls that most subscribers have today, and must always be paid for separately. In addition, since there is no longer any such charge as a "BT standard local rate ", it is totally meaningless to make such a comparison. For the very small number of subscribers who still pay a per call rate (which is the same for a call to any geographic location with a 01 or 02 number, regardless of distance), a call to 0844 is of the order of 2p per minute more expensive. That is very clearly a ' premium' over 'normal' landline call rates. For mobile phones, the situation is even worse. Most operators charge between 35p and 40p per minute for a call to a 0844 number - a very considerable premium over 'normal' 01-02 call rates. The concept of revenue sharing makes the situation even worse. If the surgery is busy, and the caller is forced to wait and listen to some 'soothing' music, I'm sure they are suitably impressed to know they are paying between 5p and 40p per minute for the privilege. Indeed, there is now every suggestion that the surgery will be encouraged to put the caller on hold, since they are then getting a (hidden) revenue stream, reputed to be of the order of 2p per minute, from the call. There is absolutely no reason why this situation should continue. If GPs have exercised a "choice" to fund new telephone systems by collecting money from patients, rather than paying for them in the proper manner, then by your tacit support of this decision, you are approving, or even encouraging, a breach of the principle that NHS services are "free at the point of need". It is the telephone system that provides the improved service, not the telephone number used to access it - and exactly the same facilities could be provided with a normal landline number (01 or 02) or one of the new 03 numbers that have recently been introduced by Ofcom. (They are charged in exactly the same way as 01 and 02, and must be included in call packages which means that for most subscribers, the incremental cost of a call to their surgery is zero.) I cannot understand why a public body such as the PCT would see the need to deliberately publish information that is known to be false and meaningless. It appears that it is a foolish and ineffective attempt to conceal the true and widely understood state of affairs. The time when ill-informed public servants can get away with publishing nonsense such as that seen in your statement has long passed. This is a deliberate attempt at obfuscation, and I demand that you both retract the false information and publish a clear and unambiguous apology. I look forward to an early and positive reply from you. Yours sincerely I got the same reply as Keith: Quote: Dear xxxx, Thank you for your e-mail dated 4 October 2007. The PCT is aware of the concerns regarding the use of 0844 numbers and   continues to keep this matter under review. What a pathetic bunch of weasel words!   >:(

I wonder if emails to every surgery would produce the same pathetic reply. >:(

I have received the same email as others from Ms Fewings, with the addition of "I can confirm that the statement is no longer on our website" on the end.

Quote:

I have received the same email as others from Ms Fewings, with the addition of "I can confirm that the statement is no longer on our website" on the end.

Well, it's about 4:20pm in the UK on Friday 5 Oct and the statement is still there........

How do these people lie straight in bed at night? Total lies!!   >:(

Quote:

Interesting to find that the contact number for the Chief Executive Gloucestershire PCT is 0845 6583800-well what did you expect!

Just in case anyone wanted to contact them, Chief Executive included, on a geographic number ......

GLOUCESTERSHIRE PRIMARY CARE TRUST
CENTRAL WAY
CHELTENHAM TRADE PARK
CHELTENHAM
GL518LX

01242 548 800
01242 548 801 fax

sherbert wrote on Oct 5^th, 2007 at 2:18pm:

I wonder if emails to every surgery would produce the same pathetic reply. >:(

It is not for me to tell anyone what to do, but I would strongly urge moderation.

Our just cause may not be helped if we simply cause annoyance to those who we are hoping to persude into agreement.


We have the right to approach our own GPs, PCTs and MPs with any view that we hold, as they are accountable to us. I believe that it is only those who enter into public debate on issues that extend beyond their specific remit who may reasonably expect to receive responses from “outside” members of the public who are engaged in the same debate.

My polite briefing to Gloucestershire PCT was partly used, but generally and pointedly disregarded, in compiling this disgraceful news release. This purported to state general facts, rather than acknowledge a political decision taken by the PCT. It was this approach and the scale of the nonsense that led me to take the exceptional step of promoting the torrent of communication that seems to be occurring.

It is for the people of Gloucestershire, who are the victims of this policy decision against the NHS being “free at the point of use”, to actually engage in this particular battle. I believe that they have potentially adequate champions in their MPs and media, who have already become involved. When making “cold contact” with PCTs I not only seek to inform before offering criticism, but always copy in local media and MPs to encourage proper channels of accountability to be used.


Gloucestershire PCT owes nothing to those of us writing from outside the county, other than a polite acknowledgement and such further response as it chooses to offer for its own reasons.


These are my suggestions in response to points made, and in explanation of my own posting. I cannot expect everyone to share my views, but I do not wish to engage in an extended discussion about tactics on this board.

David

Quote:

Our just cause may not be helped if we simply cause annoyance to those who we are hoping to persude into agreement.

I would not shrink from causing annoyance to people who clearly lost their way and don't understand the basic precept of the NHS, especially since they are part of the NHS.  If people don't complain these organisations just broadcast feeble and misleading statements like "we only had x complaints" implying that everyone else is happy about the state of affairs.

As you say, it is a question of tactics but in this instance I would consider swamping them with complaints (and not only from people in Gloucestershire) to be more effective than restraint.



 

mikeinnc wrote on Oct 5^th, 2007 at 3:23pm:

Quote: I have received the same email as others from Ms Fewings, with the addition of "I can confirm that the statement is no longer on our website" on the end. Well, it's about 4:20pm in the UK on Friday 5 Oct and the statement is still there........ How do these people lie straight in bed at night? Total lies!!   >:(

Now let's be fair here.  That statement was probably made by someone who hasn't the faintest idea how to access a website and is only repeating the lies she's been told (it's still there BTW).


Quote:

Calls to 0844 numbers from landlines cost the same as a BT standard local rate charge and are not premium rate lines as some have reported.

Dave wrote on Oct 5^th, 2007 at 3:15pm:

I have received the same email as others from Ms Fewings, with the addition of "I can confirm that the statement is no longer on our website" on the end.

I also received the same email but without the "I can confirm that the statement is no longer on our website" statement.

bbb_uk wrote on Oct 5^th, 2007 at 5:30pm:

I also received the same email but without the "I can confirm that the statement is no longer on our website" statement.

This bit was included because I said in my email that "The erroneous information on Gloucestershire PCT's website requires immediate removal".

Email rec'd this morning:


Thank you for your e-mail below.

I can confirm the statement has now been removed from the PCT's website.

Yours sincerely


Rosemary Fewings


I have emailed basck (after checking) to let her know that this is untrue as it is still there.

Has anyone written to the Holbrook surgery in Horsham about the lies? If not I will. I believe the practice manager is Mrs Heatley >:(

Careful Sherbert,   If it's your surgery do you want to risk being ex-communicated.   Iniquitous an' all as this is, good Doctors can be hard to find ?  Safer coming from someone with nothing to lose here.
Rgds.,
Joe

Mmmm, that's true Joe. Will have to find someone to do my dirty work! Thanks. :-X

Keith wrote on Oct 8^th, 2007 at 8:32am:

Email rec'd this morning: Thank you for your e-mail below. I can confirm the statement has now been removed from the PCT's website. Yours sincerely Rosemary Fewings I have emailed back (after checking) to let her know that this is untrue as it is still there.

I received an email from her this morning:


Quote:

I can confirm this page has been removed from the PCT's website. Yours sincerely Rosemary Fewings PA to Jan Stubbings Chief Executive Gloucestershire Primary Care Trust 1250 Lansdowne Court Gloucester Business Park Gloucester GL3 4AA Tel:  0845 658 3827 Fax: 0845 658 3801 e-mail: rosemary.fewings@glos.nhs.uk www.glospct.nhs.uk

On checking, the http://www.glospct.nhs.uk/content/news/2007/september/news110907.html page has, indeed, been totally removed - it now returns a 404).

I rec'd another email this morning also and after checking it was true emailed back to thank her.

We must remember that doctor’s practices are now independent businesses, accountable only to their shareholders or partners.

They do however work under contract to publicly accountable Primary Care Trusts. The proper channel for any complaint about neglect of the public interest is through the PCT.

Unfortunately, by their tolerance of use of 0844 numbers by NHS contractors, many PCTs indicate that they are content for patients to pay for NHS services locally.

The Department of Health indicates that it is content for PCTs to make such decisions.

David

See what you mean David, but doctor's are surly accountable to their customers..i.e. patients as it is the government who pays the doctors from our N.I. contributions. If every one decided to (I know it is not going to happen) go to a private doctor these GPs on £100k plus would not have any customers. One way round this may be is if you want to make an appointment is to call in at the surgery (or get someone on your behalf) and to make an appointment at the reception, in fact thinking about it this is not a bad idea.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Oct 9^th, 2007 at 10:13am:

We must remember that doctor’s practices are now independent businesses, accountable only to their shareholders or partners. They do however work under contract to publicly accountable Primary Care Trusts. The proper channel for any complaint about neglect of the public interest is through the PCT. Unfortunately, by their tolerance of use of 0844 numbers by NHS contractors, many PCTs indicate that they are content for patients to pay for NHS services locally. The Department of Health indicates that it is content for PCTs to make such decisions. David

Whilst I concur with what you say about doctors surgeries and PCTs, I am not so sure about your statement on the DoH --- "The Department of Health indicates that it is content for PCTs to make such decisions."    If you look at my letter to Peter Bottomley MP on the Parliamentary Update thread :
http://www.saynoto0870.com/cgi-bin/forum/YaBB.cgi?num=1130983483/131#131  
you will see that I refer to the letter from Lord Warner to all PCT Chairmen in December 2006 in which he requires PCTs to "ENSURE that patients telephoning practices do not pay more than they would if they called a local geographical telephone number".    I do not think that indicates that the DoH are content for PCTs to use 0844/5 numbers.   Rather the opposite.  

The problem is that the PCTs are not treating Lord Warner's letter with respect, nor are they taking it seriously.    They are ignoring it.    There is no way that allowing surgeries to use 0844/5 is complying with the requirement to ENSURE that patients are NOT charged over the odds.    This is the issue which I am asking Peter Bottomley and other MPs to take up with the Secretary of State and to see that action is taken to compel PCTs to do their job.  

