tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15474925025689501572024-03-14T11:33:51.023+00:00David Hickson's Media ReleasesThis blog features only Media releases issued by David Hickson in connection with campaigning activities.
The date shown is the date of the release, NOT the date of updoading to this blog.
THIS AREA IS CURRENTLY IN DEVELOPMENTDavid Hicksonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04098965183402991445noreply@blogger.comBlogger144125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1547492502568950157.post-49282183611934636882013-02-14T14:41:00.000+00:002013-02-14T14:41:38.759+00:00The fair telecoms campaign<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><img border="0" height="147" src="http://www.fairtelecoms.org.uk/uploads/1/1/4/5/11456053/1336776258.png" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" width="640" /></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: small;"><a href="http://www.fairtelecoms.org.uk/" target="_blank">Click to visit website </a></span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<br />
<br />
My campaigning activities (as "NHS Patient", "Silent Calls Victim" and "Public Services Campaigner") are now consolidated within the fair telecoms campaign.<br />
<br />
<br />
This includes a <a href="http://http//www.fairtelecoms.org.uk/blog.html">blog section</a>, where contributions which would have appeared here are now to be found.<br />
<br />
<br />
There is also a <a href="http://http//www.fairtelecoms.org.uk/news-feed.html">news feed</a>, updates to which may be notified by email or rss subscription.David Hicksonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04098965183402991445noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1547492502568950157.post-13802120619488286502012-10-15T13:24:00.000+01:002012-10-15T13:24:17.775+01:00Breaches of the NHS GP contract continue - new 0844 telephone numbers being adopted<style type='text/css'>.DHN {margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:10.0pt; font-size:14.0pt; font-family:'Book Antiqua', serif}.DHQuote {color:#E36C0A; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic;}.DHName {color:#000080; font-weight:bold}.DHTab {border-bottom:6pt solid transparent; vertical-align:top; font-size:14.0pt; font-family:'Book Antiqua', serif}.DHH1 {margin-top:18.0pt; color:#000080; font-weight:bold; margin-bottom:10.0pt; font-size:18.0pt; font-family:'Trebuchet MS', Helvetica, sans-serif}.DHH2 {margin-top:14.0pt; color:#000080; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; margin-bottom:10.0pt; text-decoration:underline; font-size:16.0pt; font-family:'Trebuchet MS', Helvetica, sans-serif}
</style><br />
<!--start summary--><p class=DHN>This media release draws attention to two recent examples of a continuing national problem,<br>one in the South East (Herne Bay), the other in the North West (Chester).</p><!--end summary--><br />
<iframe class="scribd_iframe_embed" src="http://www.scribd.com/embeds/110050705/content?start_page=1&view_mode=scroll&access_key=key-1bmigs1sgimgtnra5g1l" data-auto-height="false" data-aspect-ratio="0.707514450867052" scrolling="no" id="doc_19843" width="800" height="1100" style="border:medium double">frameborder="0"></iframe><br />
<p class=DHH1>Circulation</p><p class=DHN><a target=_blank href="">The release</a> has been circulated addressed and copied to various parties, from whom I have invited comments:</p><p class=DHH2>Addressed to:</p><p class=DHN>This message is openly addressed to those who carry some responsibility for this abuse of the principles of the NHS.</p><table width=100% table-width:fixed><col width=2%><col width=20%><col width=8%><col width=70%>
<tr><td class=DHTab>•</td><td class=DHTab colspan=3><span class=DHName>The practices</span> have a contractual duty to determine that <span class=DHQuote>“persons will not pay more to make relevant calls to the practice than they would to make equivalent calls to a geographical number”</span>, before choosing a telephone number. By suggesting that alternative geographical numbers are necessary, they clearly indicate a belief that some will pay more to call the number they have chosen.<br /><i>[Park Surgery (Herne Bay); Northgate Village Surgery;]</i></td></tr>
