Surely it cannot be true that the DoH is advising comparison only with BT tariffs?   Does anyone anywhere have a document proving this is not the case?   If so could they please provide it or its link urgently for the rest of us to use?   If no one has this, could someone, possibly SCV as he is so heavily involved & has such good contacts, seek absolute clarification on this?   I know the article flies in the face of last week's parliamentary question but I think we all need something quotable and authoritative.

Dave wrote on Jul 19^th, 2011 at 8:21am:

Dave wrote on Jul 19^th, 2011 at 8:39am:

Dave is correct. In effect, the PCT is alleging that the Minister misled parliament.

After contacting all parties, a campaigner has added a further comment to the Wokingham Times website. This concludes by indicating the course of action open to patients who feel that the PCT is failing in its duty.

Should anything be done about Dartford East Health Centre - the one Practice that has the 0844 number is STILL updating their Web Site supposedly or is it a ploy to force Patients to use the 0844 to make an appointment - perhaps they were getting too much activity on their Web site and didnt like missing out on the dosh !!!   Or perhaps they didnt like the complaints and reviews they were getting on it - Clever eh !!!

Anyone any idea how long it has been like this ?

The BMA has put out some more propaganda on the ban on expensive telephone numbers, dated July 2011:

GPC GUIDANCE: USE OF 084 NUMBERS BY GP PRACTICES

It contains this blatant falsity:

Quote:


A Health Minister recently said in Parliament of the GP number ban:

…It is absolutely clear that there is no distinction between landlines, mobiles or payphones. The directions are very clear that patients should not expect to be charged any more.

Barbara wrote on Jul 28^th, 2011 at 8:22am:

See The BMA advises its members to continue the 084 telephone number scam

---

The issue of a practice abandoning a 0844 number has brought to light a failure by Bedfordshire PCT to perform its duties - see Example of how PCTs are failing

I understand that BBC 3 Counties Radio will be doing a piece on this at 2.30 this afternoon.

CJT-80 wrote on Jul 28^th, 2011 at 12:16pm:

If the surgery were to approach the telephone service provider and say that they needed to transfer to a 01/02 or 03 number in order to stop patients incurring additional costs, it would be told what options are available.

At the very least, they will be able to migrate to a 03 number. This is a standard option offered by Talk Talk to all of its customers at any time during the term of their arrangement, WITHOUT PENALTY. I have not heard of any case where such a request was refused.


On transferring to 03 (or 01/02) the surgery will, of course, suffer the loss of the illegal subsidy at the expense of patients, placing it in the same position as all other NHS GPs who meet the costs incurred in providing NHS services out of the funding provided for the purpose.

I would fully support any practice that wished to plead for assistance from those who had led it to believe that its telephone system was not as expensive as it is seen to be when migration to a 03 number fully exposes the costs, with the subsidy from patients removed. If such requests for assistance are not answered, it must honour the commitments it made when choosing its system - IT CANNOT CONTINUE TO USE NHS PATIENTS AS A SOURCE OF SUBSIDY.


I do not believe that the Health Minister was actually confused. I suspect that she is unaware of the ease with which practices can migrate to 03 numbers, because there is no strong base of evidence for this. Practices are being discouraged from taking this option, because once it is seen to work then the true cost of these systems (and thereby the scale of the subsidy from which they have been benefiting) will be exposed to view.

CJT-80 wrote on Jul 28^th, 2011 at 2:28pm:

I understand that NEG/Daisy acts as an agent for Talk Talk in providing the telephone service to the practice and as the agent of a leasing company funding the switchboard and other equipment installed at the surgery.

I understand that the periodic (monthly/quarterly) charge/credit to the practice from NEG/Daisy consolidates charges/credits from Talk Talk, service charges from NEG/Daisy and lease payments.

When using a 0844 number the Talk Talk element will be a sizeable credit. The "Surgery Line" proposal is that this will more than offset the other two elements. In reality, it is commonly found that it fails to do so.

Without the benefit of revenue share the cost of the telephone line (and associated features) will be charged in full by Talk Talk. This means that the overall cost to the practice will be the full cost of the system which they selected. This is fair, because all other NHS GPs have to meet the costs incurred in providing NHS services from the funding provided for the purpose.

The simple regulations intended to restore this proper state of affairs are being resisted for two reasons. The BMA obviously wishes for its GP members to benefit from reduced costs wherever it can. NEG/Daisy is apparently concerned that if the true full cost of its system were exposed, then it would be seen to be unaffordable by GPs. Both have argued that it is right for NHS patients to pay to subsidise the cost of GP telephone systems as they access NHS services. After this argument was rejected, they have been reduced to misrepresenting the terms of the regulations and seeking to disguise the possibility of changing to a 03 (or perhaps 01/02) number, whilst retaining the "Surgery Line" system for the remainder of the term of lease.

Given that both have clearly declared their opposition to the principle of "free at the point of need", one has to see these tricks as being ways of achieving their declared objective by stealth.

The fact that the charges for using the features of a non-geographic number are typically based on call volumes (as a pence per minute rate applied to incoming calls), rather than as a monthly rental, is immaterial. 080, 03 and 0870 numbers work this way because most non-geographic numbers are revenue sharing (including PRS numbers) and so it is convenient to apply a call volume based approach in all cases.

(I am not sure how what we know as "non-geographic number features" are charged for when they are deployed on geographic numbers. Perhaps someone who knows more about this could help!)

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Jul 29^th, 2011 at 9:12am:
Well done David, could not be any clearer, we await the response ...