Aside from the exceptionally unacceptable use of 0844 numbers, a correspondent has asked me to look into what is happening to GPs in Barnsley. It is interesting, but yet more so is the situation in Sheffield.

The NHS Choices website shows that 24 out of the 72 GPs serving Barnsley PCT have telephone numbers beginning 0845 12. This range is allocated to Affiniti Integrated Solutions Ltd, a subsidiary of Kingston Communications, based in Wakefield. I have no evidence, but it seems likely that Affiniti, a provider of outsourced telcomms and wider business services, offers GPs a complete telecomms package which is partly funded through the additional revenue it receives from the additional charges paid by patients calling its 0845 numbers.

Unlike the situation with 0844 revenue sharing numbers, this is not technically a breach of the GMS contract, as no money is paid to the GP. It does however involve patients subsidising taxpayers, who should bear the full burden of funding NHS services "free at the point of use".

A little further research shows other GPs in the region using 0845 12 numbers: 2 in Doncaster PCT, 5 in Kirklees and 34 in Rotherham. The most extraordinary situation is with Sheffield PCT where 91 out of 115 GPs have Affiniti 0845 12 numbers.

I will continue to focus my efforts on the narrow 0844 situation which is gaining good attention and relies on the issue of revenue sharing. I do not wish to dilute or expand the issue until the government has been persuaded to take the necessary step of outlawing revenue sharing by NHS providers.

I cannot however ignore this matter and urge others to take it up for the people of Barnsley, Doncaster, Kirklees and Rotherham, many of whom are paying more to access NHS services than they should. Almost everyone in Sheffield is being scammed, as its local dialling code is 0114, not 0845 12. as one would suspect from looking at a list of local doctors' telephone numbers.

David

Well, I know that I have seen a few 0845 numbers for surgeries in Sheffield, but I didn't realise the situation was quite so bad!

jgxenite wrote on Oct 10^th, 2007 at 7:14am:

Well, I know that I have seen a few 0845 numbers for surgeries in Sheffield, but I didn't realise the situation was quite so bad!

I also found it hard to believe - please check this out - http://www.nhs.uk/ServiceDirectories/Pages/Trust.aspx?id=5N4&v=2

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Oct 10^th, 2007 at 7:50am:

jgxenite wrote on Oct 10th, 2007 at 7:14am: Well, I know that I have seen a few 0845 numbers for surgeries in Sheffield, but I didn't realise the situation was quite so bad! I also found it hard to believe - please check this out - http://www.nhs.uk/ServiceDirectories/Pages/Trust.aspx?id=5N4&v=2

Blimey 115 surgeries in one city, no wonder the NHS is falling to bits. There must be an epidemic up in that neck of the woods.

The population in 2001 was 520,700 that is 4,500 a surgery which seems ridiculous. My way they have about 9,000 a surgery I believe.

I can confirm that Sheffield is not currently suffering from any such epidemic :P (well, if it is, it hasn't reached the university yet...  :o)

Someone has very kindly written a letter to the West Sussex County Times advertising the Downing Street petition about surgeries using 08xxx numbers. The paper has quite a good circulation so let us hope the petition will grow this week end.

sherbert wrote on Oct 9^th, 2007 at 10:37am:

See what you mean David, but doctor's are surly accountable to their customers..i.e. patients as it is the government who pays the doctors from our N.I. contributions. If every one decided to (I know it is not going to happen) go to a private doctor these GPs on £100k plus would not have any customers. One way round this may be is if you want to make an appointment is to call in at the surgery (or get someone on your behalf) and to make an appointment at the reception, in fact thinking about it this is not a bad idea.

 Sorry, the bean counters have thought of that too. I tried it with less than an hour before closing, and was told I coudn't book now, but to call in at 8:30 in the morning. I asked whether this could lead to me not being able to make an appointment, and they said it was not a problem as they had plenty of slots, but you had to book them on the day. This ensures that not only do you have to call them, but that everybody has to call all at once and endure the queues. While it may be better to call when they are less busy, it's not allowed because by then all that day's appointments have gone, and you have to call again the next day at 8:30   An advantage of this is than you don't appear on the targets as having waited more than 72 hours to see a doctor, you could try for a week before being able to be seen, but you will be recorded as having been seen the same day (and the doctors will get an award for beating the targets).

   If the surgeries needed better phone services, why not an 0845 number. Recent changes lead by BT have rendered these impotent as revenue sharing numbers, and it is at least possible for customers to excercise choice by changing to a telecoms provider that has adopted the 2ppp rate for 0845 - which might be why the other telcos made the same climbdown over 0845, which they used to charge at rates in excess even of the old 4ppp when  standard calls were 3ppp.


   Many here have been told to ask their provider to add these 08 numbers to their discounted packages. They have short memories, as BT tried this a long while ago with 0870, and C & W took them to the old OFTEL over their own blocks of 0870 numbers that BT were allowing their subscribers to use their discounts on, and OFTEL ruled that BT were not permitted to add 0870 numbers to discount packages in the same way as georgaphic ones. I don't believe this was ever overturned, although events have moved on since. What it does show, is that it is not the perogative of our own providers to add 0844 to our packages, it is actually something they are not allowed to do on the grounds it prevents the other providers of these "premium rate" numbers from making enough for their revenue share deals.

vinylweatherman wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2007 at 11:19pm:

... This ensures that not only do you have to call them, but that everybody has to call all at once and endure the queues. While it may be better to call when they are less busy, it's not allowed because by then all that day's appointments have gone, and you have to call again the next day at 8:30   An advantage of this is than you don't appear on the targets as having waited more than 72 hours to see a doctor, you could try for a week before being able to be seen, but you will be recorded as having been seen the same day (and the doctors will get an award for beating the targets).

I would contact your local paper and TV with that, sounds like a good story to me. Do you know anyone else who's spent a lot of money calling them?

I don't think this issue has hit very hard here yet. It seems my surgery is one of very few that have gone down this route, and have pretended that we are not paying more. It will take a while for this to get noticed, although the increasing press coverage might make more people realise.
  I think part of the problem is that most people think 0844 is just another 0845, and are probably happy now that BT and other providers have made it cheaper to call 0845 at peak rate than the old geographic number. The big scam is that the surgeries have used 0844 and NOT 0845, which is misleading.
 I looked at a site that advertises 08 numbers, and it's rates for callers to "your" 0845 number were roughly "local rate" at 3ppp and 1ppp; however, their 0844 blocks were advertised as 5ppp AT ALL TIMES.
  I suspect it will be the lack of a peak/off peak difference that will scupper their attempts to make out these are "local rate" numbers, as only premium rate numbers have this model of there being no off peak reduction.
  I am wary of pursuing this too aggressively, since I read that doctors are striking off patients that complain about this issue. While illegal, it means a sick patient has to wade through laborious procedures to get redress, and even then will probably be treated coldly by their surgery.

  Perhaps if this can be made an ELECTION ISSUE over the next couple of years, something will be done about it.

See this link:

END TO HIGH CALL COSTS TO GPs - HOWARTH

It is a source of great joy to note the success of so many different campaigns

David

Thank you for attaching the sheet from Surgeryline, I am however concerned that the business case and impact has not been properly assessed by park surgery, particuarly as a busy practice manager.

There are funamental flaws in the document you have sent me, I have bullet pointed some issues below which I would be greatful if you could answer.

- I have spoken personally to a number of people that call the surgery reguarly who have not reported any engaged tone problems, my understanding is that the surgery system is fairly new and already has a queue and options system. Could you please explain what research leads to the opening statement in the document.

- Your definition of controlled premium rate services in the 09 range is correct, (10p - £1.50 per min), however premium in more common usage would refer to something that is more expensive than the current service.

- Standard BT rate was what I was told today by your reception staff, however there is no mention of standard for what. 0844 is 5ppm at all times, standard BT rate is at least 25% cheaper than this for the existing number, and the majority of callers don't pay BT Standard rates anyway.

- Calls from a landlines and mobiles with inclusive minuites to 217100 would have been free for many people as part of the line rental, calls to non geographic numbers such as 0844 are charged at between 15ppm and 40ppm (approx) depending on the operator from a mobile. Mobile phones are commonly used by young people and those on low incomes, as well as working people because of convinience and the expense of installing a landline. By your own definition calls from a mobile are now at a premium rate, whereas before they would have been inclusive.

- 0844 is inaccessible from abroad, this means that any foreign doctors or patients needing to liase with their UK surgery from abroad will no longer be able to call the surgery, i'm sure you will agree this could potentially put patients at risk.

- 0844 is more difficult to remember, and the cost of calling it is not certain - this may put vunerable people off calling the number at all, as well as meaning that patients with poor eyesight, dyslexia etc may transpose the number. If nothing else 217100 is a very memorable number so why change it.

- The document states that the use of 0844 is NOT to subsidise telephone equipment, if this is the case why the use of 0844. I have an 01403 number provided free of charge from a SIP voip provider which has voicemail and if I wanted it could also provide virtual PBX soloutions. It seems that the surgery already have a good system, why do you feel that it needs to be changed - surely employing more staff or installing more phone lines is a better option than answering calls quicker so they are charged for and playing patients music.

My suggestion would be that should the surgery wish to continue to serve the community and demonstrate that it is not the victim of clever sales tactics which generate money for surgeryline and park surgery, that it either retain it's 217100 or offer alternative DDI 01403 numbers for each of the menu options to truely give customers.

I look forward to your response, and would be happy to make an appointment to discuss this with you futher amicably.

Yours faithfully,

Response

Park Surgery is a business partnership of general practitioners.  As a business we have to maintain an efficient service for our patients.

When we moved to these premises we installed a new telephone system that included auto attendant and dispensed with our switchboard.  This was in response to patient surveys where we were criticised for the difficulty of getting through to the surgery at peak times.

In the recent 3 patient surveys we have again been criticised for busy phones first thing in the morning.  We have been looking for a possible solution and therefore decided to improve the techincal ability of our system with Surgery Line.  This will give patients an immediate acknowledgement of their call, tell them where they are in any queue and give them options so that they can get to the correct department quickly.