<tr><td class=DHTab>•</td><td class=DHTab colspan=3><span class=DHName>The PCTs and the NHS Commissioning Board</span> (which is taking over the relevant responsibility) have a duty to represent the interests of patients, by ensuring compliance with the terms of the GP contract.<br /><i>[Ann Sutton - Chief Executive - Kent and Medway PCT Cluster; Felicity Cox - Local Area Team Director: Kent & Medway - NHS Commissioning Board; Kathy Doran - Chief Executive - NHS Cheshire Warrington and Wirral; Moira Dumma - Local Area Team Director: Cheshire Warrington & Wirral - NHS Commissioning Board; Ann Sutton - Director of NHS Commissioning - NHS Commissioning Board;]</i></td></tr>
<tr><td class=DHTab>•</td><td class=DHTab colspan=3><span class=DHName>The Department of Health</span> has a duty to ensure that the respective responsibilities are clearly understood and that the information necessary to discharge them is accessible.<br /><i>[Nick Hall - Deputy Director - Department of Health; David Howarth - Department of Health;]</i></td></tr>
<tr><td class=DHTab>•</td><td class=DHTab colspan=3><span class=DHName>The telephone system provider (Daisy Group)</span> may be used, or may volunteer itself, as a source of information about the tariffs used by customers of telephone companies, including and other than that (Talk Talk) for which it acts as a reseller of the numbers in question. If claiming any competence in this role, it has a duty not to provide inaccurate information.<br /><i>[Matthew Riley - CEO - Daisy Group]</i></td></tr>
</table><p class=DHH2>Copied to:</p><p class=DHN>This message is openly copied to those who have a clear interest in the issue, for the reputation of themselves and that of the “reformed” NHS.</p><table width=100% table-width:fixed><col width=2%><col width=20%><col width=8%><col width=70%>
<tr><td class=DHTab>•</td><td class=DHTab colspan=3><span class=DHName>Clinical Commissioning Groups and Local Medical Committees</span> represent their local GP communities. They will both be concerned to show that those they represent are clearly committed to the principles of the NHS. In the former case, they are stepping forward to accept a duty to apply them in making major commercial decisions.<br /><i>[Canterbury and Coastal CCG; West Cheshire Clinical Commissioning Group; Kent LMC; Cheshire LMC;]</i></td></tr>
<tr><td class=DHTab>•</td><td class=DHTab colspan=3><span class=DHName>The GP Committee of the BMA</span> has a national duty to represent its members. After initially declaring its opposition to the intention of the contractual revisions (suggesting that patients should pay according to the quality of service received), it now accepts that it has failed to secure this "reform" and support the continuing principles of the NHS.<br /><i>[Dr Laurence Buckman - Chairman - BMA GPC;]</i></td></tr>
<tr><td class=DHTab>•</td><td class=DHTab colspan=3><span class=DHName>Local MPs</span> have a duty to represent the interests of their constituents. As members of our parliament they share a duty to protect “our NHS”.<br /><i>[Roger Gale MP; Stephen Mosley MP;]</i></td></tr>
<tr><td class=DHTab>•</td><td class=DHTab colspan=3><span class=DHName>Health Ministers</span> have a duty to ensure that their Department, and those to whom relevant responsibilities are devolved execute the will of parliament, as reflected in the terms of NHS GP contract.<br /><i>[Jeremy Hunt MP - Secretary of State for Health; Anna Soubry MP - Parliamentary Under Secretary of State - Department of Health; Dr Dan Poulter MP - Health Services Minister;]</i></td></tr>
<tr><td class=DHTab>•</td><td class=DHTab colspan=3><span class=DHName>Shadow Health Ministers</span> have a duty to ensure that those they shadow are held to account for the discharge of their responsibilities.<br /><i>[Andy Burnham MP; Liz Kendall MP; Andrew Gwynne MP; Jamie Reed MP]</i></td></tr>
</table><br /><br />
<br /><br />
David Hicksonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04098965183402991445noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1547492502568950157.post-46961541475541133582012-10-13T08:06:00.000+01:002012-10-13T08:21:59.181+01:00Oh dear Pudsey! - are you going back to 084 telephone numbers?<style type='text/css'>.DHN {margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:10.0pt; font-size:14.0pt; font-family:'Book Antiqua', serif}.DHNS {margin-top:25.0pt; margin-bottom:10.0pt; font-size:14.0pt; font-family:'Book Antiqua', serif}.DHH1 {margin-top:18.0pt; color:#000080; font-weight:bold; margin-bottom:10.0pt; font-size:18.0pt; font-family:'Trebuchet MS', Helvetica, sans-serif}.DHQuote {color:#E36C0A; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; font-size:18.0pt}.DHRed {color:#FF0000; font-weight:bold; font-size:24.0pt}.DHName {color:#000080; font-weight:bold}.FTCchar {color:#000069; font-weight:bold; font-size:14.0pt; font-family:leelawadee, Arial}</style><br />
