SilentCallsVictim wrote on Oct 1^st, 2009 at 12:44pm:


Actually we did have a free mini bus running between Horsham, Crawley & Redhill hospitals for staff as well as patients, sadly this was withdrawn about a couple of years ago see here http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-170124390.html also here http://www.wscountytimes.co.uk/district/Hospital-bus-petition-success.3396579.jp

I believe there is still folk trying to get the service restored

As regards to your point why not free telephone calls to and from hospitals, well if phoning to a hospital and the  number was a geographical number then it would be 'free' within the inclusive packages that are on offer.

Usually I agree with what you say SilentCallsVictim but I am afraid  on this subject our views seem to differ and I am very pleased that Barbara sees my point of view.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Oct 1^st, 2009 at 1:37pm:



I accept that point 

Stoday wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2009 at 4:01am:

When my Mother was in hospital, my wife and I visited every day.  We lived 40 miles away and, using public transport, would, fairly typically of this country, have involved travelling on 3 buses and 2 trains, would have taken in excess of 3 hours in each direction and would have cost £47 each way.

Needless to say, we use our car for the cost of (ignoring insurance, VED, depreciation and so on) just under 2 gallons of petrol - say £10.  Are you saying we should have paid £94 to park our car?  If so, for how long, an hour, per hour?

How would the cost have been established?  Would a long questionnaire have to be completed by each visitor with an adjudicator then assessing each application?

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Oct 1^st, 2009 at 12:44pm:

I hope that the recent exchanges have demonstrated the difficulties involved in resolving the issue of car parking.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Sep 30^th, 2009 at 6:20pm:

A simpler way of making my point would have been to say that use of revenue sharing telephone numbers by the NHS is plainly and simply unacceptable. The cases for and against particular levels of car parking charge in particular areas for particular people are much more complex.

(Within this thread, and indeed this forum, we should try to keep our comments relevant to the topic. I declare a passionate concern about the NHS and am myself guilty of being drawn off-topic.)

I said "as an incentive" not to ensure public transport is used exclusively. You can't have different car parking prices according to where users live. The cost of a bus from the nearby town is the relevant journey.

Clearly,  some users will find it more difficult and expensive to travel by public transport than others, eliminating the incentive. They could choose to travel by car as a cheaper option.

The marginal cost of a car journey is a lot lower than the average running cost and this produces a perverse incentive to use a car instead of public transport (which includes a taxi). The provision of free car parking increases that incentive. I see no good reason why the NHS should subsidise those fortunate enough to be able to run a car and are still capable of driving. The provision of car parking is a resource that has value. I've suggested a way of identifying that value, by relating it to the cost of a bus from town. An alternative indication of value would be to set prices such that the car park gets filled for most of the day.

Of course, costs should be offset for patients who need frequent visits, such as for cancer therapy and dialysis. In such cases there should be a subsidy for travel or for carpark costs, in everyones favour, car driver or not.

sherbert wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2009 at 8:20am:

Having urged us to stop discussing this issue in depth in this thread, I cannot resist being drawn back in by this consumerist argument.

The fundamental principle of the NHS is that it is paid for by progressive taxation (by the fit and well) and provided to those in need regardless of their level of contribution.

The matter of encouraging a shift from the private car to public transport is an important issue of public policy, but immensely difficult and complex to effect fairly. It does become part of the consideration of hospital car parking charges. The issues are indeed commonly different between urban and rural areas. I do not have the figures to hand, but I suspect that the population distributions between the two are different for Wales and Scotland as against England. Populist politics sadly causes universal application of whatever is seen to suit the majority, that is not democracy.

The argument that poor provision of public transport in rural areas justifies free parking for visits to urban hospitals is no more valid than the reverse argument. Please can we agree that there is no single simple rule on this matter that must be applied in every case.

Apart from the consumerist irrelevance quoted above, the arguments being advanced are all reasonable, but they apply to different situations differently, confirming my point.

This is different to the matter of use of revenue sharing telephone numbers which cannot be justified for the NHS in any situation.

OK, will stop but only after I've again agreed with Sherbert!  (can't stand this "green" nonsense anyway, makes my blood boil, not good for health).

We can continue the discussion by PM or email, or in any public forum that someone would like to suggest. We can move onto prescription and dental charges, eye tests, treatments not sanctioned by NICE, private treatment in NHS hospitals, NHS treatment in private hospitals and any other topic.

I am starting to get interested in the matter of retail concessions within NHS premises. I am also concerned about proposals to locate NHS facilities, other than pharmacies who require a retail element to their business, away from a proper healthcare setting (e.g. within a supermarket).

Perhaps the most disturbing proposal is the idea of bringing "care services" within the scope of the NHS. As these are currently funded quite differently, there is a severe danger that a combined service would have to sacrifice its clear principles beyond the point to which they are heavily qualified already.

---

There is a deadline by which the question of whether or not premium telephone charges are to be banned must be resolved.

The Health Bill returns to the floor on the Commons on 12 October for its final stages before Royal Assent (it started in the Lords). Whilst the main discussion will be around tobacco advertising, its first section imposes a legal duty on NHS providers to have regard to the NHS Constitution. This includes to right to treatment without charge apart from exceptions "sanctioned by parliament".

There is currently no sanction for the use of telephone numbers that cause patients to incur a premium charge to the benefit of the user. The Department of Health appears to believe that there will come a time when there is no surcharge by any telephone service provider on calls to 084x numbers. Until that point arrives (I hope and believe that it never will), use of 084x numbers must either be banned or sanctioned by parliament.

Before the Bill passes without an amendment to add such a sanction, it is vital that the position regarding the ban is clarified. If the situation remains as it is, or if it is clarified to not cover 084x numbers, then on the day that the Health Bill becomes law I will personally attempt to commence the appropriate proceedings against every NHS body using a 084x number in defiance of the law. (Compliance by GPs needs to be enforced through the terms of their contract, so that will have to wait if the contract is going through a lengthy process of amendment, which one would hope to influence.)

I hope that others will join me in lobbying MPs and Ministers to ensure that we have a proper resolution.