Patients make calls to the surgery to make appointments -  even calling every week this cost would be minimal.  They might also call to speak to their doctor and might have a 5-10 minute conversation.  Again even once a week this call would be around 50p. The practice spends a lot of time returning patient calls to mobile phones which has increased our expenditure over the years.

Patients needing to call from abroard will have a separate telephone number to ring.  There is no risk to patients - we are not an emergency service and patients can also contact us by e-mail.

It is pointless to install more telephone lines if the staff are not avialable to answer them - we already have 9 staff dedicated to answer the phones on a daily basis and a limited staff budget.

We are improving the technical management of our telephone system.

I have removed names.

The Motley Fool have produced an article comparing costs of phone calls called "Expensive Phone Numbers"[size=14][/size] : ---

There are some comments about doctors using and abusing 0844 numbers following the article : ---

http://www.fool.co.uk/news/money-saving-tips/household-bills/2007/12/14/were-talking-telephone-numbers.aspx?source=ioowftxt0010011

"At 09:32 on December 16 2007, RocketSteve said:

My local Doctors' decided to change to an 0844 number and proudly advetise that this is 'cheaper' for their clients to call. I had a meeting with them to discuss that their statement was untrue, but they were so fixed on the costs to them (poor £100k plus salaried Doctors) that they would not let the geographical number out. Their statement is clealy not true as patients are 99.9% local and from my mobile it's free to call 01/02 numbers during my initial minutes.
Should I speak to Trading"

"At 10:30 on December 16 2007, kiwigirlscot said:

Hi RocketSteve,

If you know how to pick a good argument with someone research and make yourself knowledgeable about the Ottawa charter and also knock on effects of having a limited income. I don't know how far this may get you but it does oblige medical professionals to many standards including affordability and accessability of services.
By introducing numbers that cost money they are actually reducing the accessability for people that are struggling to make ends meet already.
Also, remember that it's the very people that can't afford to make these calls that are the ones that usually most require medical attention and are most likely to slip through the care system cracks.
Flow on effects of being financially challenged include the fact that these people can't afford the best food choices which increase the risk of health problems, also they are less likely to be able to heat their homes adequately in the cooler months which can also cause health issues, are more likely to suffer from at least some form of depression etc. I could go on!
Also, they may not have a connected phone which could mean the need to use a phone box to make an appointment of which I am guessing probably costs even more than using a landline for the same call.
Therefore, your doctors is actually disempowering the very people they should be protecting!"

loddon wrote on Dec 16^th, 2007 at 12:07pm:

"At 10:30 on December 16 2007, kiwigirlscot said: Hi RocketSteve, If you know how to pick a good argument with someone research and make yourself knowledgeable about the Ottawa charter and also knock on effects of having a limited income. I don't know how far this may get you but it does oblige medical professionals to many standards including affordability and accessability of services. By introducing numbers that cost money they are actually reducing the accessability for people that are struggling to make ends meet already. Also, remember that it's the very people that can't afford to make these calls that are the ones that usually most require medical attention and are most likely to slip through the care system cracks. Flow on effects of being financially challenged include the fact that these people can't afford the best food choices which increase the risk of health problems, also they are less likely to be able to heat their homes adequately in the cooler months which can also cause health issues, are more likely to suffer from at least some form of depression etc. I could go on! Also, they may not have a connected phone which could mean the need to use a phone box to make an appointment of which I am guessing probably costs even more than using a landline for the same call. Therefore, your doctors is actually disempowering the very people they should be protecting!"

In view of the thoroughness of knowledge and soundness of views displayed by this lady I am surprised we have not seen her posting regularly in the www.saynoto0870.com discussion forum.

More local media coverage

Local interest and research led to the following in the Nottingham Evening News on 22 December:

SURGERIES IN NOTTS USING HIGHER COST PHONE LINES
LOCAL DOCTORS USING THE 0844 NUMBERS

With a little help, the story was picked up and taken forward by its sister paper, the Derby Evening Telegraph on 3 January, accompanied by a editorial comment piece:

DOCTORS RAPPED ON CALL CHARGES
ALL THE SURGERIES USING 084 NUMBERS
CALL CHARGES ADD INSULT TO INJURY

This was then followed by a correction, advising that some practices had now gone back to geographic numbers:

GPS START TO CURE CALLS COMPLAINTS

Further investigation has revealed that the situation at Long Eaton Health Centre is rather complex, so we wait to learn how the change back was apparently so simple. The service there is not SurgeryLine and the Health Centre is run by the PCT.

I understand that there will be a further item in the Derby paper next week.

(P.S. I have just heard that Long Eaton is covered by both papers, so there could be some interesting competition)

---

Local interest in Staffordshire was found here by Google:

http://www.kidsgrove.info/main/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&t=3429

This has been followed up and should lead to some media coverage.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Jan 4^th, 2008 at 5:12pm:

Local interest in Staffordshire was found here by Google: http://www.kidsgrove.info/main/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&t=3429

But the North Staffordshire Combined Healthcare NHS Trust lists it with a geographical number which rings unanswered at the moment:

http://www.nsch-tr.wmids.nhs.uk/site/location.php3?locn_id=28

Have they changed back to geographical?  :-/

Dave wrote on Jan 4^th, 2008 at 6:23pm:

But the North Staffordshire Combined Healthcare NHS Trust lists it with a geographical number which rings unanswered at the moment: Have they changed back to geographical?

I think not.

I understand that the number only changed to 0844 recently. There are a number of websites which still show the old number, including http://www.kidsgrove.info/contacts.htm! I suspect that these are simply out of date.

To add to the potential for confusion, NHS organisations have confusing names. The Combined Services Healthcare Trust does not deliver or contract GP services, that is done by the Primary Care Trust. The CSH trust obviously has a unit at the Health Centre which could be using the old number, although I would be very surprised. There is no indication of a change back.

The number at Kidsgrove is in the same group as those associated with Surgery Line. The Long Eaton case is very different for a number of reasons, so let us not get too excited

David

HOUSE OF COMMONS ADJOURNMENT DEBATE
0844 REVENUE SHARING TELEPHONE NUMBERS
MONDAY 21 JANUARY 2008

Graham Stuart MP will introduce a debate on this topic at the end of today’s sitting in the Commons chamber.

This will commence after any 10:00 pm divisions at the conclusion of the debate on Europe.

The debate will last for 30 minutes. Mr Stuart may take interventions from other members. A minister will reply on behalf of the government.

This is simply a discussion; the only vote will be “that this house do now adjourn”.


The debate will be broadcast by BBC Parliament and by Parliament Live

A record will be found in Hansard from 8:00 am on Tuesday morning

Members may wish join efforts to encourage participation by MPs and coverage by the media.

Links to the published proceedings will be published in the Parliamentary update thread.

This is as off-topic as one could get, but it is relevant - a news story about 126 Surgeries that DO NOT charge more for calling.

The familiar serarch of the 126 surgeries serviing Cumbria Teaching PCT on NHS Choices shows not one 0844, or 0845, telephone number. The article quoted below from the North West Evening Mail, published 24/1/08, is therefore seen to be true - although the debate actually happened on Monday.

Patient calls not a rip-off


Quote:

CUMBRIA’S GP surgeries are not using rip-off premium rate telephone numbers, unlike in other areas of the country. A parliamentary debate is to be held into the fact that more than 1,500 GP practices in England have switched to using the expensive 0844 numbers. They are called revenue sharing numbers, because GPs can keep part of the charge patients pay when they try to call their local surgery. Practices can earn up to 2p per minute from each call to the 0844 numbers, which cost patients 5p per minute and up to 40p per minute from a mobile. But Cumbria Primary Care Trust this week confirmed that the GP surgeries do not use the premium rate numbers.

Source: Pulse

http://www.pulsetoday.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=23&storycode=4116896&c=2

Government warns GPs over 084 phone charges

23 Jan 08

By Gareth Iacobucci

The Government is to clamp down on GP practices using controversial 0844 telephone numbers in surgeries.

Speaking in a House of Commons debate, Ivan Lewis, parliamentary under secretary at the Department of Health, said it was not ‘consistent with best professional practice’ to charge patients above the local rate.

The debate follows recent moves by PCTs to force GPs to ditch 0844 phone numbers, after consumer lobbyists accused practices of profiting from patients calls.
Click here to find out more!

He said: ‘I urge them (GPs) to reflect on the fact that many of their patients will be on low incomes and particularly vulnerable. In those circumstances, they should consider whether it is consistent with best professional practice to go down the road of charging patients above the local rate.’

Mr Lewis warned GPs that the Government will shortly begin ‘a serious evidence-gathering process’, that might lead to ‘even stronger guidance on what will be expected of GPs.’

>>

Source: Graham Stuart MP's website

http://www.grahamstuart.com/index.php?sectionid=3&pagenumber=103

<<

Graham Stuart MP welcomes Government u-turn on issue of 0844 telephone numbers in GP surgeries

23rd January, 2008

Local MP and Health campaigner, Graham Stuart, has welcomed a Government u-turn on the issue of 0844 telephone numbers in GP surgeries.

Graham introduced a debate in the House of Commons on Monday night on the use of 0844 telephone numbers in GP surgeries. These are more expensive than a standard local call, and can cost patients 5p per minute from a landline and up to 40p per minute from a mobile.

More than 1,500 GP surgeries in England have switched to using the expensive 0844 and 0845 numbers and it is believed that the new system is being installed in up to 40 surgeries every month. Government services such as the Department for Work and Pensions and the Tax Credit Office also use 0845 numbers, as does NHS Direct.

The Government Minister present, Ivan Lewis, recognised that key public sector services should not be using high-cost telephone numbers which overcharge members of the public. He gave a cast-iron guarantee that when the contract next comes up for the phone system for NHS Direct, it will not be renewed at an 0845/46/47 or similar high rate telephone charge.

He also requested that MPs submit to the Department any evidence they may have about the impact of high call charges in GP surgeries on the elderly, the disabled, the poor and the sick. Graham has now submitted a small report, which will include letters he has received from more than 20 constituents who have expressed their concern about the phone charges.

