Jump to content

Recommended Posts

As a Forest Hill Road patient, I have added my name to the petition and have also written to Daniel Marshell.


However, as someone repeatedly affected by this (I'm currently in recurring 'hospital-can-nver-get-my-address-or-GP-right' hell) I would like to take more direct action to embarrass the practice, as they clearly take no notice of anything else.


Any other FHR practice patients who would like to join me?

  • 1 year later...

That said, I think FHR only takes appointments in the morning on weekdays, doesn't it?


Anyway, whilst the principle of paying to phone a Docs surgery does 'seem' worse, but you still need to phone all the other places that use 0845 numbers too. I think the answer is to make all 0845 numbers pointless by choosing an operator who includes them - if enough people do that, there won't be any need for any of them.


They're a hangover from the days of national and local price banding (now obsolete) which was meant to encourage you to call companies who weren't local at no extra expense. Now even some of the shops at the bottom of our road have 0845 numbers.. yet calling Aberdeen is free.

Narnia Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Their number is an 0844 one. Do you know a plan

> which includes those? Do you know the difference

> between 0844 and 0845 numbers by the way, as I

> don't?



Hmm. looks like you're right. 0844 is not covered by TalkTalk. Now en route to throw a half-ender through their windows.


Apparently many places are also changing their numbers from 0845/70 to 0844, to keep the cash coming-in.

According to this site, 0844 numbers charge 5p per minute, and the recipient gets 1.5p of that.


That makes me think they impose charges to dissuade you from calling, rather than get rich.


Either way, if you're paying 9p then your provider must be surcharging an additional 4p!

A GP friend of mine did tell me (his estimation of) the percentage of patients he sees who are 'hypochondriac regulars'. I forget the figure but it was pretty high. It seemed to account for the lion's share of his time.


He said part of the difficulty (and potential danger) with being a GP was that they see so many people with absolutely nothing wrong with them whatsoever - that the chances of missing the ones who are actually ill increases.

As far as the cost of ringing 0844 numbers goes, not only do they fall outside the "free call packages" to which many people subscribe ( BT only include 0845 & 0870 numbers), but the 5p charge which 0844 numbers are supposed to cost, only applies to calls from landlines


Call charges from mobiles are set by the mobile provider and are usually anything between 25p-35p per minute. This means that a 3 minute call to the GP on a mobile to make an appointment could easily cost over ?1.00! And what's more, the GPs get a cut from the cost of the call to their 0844 number (that's why these numbers are being used more and more by commercial organisations selling services such as ticket sales for concerts, travel etc etc.)


If you've got a landline, then at least it's possible to choose to use that and limit the cost to 5p per minute. However, many people with limited budgets may only have a mobile and for them there's no choice - they end up paying the most.


One of the problems, is that telephony call charges are so diverse and complex, that few people know exactly what's being charged - and that includes GPs themselves


0844 numbers are a mechanism for making money and should be limited to commercial providers. They shouldn't be used by organisations providing public services.

Following the consultation that finished last year the government has moved to ban use of expensive telephone numbers by NHS GPs.


Contract changes came into effect on 1 April 2010, giving them 12 months in which to change their arrangements.


The situation is far from "done and dusted" and there are plenty of complications.


There is lots more info on my blog - http://nhspatient.blogspot.com/.


Please make contact for a full briefing on the situation and any help needed to deal with the particular local issues.

These payments are not acceptable to vulnerable or housebound patients who need to call their GP for help-these people could be deterred from calling their GP and for this reason I disagree with the charges.


However, I am not sure how many people making the comments on this thread fall into that category. If you can afford to pay for an i-pod, annual holidays, pets insurance, ?1.50 for a coffee at a cafe or go the delis, boutique shops in ED etc then is it so bad to pay a few pounds to your local GP practice which is probably resource stretched e.g. restricted funding, large population sizes, probably understaffed. Money that could possibly contribute to fund repairs or an extra nurse or receptionist to deal with all of the non-emergencies (If this is generating an income one should hope that it is used to improve the running of the practice). I don't know whether the income is enough for a profit or just to help with running costs. Many GP practices don't use these numbers probably (and correctly) on moral grounds.


People are increasingly demanding more of the NHS but don't want to pay for it. Yes I know we all pay NI but if you really knew the cost of providing healthcare, you would know that our contributions are a drop in the ocean.

How come my surgery doesn't need to do it then? They are an independent practice The Nunhead Surgery and they are not owned by a big American company like some of the GP practices are (I think Melbourne Grove is one such). Please don't come out with patronising statements such as "if you really knew the cost of providing healthcare". Just because some people can afford to pay does not mean everyone can, and those that can may not be able to in the future.