<p class=DHN>Countryfile has launched its 2013 Calendar, which is</p><p class=DHN><span class=DHQuote>“Sold on behalf of the BBC for Children in Need by Hallmark Consumer Services <br />
… phone our order line on</span><span class=DHRed> 0844 811 7044”</span>.</p><p class=DHH1>Pudsey gave up 084 numbers in 2008</p><!--start summary--><p class=DHN>After extensive campaigning in 2008, <span class=DHname>BBC Children in Need</span> replaced its 084 telephone numbers with the 034 equivalents. This ensured that callers paid only the cost (if anything) of a call to a geographic number to donate or request a fundraising pack.</p><p class=DHN>It appears that something has gone badly wrong. Callers to 0844 811 7044 pay a premium Service Charge of around 5p per minute to the operator of the order line, plus a premium Access Charge of up to 35p per minute to their telephone company.</p><!--end summary--><br />
<p class=DHN>See the announcement clip below. This is also available on <a target=_blank href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00zgk54">the Countryfile website</a>.</p><table><tr><td><br />
<object width="704" height="540"> <param name="movie" value="http://www.bbc.co.uk/emp/iplayer/player.swf"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><param name="FlashVars" value="playlist=http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/playlist/p00zgk54&config=http://www.bbc.co.uk/emp/iplayer/config.xml&config_settings_showFooter=true&domId=media-player-emp&config_settings_showUpdatedInFooter=true&config_settings_language=en&embedReferer=http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006t0bv&config_settings_showPopoutButton=false&enable3G=true&embedPageUrl=http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00zgk54&guidance=unknown&config_settings_suppressRelatedLinks=true&uxHighlightColour=0x544e3b&mediatorHref=http://open.live.bbc.co.uk/mediaselector/5/select/version/2.0/mediaset/pc/transferformat/plain/vpid/{id}&config_settings_showShareButton=true"></param><embed src="http://www.bbc.co.uk/emp/iplayer/player.swf" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="704" height="540" FlashVars="playlist=http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/playlist/p00zgk54&config=http://www.bbc.co.uk/emp/iplayer/config.xml&config_settings_showFooter=true&domId=media-player-emp&config_settings_showUpdatedInFooter=true&config_settings_language=en&embedReferer=http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006t0bv&config_settings_showPopoutButton=false&enable3G=true&embedPageUrl=http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00zgk54&guidance=unknown&config_settings_suppressRelatedLinks=true&uxHighlightColour=0x544e3b&mediatorHref=http://open.live.bbc.co.uk/mediaselector/5/select/version/2.0/mediaset/pc/transferformat/plain/vpid/{id}&config_settings_showShareButton=true"></embed> </object><br />
</td><td><br />
<img src="https://aqctqg.blu.livefilestore.com/y1pQjZLH1F_1phWLy3UjMPbKKhKnknojSoaqUZ0Ac_jKSKFEA_eNcpJsc_RU9v7VKWMcNDuzR-HprsxXJaQekOVzf8n2dHoDXeG/Oh dear Pudsey Cap1.png" height=540 /><br />
</td></tr>
</table><p class=DHH1>New regulations</p><p class=DHN>As part of its new regulations to “simplify non-geographic numbers”, <span class=DHname>Ofcom</span> will shortly be announcing a requirement to always state the Service Charge included in the cost of calling any 084 number. There is no current requirement to hide this charge, although many do!</p><p class=DHN>If the <span class=DHname>BBC</span> chose to follow <span class=DHname>Ofcom</span>'s suggested format (see <a target=_blank href="http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/consultations/simplifying-non-geographic-no/summary/PartA.pdf#page=8">this example</a>), before it was compelled to do so, it would look something like this:</p><img src="https://aqctqg.blu.livefilestore.com/y1pyM977m9pv6jFiYmZf5advKUAGrlfAoBZ5oIAVUp1PcRvi4RxX-A8z-3fEjIogDfBmYe2IXBDbTsrrJKAKj3mDz9DJaYEkAo3/Oh dear Pudsey Cap2.png" width=100% /><br />
<p class=DHH1>Is Pudsey happy with agents imposing service charges?</p><p class=DHN>If <a target=_blank href=http://www.hallmarkconsumer.co.uk/>Hallmark Consumer Services</a> is content to levy a Service Charge on callers to its order lines, in the knowledge that telephone companies will add their own premiums, then that is matter for it to decide. We understood that Pudsey wanted to stay away from this practice.</p><p class=DHN>The <a target=_blank href=http://fairtelecoms.org.uk class=FTCchar>fair telecoms campaign</a> argues that Service Charges (applied whenever a 084 number is chosen) should only be imposed in very particular circumstances - <b>not by Pudsey!</b></p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
David Hicksonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04098965183402991445noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1547492502568950157.post-69783452113759074652012-09-02T12:33:00.007+01:002012-09-03T01:36:36.601+01:00Ofcom attacked for its failure with Silent Calls<style type='text/css'>.DHN {margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:10.0pt; font-size:14.0pt; font-family:'Book Antiqua', serif}.DHNS {margin-top:25.0pt; margin-bottom:10.0pt; font-size:14.0pt; font-family:'Book Antiqua', serif}.DHQuote {color:#E36C0A; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; font-size:18.0pt }.DHEmph {color:#FF00FF; font-weight:bold}.FTCchar {color:#000069; font-weight:bold; font-size:14.0pt; font-family:leelawadee, Arial}.DHName {color:#000080; font-weight:bold}</style>
<!--start summary--><p class=DHN>A feature article in the <span class=DHName>Sunday Post</span> today draws attention to Ofcom's failure to address the nuisance of Silent Calls. (see <a target="_blank" href="http://tiny.cc/FTSundayPost">content and facsimile copies</a>)</p><!--end summary-->
<p class=DHNS>In 2006, Ofcom was told by parliament:</p>
<p class=DHN><span class=DHQuote>“We expect you to use your powers to <u>eradicate</u> the nuisance of Silent Calls”</span> [see <a target="_blank" href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmstand/deleg5/st060328/60328s01.htm">Hansard</a>, <a target="_blank" href="http://homepage.ntlworld.com/davidhickson/DHMG/index_files/RP?24">Sound clips</a>]</p>
<p class=DHNS>Ofcom continued to fail to properly deploy the range of powers available to it, and continued to follow a policy of “regulation”, i.e. <span class=DHEmph>qualified tolerance, rather than <u>eradication</u></span>.</p>
<p class=DHN>Under the current government in 2010, parliament granted Ofcom a further extension to its powers to levy financial penalties. The debate made no reference to the failure to comply with parliament's previous expectation.</p>
<p class=DHNS>This has resulted in one such penalty, focussed on an isolated incident lasting only six weeks. Ofcom only dealt with the incident over 3 months after it had ended, and then took a further 12 months to reach a determination that a financial penalty was necessary.</p>
<p class=DHN>This action was only taken because a major telemarketing company had, on this occasion, breached the 3% tolerance rule. So far as we know, this same company, and many other household names, continue to terminate 3% of connected calls in silence.</p>
<p class=DHNS>Ofcom has a full range of powers, including the ability to impose an enforceable requirement not to continue making Silent Calls - this power has never been used. If such a requirement were breached, in addition to imposing repeated financial penalties, Ofcom has the power to seek for the requirement to be enforced through an injunction. If this were necessary, any further breach would become a criminal offence, with potentially most severe consequences for any offender.</p>
<p class=DHN>This power has always been available - there should be no issue with the maximum financial penalty! This was the very point being made when it was increased from £5,000 to £50,000.</p>
<p class=DHNS>As current public focus on this issue, and related issues, strengthens, the <span class=FTCchar>fair telecoms campaign</span> stands ready to engage in serious debate over the measures that are necessary. We have a number of specific outline proposals as to how the powers held by Ofcom (and those held by the ICO to deal with improper telephone marketing activity) may be more effectively deployed.</p>
<p class=DHN>The original outline of these proposals was covered in - “<a target="_blank" href="http://davidhicksonmedia.blogspot.co.uk/2010/07/ofcom-useless-quango-silent-calls-big.html">Ofcom the useless Quango …</a>”.</p>
<p class=DHN>Further refinement is in hand.</p>
<br />