He said, “I’m happy that the Department has accepted that these overpriced phone charges are unacceptable and that GP surgeries should be reverting to the cheaper options available. I’m also reassured that the Minister will be reviewing the evidence submitted to him which explains in detail the suffering these call charges have inflicted on people, especially the elderly and those on low incomes. I’ll be keeping an eye on the situation to ensure that the Minister’s actions match his words and that the promise on the NHS Direct phone charge is met, but for now I’m happy that the issue is being taken seriously by Government

>>

I know I am an old cynic, but me thinks this could be a bit of a cop out. How long is ths contracts for? My surgery started their's last October, so is it for one year, five or what? Same as the NHS direct. I guess they are long contracts and will be very difficult to get out of. I hope you guys will tell me that I am wrong.

sherbert wrote on Jan 25^th, 2008 at 9:44am:

me thinks this could be a bit of a cop out.

Yes it could.

This is all a bit tricky; please bear with me.

To stop further practices going over to revenue sharing numbers, the DH has to clearly state that receipt of money from revenue sharing is a breach of the GP's contract with the NHS. Soft advice and warnings are insufficient.

The problem it is seeking to address, by its soft approach, is that which would arise if patients were able to register valid complaints about the fact their surgery, with time to run on its revenue sharing arrangement, is known to be breaching its NHS contract. The government is therefore reluctant to impose a strict prohibition, with exemptions for those with existing revenue sharing arrangements.

Whilst recognising the problem, one cannot accept the soft solution currently in place. Any practice that fails to follow the suggestion not to change over or renew would effectively delay the prohibition for however long its arrangement is set to last. In principle, this could go on for ever.

I believe that there are better ways of addressing the situation and have highlighted these in my evidence presented to the minister. Sadly, these cannot be fully discussed in a public forum.

The key point is that the important contract here is that between the GP and "our" NHS. That is being breached. Whilst the DH and some PCTs may have been complicit in these breaches, that is no reason why the terms of the contract may not now be strictly enforced. If public servants have failed in their duty to citizens, that may be a separate matter worthy of attention.

David

It seems that most surgeries are piling into this jolly nice little money making scheme (0844 numbers). I dont use my surgery much but neither did I realise the large and totally unjust charge when calling these numbers. I have BT Option 1 and over-ride that  for the most part by using 18185 but as 0844 are not allowed through this scheme and as there doesnt seem to be any way to find a geo or other and cheaper alternative to these nasty numbers one must either visit the surgery in person or 'pay up and look big'. I agree with someone else in this thread who stated that this actually contravenes the whole ethos of the NHS, that treatment (and presumably getting an appointment) should be free at point of need ! (Or at least should only cost the charge to one party, the phone company)
Someone else also stated that it had been put inplace because patients had complained they couldnt get through and this would help that problem. Duh, dont think so.....I had to make dozens of attempts at different times before I actually got through to a receptionist, so that explanation just doesnt wash. This seems to be yet another way to rip off us nice accepting Brits, and frankly I for one have had enough.
Maybe we should all get together and pursue the PCT's via our courts to get this removed Nationally, using the aforementioned contravention ?
I'd like to out my surgery here  and now.
it is The Hathaways Surgery at Chippenham in Wiltshire.  SHAME ON THEM  

Source: E-Health Insider Primary Care

http://www.ehiprimarycare.com/news/3421/practices_use_of_0844_numbers_to_be_investigated

<<

Practices use of 0844 numbers to be investigated
29 Jan 2008

The government is to gather evidence about the use of 0844 telephone numbers by GP practices and its impact on patients, ahead of a possible clampdown on their use.

Health minister Ivan Lewis told a House of Commons debate that GPs making use of 0844 numbers should consider whether it is “best professional practice” to charge patients above the local rate.

He also gave a “cast iron guarantee” that the government will not allow NHS Direct to use an 0845 number when the NHS Direct contract comes to an end.

Lewis said: “It is entirely unacceptable for any professional working under the banner of the national health service to rip patients off by charging them more than the standard local call rate for contacting their surgeries. That is the Government's position.”

He told MPs that there were difficulties since GPs were self-employed, and also because some individuals had already signed up to contracts with telephone companies, but said he was happy to send a “strong signal” to practices considering signing up for 0844 numbers.

The health minister was taking part in an adjournment debate secured by Graham Stuart MP for Beverley and Holderness who claimed he had been contacted by patients after almost a dozen GP surgeries in east Yorkshire switched to 0844 numbers.

He told the House of Commons that service provider Network Europe Group have more than 1,200 GP surgeries using 0844 numbers and claimed that more than 300 other practices have had 0844 or 0845 numbers installed by other companies.

Lewis said a motion tabled in the House of Commons in November calling for an end to the use of 0844 numbers had been signed by almost 60 MPs and that the Department of Health had received more than 100 letters of complaint on the issue since January 2007.

He added: “This issue has united politicians, residents and patients groups alike - people who can spot an unfair practice when they see one, and who do not like it when the chronically ill, the old, the disabled and those on low incomes are taken advantage of. That is what I believe is currently happening, under the present system, under the present Government.”

The BMA’s General Practitioner Committee has defended the use of 0844 numbers. Last September it hit back at press criticism of use of 0844 numbers by GP practices which is claimed was “particularly galling” when many other public services including NHS Direct and many hospitals also use similar numbers.

It added: “Whilst we fully support the view that practices should not seek to make significant financial gains from their telephone systems, there is no evidence to suggest that using an 084 number allows practices to do this. In fact, many practices using 084 numbers are often able to deal with their calls more efficiently and quickly, therefore costing patients less overall.”

>>

Source: Rob Marris MP's website

http://www.robmarris.org.uk/index.php/?p=613

<<

0845 Victory! – Good News for Consumers.

24 January 2008

Rob has claimed a victory for consumers this week when he secured a ‘cast iron guarantee’ from the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Health, Mr Ivan Lewis, that when the contract for NHS Direct comes up for renewal it will not be renewed with an 0845 number.

Rob said: “This is perhaps a mere drop in the ocean in the debate around the use of 0845 and other similar numbers but nevertheless it is a welcome victory and shows that the Government is prepared to listen on an issue over which they have direct control.

“I was delighted with the Minister’s answer to my question that a contract on which so many people depended would not be renewed with a number that had a higher rated telephone charge.

“The problem doesn’t end there of course. For many people contact with their GP can often be through the use of 0845 or 0844 and other similar high rated telephone numbers. This can place an additional burden on those who can least afford it, the poor, older people and those with disabilities.

“Further, if people lose their jobs, they might be faced with an 0845 number when claiming jobseeker’s allowance through the Department for Work and Pensions. If they get tax credits, they might have to call an 0845 number. Even worse, if they are fed up with all that and complain to the parliamentary ombudsman, they still have to call an 0845 number.

“Characteristic of all of these higher rated telephone numbers is the pattern of them not being a part of the normal telephone package available to consumers. I am pleased that the Government is listening to the many concerns being raised around the widespread use of these numbers and look forward to future measures being considered that ensure that the most vulnerable in our society are not penalised through excessive charging when trying to access essential services.”

>>

http://www.carrickfergustimes.co.uk/carricknews/Changes-to-out-of-hours.3725968.jp

Changes to out of hours service

<<
Staff reporter

INTEGRATION of out of hours GP services with Accident and Emergency departments is expected to offer an improved service to patients.

The Northern Health and Social Services Board has launched a pilot scheme designed to ensure people who fall ill between midnight and 7.30am are seen by the most appropriate professional.

Patients who call the usual out-of-hours telephone number will have their problem assessed over the phone, then offered the form of care deemed most appropriate.

Options include telephone advice if the problem can wait until the patient’s own GP practice reopens; an appointment with a doctor at a primary care centre; a home visit by a doctor; or treatment in the A&E department of Antrim Area Hospital.

This mirrors existing practice at Causeway Hospital, which is also controlled by the NHSSB. The system will be monitored during the pilot period to ensure it is the most effective.

Changes in demand for A&E services between midnight and 7.30 mean staff are more likely to be available to see patients. Services before midnight will be unchanged.

Out of hours services continue to be accessed by calling 0870 532 9024. In emergencies, an ambulance should be called by dialling 999.
>>

Source: E-Health Insider Primary Care

http://www.ehiprimarycare.com/news/3482/gp_practices_must_publicise_0844_call_costs

<<

GP practices must publicise 0844 call costs
19 Feb 2008

GP practices that use 0844 telephone numbers have been told they must publicise the cost of using the service to patients.

The BMA’s General Practitioner Committee has told GPs that where 0844 numbers are used by practices there must be mention of the charge for telephone calls in the practice’s information leaflet.

The GPC has taken advice following a recent parliamentary debate in which health minister Ivan Lewis told the House of Commons that it was “entirely unacceptable” for patients to be charged more than the standard local call rate for contacting their surgery.

The GPC said there was no need for a message about the cost of calls on the telephone system itself but that information should be included in a practice leaflet. It said that while patients’ telephone providers may have a variety of charges for using 0844 numbers the price relevant to most consumers should be quoted.

The GPC added: “We are aware that there are probably few practices aware of this aspect of advertising practice” and asked local medical committees to cascade the information to practices.

Graham Stuart MP has been campaigning for an end to the use of 0844 telephone numbers by practices and claims around 1500 practices currently use the numbers.

>>

The South East Coast Strategic Health Authority has lauched a survey in the following terms:


Quote:

Have your say - Online Survey We want your views on the use of 0845 and 0844 numbers by NHS organisations in the South East region.

The survey will close on 31st March. The results will be published on the SHA home page.

Dave wrote on Feb 19^th, 2008 at 4:50pm:

GP practices must publicise 0844 call costs

Some further public information provided by the BMA -

Quote:

There was a recent parliamentary debate on the charges patients are paying when ringing practice 0844 numbers, in particular when they are using mobile phones. We have since looked into this matter further. It would appear that where 0844 numbers are used by practices, there should be mention of the charge for phone calls in the practice's information leaflet. There is no need, however, for a message on the actual telephone system itself. While patients' telephone providers may have a variety of charges, in any practice information the price relevant to most consumers should be stated. We are aware that there are probably few practices aware of this aspect of advertising practice so we would ask LMCs to cascade this information.