Well I imagine availability of services has many complex influences - catchment area, economic affluence, cultural attitudes etc. It may work for your practice but not for others.


On the note of expense, 10% of the population carries over 55% of tax bill. If we assume that locals don't fall into that high-earning category then locally each taxpayer (around 27m in total) pays around 1,750 annually into the NHS.


I know that a personal private package (e.g. BUPA) would approach that, and a family pack be beyond that. I also know that we all pay a wee bit extra for the less priveleged and I'm happy with that.


I can also understand that a practice would want to avoid vexatious or indulgent costs that increase the expense for more rational customers.


It's not such a bad deal.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Direct link to joint statement : https://thehaguegroup.org/meetings-bogota-en/?link_id=2&can_id=2d0a0048aad3d4915e3e761ac87ffe47&source=email-pi-briefing-no-26-the-bogota-breakthrough&email_referrer=email_2819587&email_subject=pi-briefing-no-26-the-bogot_-breakthrough&&   No. 26 | The Bogotá Breakthrough “The era of impunity is over.” That was the message from Bogotá, Colombia, where governments from across the Global South and beyond took the most ambitious coordinated action since Israel’s genocidal assault on Gaza began 21 months ago. Convened by The Hague Group and co-chaired by the governments of Colombia and South Africa, the Emergency Conference on Palestine brought together 30 states for two days of intensive deliberation — and emerged with a concrete, coordinated six-point plan to restrain Israel’s war machine and uphold international law. States took up the call from their host, Colombian President and Progressive International Council Member Gustavo Petro, who had urged them to be “protagonists together.” Twelve governments signed onto the measures immediately. The rest now have a deadline: 20 September 2025, on the eve of the United Nations General Assembly. The unprecedented six measures commit states to:     Prevent military and dual use exports to Israel.     Refuse Israeli weapons transfers at their ports.     Prevent vessels carrying weapons to Israel under their national flags.     Review all public contracts to prevent public institutions and funds from supporting Israel’s illegal occupation.     Pursue justice for international crimes.     Support universal jurisdiction to hold perpetrators accountable. “We came to Bogotá to make history — and we did,” said Colombian President Gustavo Petro. “Together, we have begun the work of ending the era of impunity. These measures show that we will no longer allow international law to be treated as optional, or Palestinian life as disposable.” The measures are not symbolic. They are grounded in binding obligations under international law — including the International Court of Justice’s July 2024 advisory opinion declaring Israel’s occupation unlawful, and September 2024’s UN General Assembly Resolution ES-10/24, which gave states a 12-month deadline to act. UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the occupied Palestinian territory Francesca Albanese called them “a momentous step forward.” “The Hague Group was born to advance international law in an era of impunity,” said South Africa’s Foreign Minister, Ronald Lamola. “The measures adopted in Bogotá show that we are serious — and that coordinated state action is possible.” The response from Washington was swift — and revealing. In a threatening statement to journalists, a US State Department spokesperson accused The Hague Group of “seeking to isolate Israel” and warned that the US would “aggressively defend our interests, our military, and our allies, including Israel, from such coordinated legal and diplomatic” actions. But instead of deterring action, the threats have only clarified the stakes. In Bogotá, states did not flinch. They acted — and they invite the world to join them. The deadline for further states to take up the measures is now two months away. And with it, the pressure is mounting for governments across the world — from Brazil to Ireland, Chile to Spain — to match words with action. As Albanese said, “the clock is now ticking for states — from Europe to the Arab world and beyond — to join them.” This is not a moment to observe. It is a moment to act. Share the Joint Statement from Bogotá and popularise the six measures. Write to your elected representative and your government and demand they sign on before 20 September. History was made in Bogotá. Now, it’s up to all of us to ensure it becomes reality, that Palestinian life is not disposable and international law is not optional. The era of impunity is coming to an end. Palestine is not alone. In solidarity, The Progressive International Secretariat  
    • Most countries charge for entry to museums and galleries, often a different rate for locals (tax payers) and foreign nationals. The National Gallery could do this, also places like the Museums in South Kensington, the British Library and other tax-funded institutions. Many cities abroad add a tourist tax to hotel bills. It means tourists help pay for public services.
    • Having just been to Co-op to redeem a 50p off Co-op members' card voucher on an item that is now 50p more than it was last week, Tesco can't come soon enough
    • Surely that depends on the amount.  It can be quite piffling.  
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...