Quote:


Here are a few email addresses you could send your very good letter to:

huttonj@parliament.uk (the Health Minister)
david.colin-thome@dh.gsi.gov.uk (responsible for primary care in the DoH)
dhmail@dh.gsi.gov.uk (the general DoH email address, mark it for the personal attention of John Hutton),
your MP: surnameinitial@parliament.uk

lansleya@parliament.uk (Conservative health spokesman)
dombeyr@parliament.uk (Libdem health spokesman)

rspringer@gmc-uk.org (General Medical Council)

newsfeedback@dailymail.co.uk
Nic.Fleming@Telegraph.co.uk

The following letter to Islington Primary Care Trust may be of interest.  It has been copied to David Colin-Thome of the DoH, the local MP, the GMC and Islington Trading Standards:

Dear Ms Percival

You expressed the view that "the St Paul’s Road Medical Centre acted in good faith in putting in a telephone system that they believed would benefit their patients in terms of improved speed of answering, etc."

I think this is a pretty naive view. Rather than being a matter of good or bad faith, it was a commercial decision by the partners of the St Paul’s Road Medical Centre to instal a new telephone system and fund it by imposing a levy on their patients through changing their phone number to an 0870 premium rate revenue generating number charged at 7.5 p/min. 

It transpired from the information released by the PCT under the FOI Act that the practice thought it would generate in excess of £35,000 from patients this way and, by definition, save the same amount from its budget at the patients' expense.

Those patients of limited means who do not have their own telephones and are compelled to use payphones are particularly hard hit.  Also the practice is endangering patients who require medical treatment abroad because 0870 (and 0844) numbers are not accessible from all overseas locations.

As to “the improved speed of answering“-  it is true that calls are answered immediately with a recorded message or music, but then the caller has to wait for a receptionist to actually come on line and the caller is being charged 7.5 p/min in the meantime. This is what revenue generation is all about.  There is no way a service can improve merely by the installation of new equipment if the same number of staff handle calls as before.  In fact, from a patient’s perspective, there did not seem to be anything wrong with the phone system of the practice prior to their change to the 0870 number.

Unfortunately the Health Minister’s 24 February 2005 guidance is unclear in a number of respects.  Representations have been made both to John Hutton and David Colin-Thome to issue a clarification.  The GMC is also aware of the situation

John Hutton’s announcement has been the result of a nationwide campaign against the use of 0870 numbers by GPs. The campaign continues because by allowing the use of premium rate 0844 numbers instead of 0870 numbers all that will happen is that the 7.5 p/min charge will reduce to 5 p/min.  This would undoubtedly be an improvement but 5 p/min is still a substantial surcharge over the cost of calls to geographical numbers beginning with 01 or 02.  Revenue generation would continue under the proposed new regime although the revenue generated will be somewhat smaller.

There is also the principle embodied in para. 483 of the GMS regulations that a GP  shall not demand or accept from any of its patients a fee or remuneration for its own or another’s benefit.   

By accepting remuneration from patients for new telephones the door is being opened to doing the same for other things necessary for GPs to practice.  There is no difference in principle between charging patients for a new phone system and charging for, say, redecorating the surgery, new computers or new blood pressure meters. 

The taxpayer adequately funds GPs both in terms of their personal income and the reimbursement of their expenses necessary to provide the service.  GPs are contractors to the NHS, they have to organise their businesses themselves whilst abiding by the terms of their contracts.  There is absolutely no justification for them to try to generate revenue from patients either for themselves or for others, e.g. NEG.  This may well be unlawful as well as unethical.  Remember, the NHS is a public service.

Islington Trading Standards have also been informed and may take action because of the misleading NEG poster displayed in the surgery which, contrary to COI guidance, does not disclose the actual 7.5 p/min cost of calls to the surgery’s 0870 number.  The claim on the poster that these calls are charged at the national rate is equally misleading since calls via BT to any UK number, be it local or national, have been charged at identical rates since 1 July 2004, and this rate is considerably less than 7.5 p/min.  The same applies to other telephone service providers, too.

Interestingly, an identical poster has been removed from the surgery’s street window on 24 February following John Hutton’s announcement but the one in the reception area remains.

PS.

I think you ought also to reflect upon Islington PCT currently being charged premium rates when calling the St Paul’s Road Medical Centre, for all intents and purposes an internal call, and ask the practice to let you know the 0207 geographical number underlying their 0870 premium rate number.  Public funds should not be wasted this way!

An excellent letter lompos.

Hi Dave

BT do advertise 0844 on the BT web site, the number range to be used cost 5p/min at ALL times.   


Quote from BT website:

"BT ContactCall 0844

ContactCall 0844

BT ContactCall 0844 enables callers to ring you at any time, from any part of the UK – for just 5p a minute. The service offers the potential for shared call revenues….  "

End quote.

0844 from a Pay Phone cost 10p for 43 seconds.
0870 or 0845 from a Pay Phone cost 10p for 55 seconds.
01 and 02 from a Pay Phone, cost 10p for 7.5 minutes.
(both subject to a 10p connection charge and a minimum charge of 30p)

KK

I sent this e-mail to my local paper & they printed it verbatim:

I am writing to you about the article relating to the 0870 telephone number for the Coleford Health Centre on page 13 on the Review, w/e 11/03/2005.

I was outraged when I rang the doctor & found out that the number had changed to an 0870 "Non Geographic Number".  I wrote to the practice manager & received a fairly standard reply.  However on one occasion when the nurse rang me back, the local number which the 0870 number is routed to was displayed on my phone, so I now use this when either myself of my Fiancée have to telephone the surgery.

The change from 0870 to 0845 or 0844 is a con.  BT is apparently recommending to Ofcom that 0870 & 0845 number be reduced to the same price as geographic calls whilst abolishing revenue sharing.  BT suggests that revenue sharing be retained on 0871 & 0844.

Due to modern call packages, which do not clearly state how much they will charge you to call a "Non Geographic Number", everyone will still be paying over the odds to call the doctor.

Basically the cost are roughly as follows:

01 or 02 numbers cost at most 3p/min and at best zero p/min (to ANY part of the UK)
0870 numbers cost between 7p/min to 10p/min
0845 numbers called "BT Lo-call" cost between 3p to 4p/min
0844 numbers called "BT ContactCall" cost 5p/min at ALL times (24/7) - Weekend & evening calls to 0844 numbers can even cost more than 0870

NEG said they are to use the 5p/min range of 0844 numbers.

Calling an 0844 number cost 5p/min at all times, which is at least 66% more than telephoning an 01 or 02 numbers.   

Calling an 0844 from a Pay Phone cost 946% more than an 01 or 02 call from a Pay Phone at all times.

Calling a doctor using a 0844 number from outside the UK may cost your life - as the call can not be made from many countries.

I have got some of my information from this internet forum: http://www.saynoto0870.com/cgi-bin/forum/YaBB.cgi?board=news;action=display;num=...

8)

I definitely have added the number to this site - just looking forward to people being able to get it from the front page search, even before it is verified.

I didn't actually expect it to be published in it's entirety as a letter, just thought they would clarify their piece in the previous weeks paper.  Also shame they printed such a long url, but I guess most people can work it out.

Sorry missed the bit about the Leicester trading standards.

Quote:


Yes, I have found that in local papers they do tend to publish letters verbatim, so it's important to make sure it's written exactly as you want it published. They must get so few letters, as things almost always seem to get included.

National newspapers are quite different. They do miss bits out and reword what you've written - if the letter is published at all!

I have found that if you e-mail your letter they are more likely to publish it. This is because they do not have to type anything into a file again.