A recent report was published by The Argus' Health Reporter:

Doctors' surgeries flout telephone rules, report reveals

---

Also, published last week by Epping Forest Guardian:

EPPING FOREST: Fury as surgeries fail to change premium rate phone lines

Holbrook surgery in West Sussex are still using a 0844 number

After reading this

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-15340914

I wonder if complaining about rip off telephone numbers will get you struck off?

The BBC C&W item is now available on-line at this link.

When the whole show is available to "listen again" there will be some interesting comments to hear, including someone reading out the alternative number for BBC Coventry & Warwickshire phone-ins, looked up live (with the assistance of the presenter) on www.SayNoTo0870.com.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Nov 1^st, 2011 at 10:56am:

In addition to that referred to above, members maybe interested to listen to the following further excerpts from the Annie Othen show from BBC Coventry and Warwickshire yesterday morning. These will remain available for the next 5 days only.

From	To
23.44	.....	Comments from "Ron"
25.25	29.11	"Michael" giving an endorsement of SayNoTo0870 and a live demonstration of how
		to get the alternative number for the BBC Coventry and Warwickshire phone-in line.
-----
41.05	.....	Written-in comments from listeners
42.30	43.15	Annie Othen trying to justify the BBC using a 0845 number for phone-ins.
-----
46.50	.....	A summary of the earlier item
49.15	56.47	Dr Tony Feltbower, a local GP, offering his explanation for why his
		colleagues (NOT his own practice) use 0844 telephone numbers.

There is much to criticise in each of the above, however I believe that they were all examples of individuals offering information and explanations to the best of their understanding.

---

The issue of BBC local radio and its use of 0845 numbers needs to be taken up in a separate thread.

I am very grateful to BBC local radio stations for picking up on the issue of the GPs and providing an opportunity to publicise it and discuss it with people in each locality. It is however unfortunate that this has to be handled a little carefully, restricted to coverage of 0844 numbers and even prevented from covering HMRC, DWP and NHS Direct, because listener comments have to be invited on a 0845 number.

Holes Lane and Manchester Road Surgeries in Warrington have just had a new telephone system installed. It is co-funded from calls from patients when they dial the new Business Rate number, 0844 387 8187.

It is just over 18 months since the new GMS contract came into effect:

"The Contractor shall not enter into, renew or extend a contract or other arrangement for telephone services unless it is satisfied that, having regard to the arrangement as a whole, persons will not pay more to make relevant calls to the practice than they would to make equivalent calls to a geographical number."

It was confirmed by Health Minister in Parliament in July of this year that "It is absolutely clear that there is no distinction between landlines, mobiles or payphones."

All mobile and payphone callers pay more. Most landline callers pay more too.

Heinz wrote on Nov 10^th, 2011 at 2:36pm:

Indeed. It is crystal clear!!


.............Here's another one that has changed in the last year. Westbourne Surgery in Huddersfield says on its homepage "Our telephone number has now changed. Although it is an 0844 number the cost is equivalent to a standard phone call. …"

The Internet Archive Wayback Machine of that page shows that it had a geographic number in September of last year, so has therefore changed sometime between then and now.

Heinz wrote on Nov 10^th, 2011 at 2:36pm:

It is a civil matter. A breach of the contract between the GP and the local Primary Care Trust.

The PCTs are not doing their job essentially because they fail to recognise the responsibility which they hold on behalf of the people that they serve.

Some have claimed that they require advice and guidance from the Department of Health. Strictly speaking this should not be necessary, however in the light of such demonstrable failure, the Department of Health and its Ministers are seen to be neglecting their duty by not stepping in to ensure that contractual conditions which they imposed are effectively enforced.

The BMA carries a heavy responsibility for continuing to promote its support for co-payment after this was rejected following the public consultation. It has also issued guidance to its members intended to circumvent the duty imposed on them by the contract revisions and to mislead PCTs.

Daisy Group is understood to be still circulating letters which misrepresent the position of the Department of Health, by suggesting that it has been granted a competence to make a determination about compliance with the terms of the GP's NHS contract.