The BMA covers other activities of its members, however most of their work is for the NHS.

I offer the following comment -

Quote:

It is disturbing to note that essential information about how to access "free at the point of need" NHS services has to be subject to rules governing advertising practice because a commercial relationship is being solicited by the practice. This only applies to the telephone calls made to these particular numbers. Surely NHS GPs receiving income from the "revenue share" on 0844 numbers called by NHS patients are in breach of clause 483 of the GMS contract. This clause applies regardless of the fact that the money is received indirectly and may be used to fund services. Presumably the same principle must apply to advice of these numbers by the Department of Health on the NHS Choices website.

I'm one of the lucky ones who can still call the doctors on a 01 number, but there has been a change since I last called, you have to press 1 for appointments
2 for home visits
3 etc
4 etc

So it is possible to upgrade a phone system without using an 0844 number.

PS  Have been informed that the change took place last summer, so looks like no number change is planned.

jimjim wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2008 at 6:42pm:

I'm one of the lucky ones ...

Indeed, me too, the surgery where I am registered also has a similar system with a limited queueing facility.

We are led to believe that effectively unlimited queueing, what is called "network waiting", is only available with non-geographic numbers as this cannot be provided on all exchanges where geographic numbers are terminated. If this is true, and such a facility is thought worthwhile for a practice, there is no good reason why it could not be provided using a "03" number. The cost of renting such a number must be part of the consideration about whether or not to use the feature.

Whatever system is used for a NHS surgery it must be funded properly; it cannot be funded through use of a revenue sharing telephone number.

I'm wondering if, since geographical numbers can usually be found for most 0870 numbers , can not the same exist for these surgery ones. I notice my local one has a geographical one for cncelling appointments, presumably to encourage patients to cancel rather than just not show up !  Anyone know if its worth say, trying to ring that number but with a sequential last digit. Perhaps it doesnt work the same way as with 0870's.  I'd just love to find a way around this especially since for me, when calling the surgery the phone is engaged more often or rings for longer than it ever did  before, with a local geo number, so saying 0444's help you get through quicker is nonsense.

greyjaybee wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2008 at 4:05pm:

I'm wondering if, since geographical numbers can usually be found for most 0870 numbers , can not the same exist for these surgery ones. I notice my local one has a geographical one for cncelling appointments, presumably to encourage patients to cancel rather than just not show up !  Anyone know if its worth say, trying to ring that number but with a sequential last digit. ...

Someone posted saying they did this and it worked. Reception is likely to end 0 or 00, ie the first in the sequence.

The February 2008 issue of "gpcnews", the newsletter of the General Practioner's Committee of the BMA which is distributed through Local Medical Committees, included the following item:


Quote:

0844 numbers - information for surgeries There was a recent parliamentary debate on the charges patients are paying when ringing practice 0844 numbers, in particular when they are using mobile phones.  We have since looked into this matter further.  It would appear that where 0844 numbers are used by practices, there should be mention of the charge for phone calls in the practice's information leaflet.  There is no need, however, for a message on the actual telephone system itself.  While patients' telephone providers may have a variety of charges, in any practice information the price relevant to most consumers should be stated.  We are aware that there are probably few practices aware of this aspect of advertising practice so we would ask LMCs to cascade this information.

It is disturbing to find that NHS GPs are in a commercial relationship with their patients (who are thereby known as "consumers") and so are obliged to comply with regulations covering advertising. It is absurd to believe that GPs know which telephone providers are used by their patients and are able to determine the correct charge rates at any point in time.

Someone with a GP apparently subject to this regulation may wish to contact the government "Consumer Direct" helpline on (Oh dear!) 08454 04 05 06.

(An explanation of the Consumer Direct use of 0845 and geographic alternatives are found here.)

From the "thisishull" website ...

http://www.thisishullandeastriding.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=136730&command=displayContent&sourceNode=136541&contentPK=20086374&folderPk=79656&pNodeId=243835



JOHNSON: I'LL END GP CALL CHARGES

08:00 - 07 March 2008



Health Secretary Alan Johnson today pledged to stop doctors using controversial 084 numbers that charge patients extra to call them.

Thousands of patients across East Yorkshire have been hit by the system, introduced by many surgeries last year.

The Mail first alerted Mr Johnson to the matter last August and our coverage led to a campaign being launched to stop them.



Now, in an exclusive interview with the Mail, Hull West and Hessle MP Mr Johnson revealed he has issued new guidance for GP surgeries specifically telling them not to use the 084 numbers.

He is also urging them to switch to a system that uses 03 numbers, which do not charge patients more than a local call.

Mr Johnson said surgeries using the 084 numbers had been advised not to renew contracts with their providers.

Eleven surgeries in East Yorkshire have been using the systems, including the Burnbrae Surgery in Holderness Road, east Hull, and Cottingham Medical Centre in South Street, Cottingham.

Patients can be charged up to 5p per minute from landlines and up to 40p per minute from mobiles.

Practices earn 2p per minute from each call.

Mr Johnson said: "We don't want to have a service here where we tell GPs who are all privately employed how to run their businesses.

"But what we do is we send out guidance and the guidance we have recently sent out was very clear about not using these 084 numbers."

In a letter sent to PCT executives, the Department of Health said it will take action against surgeries that continue to use the 084 number.

Mr Johnson said: "We are having this consultation and the clear inference there is that if we have to take further measures, we will, because we want to get them to move across to these 03 numbers."

Today, Hull Teaching Primary Care Trust said it had made it clear to health providers 084 numbers should not be used.

In a statement, it said: "The PCT wrote to all its independent contractors, such as GPs, dentists and opticians, to advise them of this guidance. However, as an independent business, the decision on which telephone system practices choose to install is down to each individual practice."

Under the controversial Surgery Line system, callers do not receive an engaged tone if the line is busy.

Instead they are placed in a queue and given a list of options, such as appointments, prescriptions and test results.

However, the call does not tell people their bills are rising while they are on hold.

Before the system was introduced, people calling these surgeries on a Kingston Communications line could do so for free as part of a local calls package.

 

From: The Derby Telegraph 5 March 2008
<<
BY [url=mailto: JBEECROFT@DERBYTELEGRAPH.CO.UK]JADE BEECROFT[/url]

CITY GPS TOLD TO DITCH HIGH-COST PHONE LINES

Health bosses in Derby have told GP surgeries to avoid using higher-cost phone lines.

Derby City Primary Care Trust has been investigating the use of 084 numbers in doctors' surgeries - which can cost patients up to twice as much as a standard local call.

In January, the Evening Telegraph revealed that 25 doctors' surgeries in the county, including nine in Derby, use an 084 dialling code.

The trust has now told GPs not to enter into new 084 contracts and is looking at how to support surgeries tied into existing contracts, where there could be a cancellation fee for pulling out.

Derbyshire County Primary Care Trust is also investigating the use of 084 numbers.

Telecoms regulator Ofcom said 084 numbers usually cost around 4p-5p a minute, compared with 3p for a standard call.

The cost from a mobile phone can be as much as 50p a minute - five times higher than the cost of a standard mobile call.

The Evening Telegraph called all the surgeries listed as having an 084 number on the NSH Choices website again this week and discovered they all still use the lines.

However three of the surgeries are in the process of phasing out their 084 numbers and also have local lines for patients to use.

A spokesman for the Derby city trust said: "We are in discussion with the practices using 084 numbers to reach a reasonable solution. We have advised all other practices to not use 084 numbers, should they wish to change."

But surgeries using the lines say patients prefer the queuing system during busy periods.

Callers are asked to select from a list of options and are then put in a queue to speak to a surgery receptionist.

Nick Derbyshire, practice manager at Bakewell Medical Centre, in Butts Road, said: "Patient surveys show that access to the surgery has improved significantly since we installed the line.

"Patients prefer to be held in a queue during busy periods rather than ring through to an engaged line and have to redial."

But neither Mr Derbyshire, or Steve Hale, practice manager at the Moir Medical Centre in Long Eaton, could confirm how much their lines cost.

Mr Hale said: "I don't actually know how much patients have to pay, and I don't think that information is given to them. We introduced the lines after patients requested a queuing system."

Three surgeries in Long Eaton - Charlton House Practice, Goldenbrook Surgery and Aitune Practice - are phasing out their 084 lines.


SURGERIES USING 084 NUMBERS

Derby Friar Gate Surgery Agard Street, Derby 0844 8151056
Mackworth Surgery Tufnell Gardens, Derby 0844 4773056
Mayfield Centre Mayfield Road, Chaddesden 0844 4770930
Chapel St Centre Spondon 0844 4770920
Park Centre, Maine Drive, Chaddesden 0844 4773495
Charnwood Surgery Burton Road, Derby 0844 4778585
Parkfield Surgery London Road, Alvaston 0844 4773758
Alvaston Centre Boulton Lane, Alvaston 0844 4994770
Park Medical Practice, Derby Road, Borrowash 0844 4773495 DERBYSHIRE
Appletree Medical Practice The Town, Little Eaton 0844 4773476
Staffa Health Waverley Street, Tibshelf 0844 4771895 Willow Close, Pilsley 0844 4771895 Stonebroom 0844 4771895
Blackwell Centre Gloves Lane, Blackwell 0844 4771840
Whittington Moor Surgery Chesterfield 0844 4773305
Rectory Road Centre Staveley 0844 4127262
Bakewell Centre Butts Road, Bakewell 0844 4773408
Appletree Centre Town Street, Duffield 0844 4773476
Moir Centres Regent Street, Long Eaton 0844 4771759 Wilmot Street, Long Eaton 0844 4771759
Dr Powell and partner New Mills Road, Hayfield 0844 4994470 Union Road, New Mills 0844 4994470


...AND PHASING THE NUMBERS OUT

Charlton House Practice Midland Street, Long Eaton 0844 4150109 now changing to 0115 8554175
Goldenbrook Surgery Long Eaton 0844 4157995 now changing to 0115 8554200
Aitune Practice Midland Street, Long Eaton 0844 4157985 now changing to 0115 8554250
>>

Patients are naturally grateful if they feel that a problem with accessing NHS treatment has been removed. That is however no justification for introducing a charge levied through the premium cost of calling a revenue sharing 0844 number.

