Members may be interested to note that the Directions to NHS bodies referred to in the September 14 Statement were issued on Monday afternoon.

The formal directions accompanied a "Dear colleague" letter.

I comment and raise issues in a media release.

My latter point is significant. I see it as vital to get those who can speak with formal authority to point out the nonsense implied by these directions.

"The arrangement as a whole" is only relevant according to the choices of telephone tariff made by patients, it has nothing to do with any action by a NHS provider. If a revenue sharing number is selected, it may be fairly assumed that telephone service providers will pass on the extra cost incurred (in providing the revenue share) to callers. This is what one must reasonably expect, unless one perhaps believes that nobody has paid for the presents that will be found under the tree on Friday morning.

To assume that every caller to a 0844 number has subscribed to a BT call plan other than "Anytime" is quite absurd. It is almost equally absurd to assume that patients calling 0845 numbers are only subscribed to BT or to a few selected mobile tariffs that charge the same high rates for both 0845 and geographic calls. (With BT one must include those who I describe as its "clones" - those who parrot the structure of its tariffs.)

Providing NHS services is not the same as running a grocer's shop, where one could perhaps offset discounts from which some customers benefit (paid for by suppliers) against additional costs incurred by other customers (in aiding one's bottom line) when assessing the impact of one's pricing policy on consumers in general. This type of consumerist nonsense has no relevance to the NHS. NHS services are provided to individual patients in need, not to a group of consumers whose interests may be considered collectively, as a group. I will not get involved in playing the consumerist game, even if it may be seen to suggest that use of 084 numbers must be stopped in the NHS.


On a more positive note, for those who are very patient, we see the date of 21 December 2010 as that by which all existing numbers must have been reviewed.

The future for discounted rates for calls to revenue sharing 084 numbers may look a little bleak by then as Ofcom is likely to have made some progress in its review of the "NTS condition" on BT, which is what lies behind them. The perversity of the present situation is well recognised by all parties and so it is possible that specific proposals for radical change will be on the table within the next 12 months. Where revenue sharing is to remain, I think it likely that the present cap on BT's charges will be removed, although the opportunity for profiteering may be restricted by a cap on the premiums that may be applied by all providers (for each and every group of NTS numbers). It may seem odd to celebrate the possibility of some charges being increased (although others will be lowered), however this would help to clarify the situation by showing up revenue sharing for what it is. Once recognised, it is clearly unsuitable for use in the NHS - and other public services.

I look forward to working with members and others to take these matters forward in what could be an interesting New Year.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Dec 24^th, 2009 at 2:21am:





This "Dear Colleague" letter is written by someone called Nick Hall, Deputy Director.    It is the most ridiculous, stupid, nonsensical letter issued by any government Department for a long time.    It is utterly self contradictory because it says that the Department is "prohibiting the use of telephone numbers which charge the patient more than the equivalent cost of calling a geographic number to contact the NHS", and then says "These Directions do not prohibit ..... non geographic number ranges such as 084 ...".     Only someone practiced in the art of doublethink and in deceiving and lying to the public could write such nonsense.    It is deplorable that such a person as Hall should expect to be paid a salary by the public and then to show such contempt for patients and public.

Mr hall reveals himself as an incompetent idiot who has presided over a mamoth waste of taxpayers money to conduct a completely pointless and worthless "Consultation" on the banning of 084 numbers to which 3000 people responded and in which the overwhelming majority said they wanted a ban.    In addition an even larger consultation was taking place simultaneously in the form of a Petition on the PM's website to which 51,000 people affirmed their desire for 084/7 numbers to be banned or prevented.    

It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that this whole consultation and the Parliamentary "fact-finding" exercise which commenced in February 2008 were always intended to be a procedure to find some artful way of avoiding imposing a ban.   Well the plan has failed because we are not taken in at all, and can plainly see what has been going on.    Indeed some of us could see what this was all about from the very beginning.  

This issue of the use of 084/7 numbers within the NHS needs to be looked at again, only this time it needs to be done properly and efficiently.   It should take all of 5 minutes to announce a ban --- simple.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Dec 28^th, 2009 at 1:33am:
You may find the information provided by Magenta Systems helpful:

http://www.magsys.co.uk/
http://www.telecom-tariffs.co.uk/
http://www.telecom-tariffs.co.uk/residx.htm

For those of us of a more gadget-loving nature, one of the more prolific VoIP providers, betamax, generally offers free*, untimed, anytime, calls to UK landlines for a period (usually 90 days) after you add credit to your account.  0845 calls are of course always charged.  The particular brand I use has prices here however an independently compiled full list is here. 

