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

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.

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

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

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

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

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


 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.

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.