<br />David Hicksonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04098965183402991445noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1547492502568950157.post-60688946604152860082012-08-26T17:19:00.003+01:002012-08-26T21:35:53.592+01:00The fair telecoms campaign comments on premium rate numbers for wheelchair Paralympics tickets<style type='text/css'>.DHN {margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:10.0pt; font-size:14.0pt; font-family:'Book Antiqua', serif}.DHNS {margin-top:25.0pt; margin-bottom:10.0pt; font-size:14.0pt; font-family:'Book Antiqua', serif}.DHQuote {color:#E36C0A; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic}.DHEmph {color:#FF00FF; font-weight:bold}.DHName {color:#000080; font-weight:bold}.FTC {color:#000069; font-weight:bold; font-size:14.0pt; font-family:leelawadee, Arial}</style>
<!--start summary--><p class=DHN>A <span class=DHName>LOCOG</span> statement has been issued denying responsibility for the imposition of premium rate charges on wheelchair users visiting the London 2012 Paralympics. Although the statement contains false information about the cost of calling 0844 numbers, it is correct in saying that it has enabled appointed contractors to impose these charges.</p><!--end summary-->
<p class=DHNS>It seems that <span class=DHName>Ticketmaster</span> has been awarded the contract to provide the “<span class=DHName>Accessibility Team helpline</span>” on <span class=DHEmph>0844 847 2012</span> and the “<span class=DHName>Disabled parking call centre</span>” on <span class=DHEmph>0844 921 2012</span>.</p>
<p class=DHN>This seems to be fully in line with government policy for the disabled. The <span class=DHName>Department for Transport</span> recently awarded administration of the Blue Badge scheme to <span class=DHName>Northgate Information Solutions</span>, which operates <span class=DHName>Blue Badge helplines</span> on <span class=DHEmph>0844 463 0213</span>/4/5.</p>
<p class=DHNS>These 0844 telephone numbers provide a subsidy to the service provider, through a “<span class=DHEmph>Service Charge</span>” of between 3 and 7 pence per minute, which offsets the costs of their operations. Because of this modest subsidy however, callers pay not only this charge, but also the additional “<span class=DHEmph>Access Charge</span>” levied by their own telephone company, which is almost invariably well in excess of the cost of a call to an ordinary number.</p>
<p class=DHN>For a <span class=DHName>BT subscriber using the most popular BT Call Plan</span> a 10 minute call to 0844 847 2012 would cost <span class=DHEmph>65p (6.5 pence per minute)</span> as against <span class=DHEmph>zero</span> for a call to a 01/02 or 03 number.</p>
<p class=DHN>An <span class=DHName>Orange contract caller</span> would pay <span class=DHEmph>£4</span> for a 10 minute call to any of these 0844 numbers, as against <span class=DHEmph>zero</span> for a call to a 01/02 or 03 number.</p>
<p class=DHNS><span class=DHName>Ofcom</span> will shortly be introducing new regulations which will require the “<span class=DHEmph>Service Charge</span>” and “<span class=DHEmph>Access Charge</span>” to be declared separately - see “<a target="_blank" href="http://davidhicksonmedia.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/ofcom-proposes-fairer-system-for.html">Ofcom proposes a fairer system for telephone call charges</a>”.</p>
<p class=DHN>Last Monday, the <span class=DHName>Department for Trade and Industry</span> announced that use of 084 numbers will shortly be prohibited for contact with customers - see “<a target="_blank" href="http://davidhicksonmedia.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/fair-telecoms-campaign-welcomes-ban-on.html">fair telecoms campaign welcomes ban on use of 084 / 087 numbers by businesses</a>”.</p>
<p class=DHNS><b>David Hickson</b>, of the <span class=FTC>fair telecoms campaign</span> comments:</p>
<p class=DHN><span class=DHQuote>“The cost of calling a 0844 number has never had anything to do with ‘local rates’ - the ASA and Trading Standards are now quick to jump on any organisation that makes such false representations. 0844 numbers offer a very inefficient way of getting callers to subside the cost of a running telephone call centre. The 03 range offers all of the same facilities to the service provider, but the caller pays no more than they pay (if anything) to call a geographic number.</span></p>
<p class=DHN><span class=DHQuote>“When the government allows contractors to subsidise the cost of their service by imposing ‘Service Charges’, it should think carefully about when it is right for service users to pay in order to either reduce the cost to the taxpayer, or to make a government contract more profitable for the contractor.</span></p>