In the commercial world, consumers pay for what they get, and would also expect to have to pay more for an improved service. NHS services are however not paid for by “consumers”, they are delivered “free at the point of need”.

Receipt of remuneration from patients, no matter how it is obtained and used, is prohibited by the terms of the GP’s contract.

Am I the only one who has noticed that all those GPs share the same prefix - 0115 855 4xxx (and also, that each number is within its own 25 digit block?)

Is it possible that the other GP surgeries there are within the same block (and at different 25 digit block locations)?

(Did that make any sense to anyone other than myself :D)

What annoys me is that the blame for this further shameful example of 084/7 covert robbery is not being laid squarely at the door of the body which utterly condones it and which failed to ensure that all premium rate revenue share numbers had to use dialling codes that were recognised as premium rate.  Namely Ofcom.

All the rest of ths steaming crock of excrement is then almost bound to ensue once the regulator has failed to do its duty by ensuring that a clear and strong regulatory system means that any organisation which chooses to use revenue share numbers to call it is immediately and unambiguously exposed to criticism for doing so.

Ofcom bleats that 03 numbers are great and will save the planet etc, etc but neither my last telecoms provider (Post Office Homephone) or my current provider (yourcalls.net) charge 03 numbers as being geographic calls as Ofcom had led everybody to believe would be the case.  Neither of these telcos seems to know or care of Ofcom's revised General Condition on the matter.  Ofcom mutters that it must improve its enforcement program, blah, blah, blah.  But Ofcom does not impose any serious fines that make anyone care about always conforming with its rules.  It seems it almost physically hurts Ofcom to ever consider taking any money out of the pockets of its telco buddues.

OK I recognise that here SCV is clearly giving us a masterclass in the successful use of KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid) methods with the press by whipping up sentiment about the emotive area of GP services and digging out information solely on that issue.  But nonetheless the much bigger isssue recognised by the National Consumer Council is OfCoN which has totally and utterly failed in its principal duty under section 3(i) of the Communciations Act 2003 and it is that glaring failure that then makes all these other scams almost inevitable.

Although SCV clearly understands far better than the rest of us what appeals to the palate of journalists could he still not also throw in the idea that Ofcom has not been doing its job properly and that it is heavily guilty for making this fiasco with doctors possible.

jgxenite wrote on Mar 10^th, 2008 at 3:28pm:

(Did that make any sense to anyone other than myself)

These particular practices all operate from a large PCT-run health centre with a central switchboard and many other operations. It is likely that these numbers were from a large block allocated to that centre.

It is however interesting to note that the gaps in the ranges of 0844 numbers used by GPs, as listed on NHS Choices, are perhaps filled by other GPs who have not updated their entries.

---

The following recent news items have been covered in the NEG Propaganda thread.

Pulse (“80% of GP’s”) – Pressure grows on GPs to ditch 0844 surgery numbers

Daily Mail – Patients charged up to 40p a minute to call family doctors

E-Health Insider – Johnson steps up pressure on 0844 numbers

Those who have dealt with the media will know that they like to have attributable quotes when responding to a briefing.


I unashamedly follow a simple principle of engaging in campaigning activity only on those matters where I believe that I can make a difference. Why else?

I “retired” after a three year struggle with Ofcom on another issue, although have returned to this recently. I have also contributed to successful national media briefings on the 0870 issue, attacking Ofcom. I continue to refer to Ofcom’s role in the matter of use of revenue sharing numbers by public bodies where I believe that doing so is relevant and likely to be worthwhile in achieving change.

I believe that we should each be free to use our own time as we wish. Who would disagree? If our interests happen to coincide in some small way, then that is to be celebrated.

(thanks to Heinz)

I am surprised re NGM's Ghost's comments about his providers not accepting 03 numbers as geographical.   I did encounter a similar problem with my provider (Utility Warehouse/TelecomPlus) who listed them as special services and would not believe me when I explained the situation.   I contacted OFCOM by email asking for their intervention/help and, within a very few days, had an email from the director responsible at UW/TP confirming that they had been contacted by OFCOM and that 03 numbers were, indeed, treated as geographical and would be included in my inclusive minutes (this is all in another thread on the forum, can't remember which as it was a couple of months ago, I think).  I then had follow up confirmation from OFCOM.  I also queried this with Orange when dealing with my son's other problems with them (thread Orange Shop Fitzroy St Cambridge) who again checked the situation and confirmed that they treat 03 numbers as geographical.   I would suggest an email to OFCOM requesting their help as they certainly acted very swiftly in my case with the correct result.  SCV had also tipped me off about GC17 (think that's the right one) and I had passed that to UW/TP in the interim.   Although I would in no way defend OFCOM, certain people can be very helpful.  Just a thought.

Does anyone have any feedback (SilentCallVictim?) on when the DofH are going to finish their review of the use of 0844 numbers by surgeries? From memory they started in Feb/March and planned to report by the end of March so it is one hell of an overrun! It beggars belief it could take this long.

I did email them on 2 occasions and got stock email replies which I challenged to little effect. I can never understand why these stock replies are sent out (after weeks of waiting for a reply) which don't actual address the questions being asked. Do these people not realise that these sort of replies actually cause a hugely more annoyance.

Keith wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2008 at 10:56am:

Does anyone have any feedback ... ?

There was reference to this matter in the debate on Access to Primary Care in parliament last Thursday (see reply #149).

I hope that the extended period has been caused by genuine attempts to work out the detail of a solution to help those who are trapped in lengthy contracts. If the DH is to offer financial support for surgeries, and other NHS providers, who wish to take advantage of advanced telephone systems (to replace that presently being provided by patients) then this could take some time. Such a system would perhaps also have to made available to those who are not yet using Surgery Line or similar systems.

Members can be assured that there is a continuing flow of correspondence between the DH and many who are concerned about this matter. It is unfortunate that Ministers and senior officials cannot engage in meaningful correspondence with citizens on matters such as this. They are however answerable to parliament, and many MPs are sufficiently engaged to press this matter on behalf of their constituents.

I will always post about significant developments in this forum. As this forum is open to the public, I do not give a blow-by-blow account of all campaigning activity.

Thanks David,

If you can pass on any info on a private basis I would be grateful. You have done so before to me so you can rest assured anything that is not for public consumption will not be broadcast in a public forum. It would be useful. As you know I have been doing a little at a local level with a little success and also a little direct to the DofH (with no success!).

I have to say I find it rather galling if GPs who have entered into these contracts and have gained from them are bailed out, and time is wasted bailing them out, whilst patients on very limited income are still disadvantaged and GPs who refuse to take out these contracts see that those who are greedy don't lose out by their actions. I am aware of Doctors who very much oppose the use of these 0844 numbers and it doesn't pass on much of a message to them if there greedy colleagues are rescued from their contracts.

As a businessman I take decisions; some work and some don't. I don't expect to be rescued from my bad ones. And there was plenty of evidence at the time for the the GPs who took out these contracts that they shouldn't be doing so and they should have thought about that when negotiating their contracts.

If all Doctors are given funds to fund advanced switchboards that is just additional revenue. It should be funded out of current revenue as is the rest of their expenditure.

I write as someone married to a Doctor!

I only deal privately with particular issues raised by members when the necessary detail would be inappropriate in the forum. I also discuss campaigning tactics in confidence, where it may not be appropriate to share this discussion with those whose interests may be damaged if they were successful.

Readers need not fear that anything of significance is not either posted here or covered in detail on my campaign resource website.


Keith wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2008 at 10:56am:

... I did email them on 2 occasions and got stock email replies which I challenged to little effect.

I cannot number the briefing messages that I have sent to MPs, Ministers, the media and others. Many of them produce no recognisable meaningful response; however there is an attritional effect. After receiving many messages which prompted no acknowledgement, journalists and MPs have contacted me when a particular issue hits the spot and thanked me for the previous briefings that I have been providing.


There are two good reasons for not publishing everything here, apart from concerns about confidentiality.

Firstly, some campaigning efforts may not be seen to be effective. This discourages other campaigners and invites criticism which may not be helpful. I prefer to wait to report any positive effect, rather than reporting the action that may have caused it.

Secondly, we are seeking to prompt action and changes of policy by Ministers and public officials. Nobody likes to admit that they have changed their mind - "made a U-turn". This is especially true if the change could be seen to have been prompted by an informal and not properly representative pressure group or just a handful of individuals. We must present our sound and strong arguments, both publicly and privately, however we may have to forego the satisfaction of talking full credit for what we may achieve, as seeking to do so by presenting evidence of our efforts may actually deny achievement of success.

Apologies if this sounds a little convoluted, perhaps I could have expressed it more clearly.

Just to clarify (although I'm sure you are aware) when I referred to "email on 2 occasions" that wasn't just 2 emails but referring to 2 occasions when I was was in detailed correspondence, each set of correspondences being numerous emails. Much of which was very frustrating, having laid out a detailed set of enquiries only to get the specifics ignored and getting unrelated stock replies.

Also apologies for the grammar - I do know the difference between 'their' and 'there' honestly!

The debate on this issue seems to have gone quiet of late....

I have been undertaking a bit of detective work with my local surgery. Trying to get any alternative numbers to the 0844 rip off one from  surgery staff has met with the usual lies. Having had to visit the surgery a few times recently my roving eye noticed one or two telephone numbers on the wall in a couple of doctor's rooms.
My surgery has around 6 doctors and many other associated services on site. The information available which I have seen on the walls and trial and error has lead me to the following information:

the telephone system is an 'IP Office set up'. This would appear to be an IP system with voicemail

there are approximately 40 'extensions' on the system which each extension having a two digit number

only the doctors have DDI numbers with a standard 'local' area code. Therefore there are 6 of these which run consecutively

from random dialing many  numbers around this block there would appear to be a group of around 300 numbers possibly allocated to this type of use (I'm assuming that because the lines ring dead that they are reserved for this type of use). Outside this block the numbers are heavily in use on the local exchange

the adjacent numbers outside the block are primarily are run by BT

there would appear at the moment to be no DDI numbers for the most important area i.e. appointments and general enquiries. The lists I have seen on the walls show the DDI for the doctors but no alternative for appointments etc. The internal extension number for the GP bears no relation to the number used for the DDI

however there are a further two DDI numbers which do not have voicemail and continually ring out any time of the day or night. I have tried to call these two during office hours and never get a reply

I have also random dialed several of the other block numbers to see if they may belong to another surgery in the area also using Surgeryline, but no luck

the fax number has remained on the old system which was set up by the PCT and had many thousands of extensions. All the former direct numbers have been withdrawn save the fax number. I've tried random dialling these but only get other doctors surgeries

From this information I'm hoping that someone will have enough knowledge to try and crack the puzzle in obtaining other numbers.