The other big VoIP player is Skype, which is of course now owned by eBay, and their rates are here.


(* I'm assuming I can use the word "free" here, rather than "inclusive", as there is no recurrent charge, and the credit you add to get them is wholly usable for chargeable calls, and carries over for as long as you want it to!)


HTH.

loddon wrote on Jan 1^st, 2010 at 8:37am:

When publishing a lengthy piece it is common courtesy, if not a legal requirement, to identify the source.

The claimed increase in the personal remuneration drawn by partners in General Practices is disputed, indeed I find it hard to credit.

The terms of the revised GP contract are acknowledged to have been a terrible mistake and efforts have been made, with some success, to claw some of this back.

The relevance to our campaign is interesting. I believe that the power held by the BMA GPC, as shown by the quoted achievements in negotiation, has been demonstrated again in the outcome from the consultation. The simple way for a profligate government to have achieved its declared objective of no patient paying a premium rate to contact the NHS would have been for GPs using 0844 number to have been paid off from public funds. This is what happened in 2004, but it has not been repeated.

---

On the Politics addressed by the posting.

New Labour recognised that to be elected it had to adopt the "greed is good" principle that was seen to have been accepted by the electorate, so as to keep Old Labour out of power. Trying to mix the "Labour" tendency for greater spending on public services that benefited all with the "New" tolerance for lower taxation inevitably led to deficits and increasing government debt. The much criticised "stealth taxes" and increase in NI contributions were insufficient to balance the books. It is arguable as to whether this situation contributed to the "credit crunch" or whether a global financial situation led to the recognition of a situation that was probably bound to be exposed in time anyway. (I personally believe that "the environment" is one of a number of factors that will cause us to have to look more critically at economic growth, which would, and still could, provide the answer to the problem of government debt.)

Whilst a general election has not yet been called and manifestos have not yet been published, I have yet to hear any clear indication from those with any prospect of forming the next government that "greed is good" is to be abolished or that economic growth will not provide a significant part of the solution to the debt problem. The Conservatives have opposed the government's efforts to support growth (or at least limit the impact of recession) through maintained public spending, however they have committed to maintaining spending on the NHS rather than acknowledging that there is a Black Hole that offers potential for saving. It would also appear likely that some GPs have moved into the group that will benefit from the proposed relaxation of inheritance tax (wherever they were educated). In the absence of any clear new vision one must look back to historic principles of the party to see see what direction it may take. After what will be 13 years in power, New Labour lacks the energy to find any new direction and so offers more of the same. The prospect of others having a part in forming a government raises many interesting possibilities, however our voting system and political culture conspire against a truer Politics that enables us to vote with the expectation or hope of our MP playing some part in influencing government, whichever party they may represent. We seem to prefer to have a government representing a minority of voters with a variety of opposition groups that collectively represent an overall majority of voters.



The issue of our campaign with reference to public services is about equity ("social justice", if you will). We argue that the cost of providing access to public services should not be passed to those who use them, it should be covered out of public funds, raised primarily from taxation (now, or if initially by debt then later). I cannot see how any other Political issue is relevant. A Government is responsible for setting principles and political direction, competence in applying principles and achieving desired outcomes is a matter for individual ministers and the civil servant who support them.

Directions to NHS bodies concerning the cost of telephone calls 2009 which came into force on 21st December 2009.

Directions to NHS bodies regarding cost of telephone calls

On 21st December 2009 the Department of Health issued its "Directions" which came into force on the same date stating that all NHS Bodies must stop using 084 numbers if any "person" might be charged more than for a normal geographic call.  

The "Directions" did not explicitly ban the use of 084 numbers.   Instead they required each NHS Body to examine tariffs and call charges and decide for themselves whether "persons" (they mean patients and all callers) will not pay more than the equivalent cost of a geographic number.

This means that hundreds of "Bodies" all over the country must carry out the same amount of work in complete duplication and is a massive waste of time, work and money --- all at a time when public expenditure is under immense pressure and costs and expenses should be reduced NOT increased.

David Hickson the campaigner has offered to save all these "Bodies" much of this unnecessary duplication of work and cost by providing a comprehensive analysis of the tariffs and cost considerations involved.    He has sent them directly to all the Bodies and also published them here :---

http://davidhicksonmedia.blogspot.com/2010/01/use-of-revenue-sharing-084x-teleph...

Put simply, the analysis shows that NO NHS Body can use any 084 number!!