Any ideas?......

leedslad wrote on Nov 25^th, 2008 at 11:13pm:

The debate on this issue seems to have gone quiet of late....

There is nothing to debate, it is recognised that funding NHS services from patients is fundamentally unacceptable. Attempts to disguise what is happening have been defeated. It is now a question of what is to be done to correct the situation and allow GPs to use SurgeryLine and other systems that patients may want, but funded properly. (Whether callers would rather wait in a queue and have lots of options or call again when receptionists are busy is a matter for each surgery and its patients to sort out.)

Since the summer the focus has been on Ben Bradshaw (and Alan Johnson) who have received the results of an evidence gathering exercise and will be responding at some point. If radical action is to be taken, as it would need to be, this would take some time to prepare. It appears however that they are just playing for time. I hope not, but I have no way of knowing.

Pressure for action is continuing to be applied in parliament, as reported in the forum. Only yesterday, Ben Bradshaw gave a familiar answer to a written question - see Hansard.

Attempts to undermine use of revenue sharing numbers by discovering and publishing alternatives may be successful, and experience gained here may be valuable in understanding what may be achieved in other cases. In the case of the NHS, we have an acceptance that use of revenue sharing numbers is fundamentally wrong. It should therefore be possible to win this battle by addressing the issues directly. We will have to wait a little longer to see if a victory is imminent.

I think that all leedslad actually wanted is the help of someone like Dave to explain which other number ranges he might try and search for a geographic alternative in.  I don't think he is that interested in the Machiavellian obfuscation of Ben Bradshaw and other New Labour ministers who repeatedly express crocodile tiers of public concern about this matter while doing absolutely nothing to ban the root cause of the problem (namely their total failure to impose satisfactory rules on this matter controlling all NHS GP Contractors use of phone numbers and having retroactive effect).

However as this is a voip system it is highly likely that the calls for the appointments line are routed directly to the appointments phones by voip from the 0844 number and that there is no final geographic number to which the calls are translated.  NEG clearly anticipated the widespread public dislike of their shystery deals with GPs and so deliberately set out to create a system on which this site could not offer any geographic alternatives. :o :( [smiley=thumbdown.gif]

Another issue that I've raised before is that often, where a surgery's number has been replaced with 0844 and the previous number disabled, many references on the web, in printed phonebooks, etc. will show the old phone number. As this is no longer available, I consider this to be highly dangerous, as it may mean a patient is unable to contact the doctor if these are the only information sources they have to hand.

If you move house or business premises, you'd have the post redirected for a year or two. If a business was introducing an 08 number for genuine (non-revenue-generating) reasons, they would keep the old number live for a year or two to ensure callers could always get through until new phonebooks have been issued and the old ones thrown out. Of course, we know why this doesn't happen. It just shows the surgeries do not have their patients' interests in mind in the slightest.

Anyone who's being forced to use an 0844 to call the doctors' could try pointing this out to them. Claim you looked in a phonebook or used Google to find the number, then were unable to get through.

My surgery has a recorded message telling you to dial the 08 number.

We do not want to start constructing reasons for those who have gone over to 0844 to stay there for ever, by suggesting that changing their telephone number would show a disregard for the interests of their patients. There will always be records of old numbers, my London surgery has been through 01- and 0181- as well as a change to a new set of 020 geographic number in fairly recent times.

If our campaigning efforts are successful, we will be causing patients now on 0844 to have to cope with a second change in a relatively short period. This would apply whether it would involve reverting to an old geographic number (not necessarily the same one, as some group surgeries have merged their telephone systems) or swapping the "8" for a "3".

In my experience, the numbers that have been replaced by Surgery Line have all had change announcements on.  We must be careful only to criticise only that which is definitely wrong, otherwise we risk undermining our own position.

The case I was thinking of was the Clarendon Park Medical Centre in Leicester, which was mentioned before. If you Google that, you'll still find almost exclusively the 0116 number. I've just tried that number and it gives the BT-style error beeps followed by the message "This number does not accept incoming calls" then cuts off! No message giving an alternate number. So as I said, it's not good if you needed to call the doctor in a hurry.

No-one's suggesting they should stay on 0844 forever, rather that they should continue to accept calls on the old 01 numbers. Also, even if they switched back to a geographical number, they could keep the non-geographical number working while it's slowly phased out.

Perhaps you should try not to tell people what they should discuss so often. Not everyone's interested in joining some sort of campaign group. Some of us prefer simply to discuss numbers and help others when they ask queries, rather than jump on them for not wading through the masses of information and poor site navigation...

Fair points, I stand corrected.

I was not aware of the reference to the specific case referred to and feared that a general case against number changes was being made. In the light of the on-going Department of Health investigation it appears that the number of surgeries switching to 0844 has slowed. He hope at the least that this will cease altogether, so it will be a question of what happens to those that have already switched. It is indeed imperative that proper arrangements are made to deal with a change of number.

The arrangement described seem to be wholly unacceptable, regardless of the reason for the number change.

Apart from the 999 emergency service which will not be affected, there are new approaches being considered for those who need to access NHS urgently.

For my part, I didn't make any reference to the specific case I knew of, which came up a while ago (possibly not even in this thread?) Of course, I should have realised many surgeries will have recorded messages with the new number. So my suggestion to leedslad and others only applies if their surgery's number is like the one in Leicester.

As for accessing the NHS (and I know I'm going off topic here), why can't they enable the 03 alternative for NHS Direct? 0345 4647 is an even catchier number, and as 0345 numbers are reserved for the 0845 equivalent, it isn't as if any numbers in the 0345 46 range could ever be allocated for anything else. Once again, the 0845 number would of course need to be kept operational for the reason we've been discussing!

The issue of 0345 4647 has been covered elsewhere. To summarise, this number is ready for use, however action to adopt it is currently on hold pending wider decisions about what to do about a number for access to urgent (but non-emergency) NHS and social care.

Recent revelations about the cost involved in providing the NHS Direct telephone advice and information service (each call costs the NHS more than a GP appointment, before adding back the subsidy provided by callers) have caused some to question whether it should be continued at all. If a new number is required (as it must be) then the cost of publicising this could be seen as throwing good money after bad.

We await the announcement that has been promised before the end of the year.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Nov 27^th, 2008 at 8:30pm:

... (each call costs the NHS more than a GP appointment, before adding back the subsidy provided by callers) ...

Well that is ridiculous, and says a lot about both the NHS and the government.

jrawle wrote on Nov 27^th, 2008 at 10:25am:

Perhaps you should try not to tell people what they should discuss so often. Not everyone's interested in joining some sort of campaign group. Some of us prefer simply to discuss numbers and help others when they ask queries, rather than jump on them for not wading through the masses of information and poor site navigation...

Hear, hear, hear, jrawle.  Despite his constant denials ever since SilentCallsVictim arrived on the scene in our campaign (having largely achieved success on the Silent Calls front in his own one man campaign) he has regularly sought to both dictate how many of the much more longstanding members of this forum (you will note that we are both Supreme Members of the forum while he is only a Senior Member) should carry out their campaigning activities and to largely consider only his way of doing things to be the correct one.  Also despite his repeated denials he definitely now is positioning himself as MrSayNoTo0870 with the media because he already has the media contacts and credibility to do so and also tends to put his points in the sort of bland, low key, inoffensive, reasonable chappie kind of a way the media seem to like for this issue.  Although the media do seem to like militant firebrands like myself when covering other more emotional issues (road deaths and their connection with speed limits or otherwise for instance where BRAKE, roadpeace and other such groups trade on nothing other than gut emotional reaction not backed up by scientific fact) with this 084/7 issue they seem to regard it as a small beer personal finance matter that must be covered in a low key way.  And for this SCV's approach seems to fit the bill neatly.

Also SCV occasionally claims to be willing to introduce other active forum members to his media contacts but in practice this never ever happens and he always ends up in the media himself since it is perfectly obvious that one of his main motivations as a campaigner is not just to achieve success on the issue but to also see his own name up in lights as much as possible.  You will note how he even chose a forum name that made his own real world identity pretty obvious to anyone who has been following telecoms issues in the media.

SCV has regularly sought to chide my own methods of opposing the 084/7 abusers and seeks to preach that his own methods of only picking on an easy targets and then sending briefing notes to those individuals principally able to control the decision making processes of the body in question is the only likely successful route.  Whilst I cannot fault him for the number of hours he puts in to the cause (as it is clearly considerable) if he continues to seek to tell us that there is only one acceptable way to campaign then he must go back and pick a topic to campaign on where he is the only main protagonist and there is not already a large body of existing campaigners who he has sought to join late in the day.

I have always found with this website that over the four or so years I have been involved that I and most of the main activists have always shared an absolutely remarkable commonality of mind about what is wrong with 084/7 numbers and why we feel so upset about them.  But right from the start I always found I did not have this common mindset with SCV who always sought to approach the campaign with the mindset of a large company team player quietly trying to persuade his bosses that his ideas were their own and then no doubt hoping for the next promotion in return.  Whereas many of the rest of us are more Frenchman at heart who prefer direct action at the burning barricades in trying to find an alternative geographic phone number to ring today and also direct to the point emails to the outfits concerned telling them why they are a bunch of unprincipled two faced double dealing charlatans.

Now that may not be SCV's way of doing things and I do not demand that he adopts our ways any more than I expect to suddenly campaign along the lines that SCV finds comfortable.  But like you what I do find odd is when he seeks to lay down the law on how we should campaign when he is not the site owner or forum moderator but only another forum member.

Oh and by the way he won't like this discussion being in public (and would have sent me another chiding private message about this post if I had not added this last paragraph telling him it was pointless for him to do so) as just like the main large company 084/7 abusers he always likes all discussions on campaigning tactics to take place behind closed doors and out of public scrutiny. :o >:( [smiley=thumbdown.gif]

I repeat, my comment "We do not want to start constructing reasons for those who have gone over to 0844 to stay there for ever" arose from a misunderstanding about a posting that referred to a specific case, rather than to users of SurgeryLine in general.

If in pressing my particular approach I was seen to be attempting to dictate, on this occasion and on others, then I repeat my apology. Furthermore, I do not intend public comments about campaigning approaches to be taken as personal criticism of the individuals who promote or follow them. If I have been seen to fail to fulfil this intention at any time, again I apologise.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Nov 28^th, 2008 at 3:05am:

If in pressing my particular approach I was seen to be attempting to dictate, on this occasion and on others, then I repeat my apology. Furthermore, I do not intend public comments about campaigning approaches to be taken as personal criticism of the individuals who promote or follow them. If I have been seen to fail to fulfil this intention at any time, again I apologise.

SCV,

I think the point is that you are always sympathetic to the position of the other side and try to see things too much from all points of view including why the opposition feel they should have excuses to endlessly delay and procrastinate.

Whereas I just see the 084/7 introducing and using opposition as being the deadly enemy and their position as being totally unacceptable and needing to be utterly crushed in to the ground.

So that in a nutshell is why you and I will never see eye to eye in terms of what we believe is the correct campaigning approach, even though we will both continue to campaign in our own very different ways.

Source: Worcester News

http://www.worcesternews.co.uk/news/3954931.Out_of_hours_doctor_service_is_a_success/

Out-of-hours doctor service is a success
9:40am Saturday 6th December 2008
By James Connell

EVERY patient who calls for a vital face-to-face out-of-hours appointment with a doctor is now getting one thanks to a new and improved privatised service.

The new out-of-hours doctor service, launched in October and run by Take Care Now (TCN), is more efficient than the old service run by Worcestershire Primary Care Trust, say health chiefs.

[…]

If you feel you need a doctor when your surgery is closed and cannot wait until it is open, call the out-of-hours service on 0300 1233211.

[…]

Source: Surrey Comet

http://www.surreycomet.co.uk/news/sutton/4125192.Dial_a_dentist_with_local_NHS_helpline/

Dial a dentist with local NHS helpline

7:40am Monday 16th February 2009

<<
Residents can get their teeth into a new way of finding NHS dentists thanks to a new phone number.

Sutton and Merton Primary Care Trust (PCT) has launched a new dental helpline that lets people find a local surgery that is taking on NHS patients. Residents can call 0300 1000 898 for information about a service near them.

Dentist Dr Nili Morris, the PCT’s non-acute commissioning manager, said: “We have set up the helpline because we want to help local people find an NHS dentist. Untreated mouth problems can cause harm to our general health.

"So having a check up, especially if one has not been to a dentist for a long time, will help conserve a healthy smile.”
>>


Press release from PCT is here:

http://www.suttonandmerton.nhs.uk/ec/files/pressuploads/Press%20Release%20-%20PR%20dental%20access%20helpline.pdf

DH Social Care Careers uses 0300 123 1100:

http://www.socialcarecareers.co.uk/

Source: Eastbourne Herald

http://www.eastbourneherald.co.uk/news/Number39s-up-for-NHS.5093935.jp

Number's up for NHS
Published Date: 20 March 2009

A TELEPHONE service providing information and advice on NHS services has a new number.

NHS East Sussex Downs and Weald's confidential Patient Advice and Liaison Service (PALS) can now be reached on 0300 1000 891.
A trust spokeswoman said calls to 03 numbers cost the same as to those beginning with 01 or 02, on mobile phones and landlines, and are included as part of any minutes or discount package.
PALS can help to find a doctor or dentist, discuss how to solve problems with the NHS or get copies of health records.
East Sussex Hospitals NHS Trust's PALS team is available on 435886 and mental health trust Sussex Partnership Trust has its own team on 446042.

---

See also the press release from the PCT:

http://www.eastsussexdownswealdpct.nhs.uk/about-us/news/press-releases/2009-press-releases/new-pals-number/

NEG have an advert in the new issue of Management in Practice, encouraging practice managers to put their views on a website [www.practiceviews.com which diverts to http://www.networkeuropegroup.com/neg_surgery_line/surgery-staff.html].

On this form-based page they are asked " Q2. Do you know by changing to an 03 number you will pay per minute to receive calls from your patients?
"  

Does anyone know whether providers of 03 numbers are charging the called party for receiving the call or not?

Othertelecom wrote on Apr 6^th, 2009 at 5:30pm:

NEG have an advert in the new issue of Management in Practice, encouraging practice managers to put their views on a website [url=www.practiceviews.com[/url]]www.practiceviews.com[/url] which diverts to http://www.networkeuropegroup.com/neg_surgery_line/surgery-staff.html. On this form-based page they are asked " Q2. Do you know by changing to an 03 number you will pay per minute to receive calls from your patients?"   Does anyone know whether providers of 03 numbers are charging the called party for receiving the call or not?

Any additional features associated with non-geographic numbers have to be paid for somehow. It is for the TalkTalk group, who provide the lines used by Surgery Line to determine what they would charge GPs for the features provided if they changed from 0844 to 03 numbers. It is quite common for these features to be paid for on a pence per minute basis, rather than through a higher line rental charge.

With 0844 numbers the features are paid for by the caller's telephone company through the revenue share. This also provides additional income to the 0844 user to pay for other things or as "profit". All telephone companies presently reflect the extra cost of connecting to 0844 numbers in their call charges. It could be a matter of debate whether it would be proper for the cost of packages to be increased so that all customers pay for these calls to be included. BT already does this with 0845 and 0870 numbers.

I personally take the view that if premium rate services are being offered and are not to be paid for by the receipient, then indivdual callers should bear the cost, rather than having this imposed on all customers through higher charges for inclusive packages.

In the case of the NHS, most, in not all, other public services and many cases in the private sector it is quite wrong for callers to pay for the telephone service of the organisation they are calling.

Othertelecom wrote on Apr 6^th, 2009 at 5:30pm:

On this form-based page they are asked " Q2. Do you know by changing to an 03 number you will pay per minute to receive calls from your patients? "   Does anyone know whether providers of 03 numbers are charging the called party for receiving the call or not?

It is hardly surprising that there are going to be charges for receiving calls on 03 numbers.

NEG customers believe in free lunches ... "the revolutionary self funding Surgery Line" it says at the top of that page.  ::)

Othertelecom wrote on Apr 6^th, 2009 at 5:30pm:

[...] Does anyone know whether providers of 03 numbers are charging the called party for receiving the call or not?

This would, generally, be the case. Selecting a random supplier:

http://www.03numbers.co.uk/0300%20numbers.htm

0300 numbers

Enables customers to contact your organisation for the price of a standard phone call, from anywhere in the UK†

0300 numbers are now available for the public sector (including organisations with a .gov.uk or .nhs.uk website) and not-for-profit organisations such as registered charities.

We charge just £9.95 per month for our 0300 numbers. This price includes 2000 minutes worth of calls each month, after which all calls are charged at a highly competitive 1.0ppm.

---

However, a surgery needs neither an 03 number nor an 08 number in order to replicate its current functions. Exactly the same features, facilities and services can be provided on a standard geographic number, resulting in bundled costs for the caller and no per minute cost for the called party. This is such a straightforward concept, and the sooner those decision-makers within the NHS understand this concept, the sooner NEG's cash-cow will cease.

Furthermore, some surgeries appear to be meeting an additional GBP 300 per month cost simply for maintaining the NEG SurgeryLine system (GBP 600 per month minus GBP 300 lick-back from NEG).

hi i am looking at the tele discount website and i get the impression when you dial there 0844 number you can get the follow up number of 0844 for 2p a minute  does anyone no if this is correct regards jonmerc

Not sure that you can do what you say but have a look here.

http://www.telediscount.co.uk/index2.php

I think this is more for international calls

jonmerc wrote on Apr 8^th, 2009 at 2:38pm:

hi i am looking at the tele discount website and i get the impression when you dial there 0844 number you can get the follow up number of 0844 for 2p a minute  does anyone no if this is correct regards jonmerc

Nice idea, but know, it is untrue. You are paying at whatever rate it costs you to dial there access number.

A new health helpline has started up in Devon using a revenue sharing 0845 number:

http://www.devonpct.nhs.uk/default.asp?news=185

Easier access for dental patients in Devon as new helpline goes live
Tuesday, May 05, 2009

People in Devon that wish to visit an NHS dentist are now able to get advice over the phone.

This comes after Devon Primary Care Trust (PCT) launched a new helpline that will provide information on how to access dental services.

From 1 May, the helpline will be available on weekdays between 8am and 6pm. During evenings and weekends, there will be an answer phone message directing patients to out-of-hours dental cover.

The helpline is available for all dental enquiries for patients residing in or visiting the Devon PCT area.

Andrew Harris, Devon PCT’s dentistry lead, said: “We are sure that people who wish to access an NHS dentist will be pleased that they will now be able to get instant advice over the phone.

“We have listened to our patients and this step will ensure they have greater access to information about NHS dental services.”

For more information contact the dental helpline number on 0845 002 0034 or email devondentalhelpline@nhs.net Alternatively, write to Devon Dental, P.O. Box 524, Exeter, Devon, EX2 8PF.

Patients that require urgent care outside of normal working hours should contact 01392 823 682.

---

A report in a local newspaper is here:

http://www.devon24.co.uk/sidmouthherald/news/story.aspx?brand=SMHOnline&category=news&tBrand=devon24&tCategory=newsdevon24&itemid=DEED07%20May%202009%2016%3A29%3A56%3A083

Dr Howe your talking a load of crap 5p is not going to break the bank.It will if you are keep on line for 15 to 20 minutes and no one picks the phone up.My mother spoke to a person and he told her that when his phone bill arrived it cost him £25 just trying to ring the doctors and still he never spoke to anybody.