<p class=DHN><span class=DHQuote>“Allowing Service Charges to be imposed on callers to a Blue Badge helpline, a Disabled Parking call centre and a Paralympics Accessibility Centre does not seem to strike the right note for UK citizens at large, as we prepare to celebrate the achievements of a select group of disabled people from around the world.”</span></p>
<br />
<br />David Hicksonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04098965183402991445noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1547492502568950157.post-16323717840161532512012-08-20T15:48:00.003+01:002012-08-26T16:19:43.307+01:00fair telecoms campaign welcomes ban on use of 084 / 087 numbers by businesses<style type='text/css'>.DHN {margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:10.0pt; font-size:14.0pt; font-family:'Book Antiqua', serif}.DHNS {margin-top:25.0pt; margin-bottom:10.0pt; font-size:14.0pt; font-family:'Book Antiqua', serif}.DHH1 {margin-top:18.0pt; color:#000080; font-weight:bold; margin-bottom:10.0pt; font-size:18.0pt; font-family:'Trebuchet MS', Helvetica, sans-serif}.DHH2 {margin-top:14.0pt; color:#000080; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; margin-bottom:10.0pt; text-decoration:underline; font-size:16.0pt; font-family:'Trebuchet MS', Helvetica, sans-serif}.DHQuote {color:#E36C0A; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic}.DHHigh {background:#FFFF00}.DHEmph {color:#FF00FF; font-weight:bold}.DHRed {color:#FF0000; font-weight:bold}.DHName {color:#000080; font-weight:bold}.FTCchar {color:#000069; font-weight:bold; font-size:14.0pt; font-family:leelawadee, Arial}</style>
<p class=DHN><b>UPDATE: - This issue was discussed on You and Yours today - <a target="_blank" href=" http://tinyurl.com/dhtiny/radio?76">listen here</a>.</b></p>
<!--start summary--><p class=DHNS>A government consultation has been launched today outlining the basis of new rules to stop business using expensive 084 and 087 telephone numbers for contact from customers.</p><!--end summary-->
<p class=DHN>The consultation is published at <a target="_blank" href="http://www.bis.gov.uk/Consultations/consultation-implementation-consumer-rights-directive?cat=open">this link</a>. It includes some issues open to discussion and a request for evidence of cases where consumers feel disadvantaged. </p>
<p class=DHN>The <span class=FTCchar>fair telecoms campaign</span> welcomes this long overdue move, compelled by a EU Directive, but asks the question:</p>
<p class=DHN><span class=DHRed>“If it is wrong for businesses, why is it still seen as OK for the government?”</span></p>
<p class=DHNS>Even the <b>consumer helpline</b>, operated for the government by <span class=DHName>Citizens Advice</span>, uses an expensive number - <span class=DHEmph>08454 04 05 06</span>. <br><span class=DHName>Citizens Advice Bureaux</span> have long used expensive numbers for access to their own services, including a recently launched national number - <span class=DHEmph>08444 111 444</span>.</p>
<p class=DHN><span class=DHName>HMRC</span> and the <span class=DHName>DWP agencies</span> use 0845 numbers for enquiries and helplines. The single exception is the <span class=DHName>HMRC Tax Credits helpline</span>, which has recently switched from 0845 to the 0345 equivalent number.</p>
<p class=DHN>This matter also highlights the failure of many NHS bodies to eliminate the use of these numbers, despite Directions and contract revisions issued in 2009/10.</p>
<p class=DHNS>Calls to all 03 numbers are charged at the basic geographic rate - now generally zero for those with landlines and contract mobile phones. Calls to <span class=DHEmph>084 / 087 numbers</span> cost <span class=DHHigh>landline users up to 13p per minute</span> and <span class=DHHigh>mobile users up to 41p per minute</span>.</p>
<p class=DHN>Migration to the equivalent <span class=DHEmph>034 / 037 number</span> is what all users of 084 / 087 numbers should be considering, unless they can justify the imposition of a "<span class=DHEmph>Service Charge</span>" on callers. New <span class=DHName>Ofcom</span> regulations will shortly require this "<span class=DHEmph>Service Charge</span>" to be declared in all cases.</p>
<br />
<br />
David Hicksonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04098965183402991445noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1547492502568950157.post-7508041603359041982012-07-02T06:47:00.014+01:002012-08-20T18:57:47.684+01:00The "two tier NHS" has arrived<style type='text/css'>.DHN {margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:10.0pt; font-size:14.0pt; font-family:'Book Antiqua', serif}.DHNS {margin-top:25.0pt; margin-bottom:10.0pt; font-size:14.0pt; font-family:'Book Antiqua', serif}.DHH1 {margin-top:18.0pt; color:#000080; font-weight:bold; margin-bottom:10.0pt; font-size:18.0pt; font-family:'Trebuchet MS', Helvetica, sans-serif}.DHH2 {margin-top:14.0pt; color:#000080; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; margin-bottom:10.0pt; text-decoration:underline; font-size:16.0pt; font-family:'Trebuchet MS', Helvetica, sans-serif}.DHQuote {color:#E36C0A; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic}.DHEmph {color:#FF00FF; font-weight:bold}.DHName {color:#000080; font-weight:bold}.FTCchar {color:#000069; font-weight:bold; font-size:14.0pt; font-family:leelawadee, Arial}.DHTab {border-bottom:6pt solid transparent; vertical-align:top; font-size:14.0pt; font-family:'Book Antiqua', serif}</style>
<!--start summary--><p class=DHN>It has come to my attention that some NHS Primary Care Trusts are permitting their GPs to offer TWO-TIER ACCESS TO NHS SERVICES by telephone. (<a href="#_A_clear_example">See details of a new case below.</a>)</p><!--end summary-->
<p class=DHN>These GPs offer a "<span class=DHEmph>basic</span>" normal local telephone number, with "<span class=DHEmph>enhanced facilities</span>" available on an expensive 084 number as an alternative option. The cost of calling all 084 numbers includes a “Service Charge”, to the benefit of the person called, in addition to the “Access Charge” to the benefit of the caller’s telephone company. </p>
<p class=DHN>The choice of a 084, rather than 03, number ensures that the generally greater cost of providing enhanced facilities through non-geographic numbers is met by callers, rather than the GP. A 084 number also provides funding for the basic elements of a telephone system, such as switchboards and handsets.</p>
<p class=DHN>The so-called "enhanced" facilities are those provided by many GPs on normal (geographic) numbers, where they are paid for by the GP out of the NHS funding provided for the purpose; e.g. call queuing, recorded messages, voicemail, re-direction of calls to out-of-hours services.</p>
<p class=DHNS>Regardless of the benefits (or value for money) offered, it has never been permissible to offer two types of access to NHS services, differentiated by a charge …</p>
<p class=DHN>…, or perhaps now it is, given that this approach is sanctioned by the local bodies responsible for adherence to the principles of the NHS!</p>
<p class=DHNS>This causes me to pose the question: <b>Is a two-tier "NHS" the way of the future?</b></p>
<table width=100% table-width:fixed><col width=10%><col width=5%><col width=5%><col width=80%>
<tr><td class=DHTab>∗</td><td class=DHTab colspan=3><span class=DHEmph>“Basic” services</span>, at no charge from the NHS provider, for the poor and needy (who meet only their incidental expenses in accessing NHS services),</td></tr>
<tr><td class=DHTab>∗ ∗ ∗</td><td class=DHTab colspan=3><span class=DHEmph>“Enhanced” services</span>, charged for (directly or indirectly) by the NHS provider, for those who can afford to chose a better service</td></tr>
</table>
<p class=DHN>That is not the universal "NHS", funded from general taxation, which will celebrate its 64<sup>th</sup> birthday on Thursday, July 5<sup>th</sup>.</p>
<p class=DHN>A line from a Beatles song comes to mind – <span class=DHQuote>“will you still need me, will you still feed me …?”</span> – there are many parallels, even <span class=DHQuote>“Dave”</span> is named as one of the grandchildren.</p>
<p class=DHH2>Approval</p>
<p class=DHN>The following Primary Care Trust Chief Executives explicitly permit their GPs to offer this two-tier telephone access service:</p>
<table width=100% table-width:fixed><col width=3%><col width=15%><col width=70%><col width=5%>
<tr><td class=DHTab>•</td><td class=DHTab>Christopher Long</td><td class=DHTab colspan=2><span class=DHName>NHS York and North Yorkshire</span></td></tr>
<tr><td class=DHTab>•</td><td class=DHTab>Mike Potts</td><td class=DHTab colspan=2><span class=DHName>NHS Calderdale, Halifax and Kirklees</span></td></tr>
<tr><td class=DHTab>•</td><td class=DHTab>Caroline Taylor</td><td class=DHTab colspan=2><span class=DHName>NHS North Central London</span></td></tr>
<tr><td class=DHTab>•</td><td class=DHTab>Debbie Fleming</td><td class=DHTab colspan=2><span class=DHName>NHS Southampton, Hampshire, Isle of Wight and Portsmouth</span></td></tr>
</table>
<p class=DHNS>It is strongly suggested that many other PCTs apply the same unusual interpretation of the NHS Constitution in forming their policy on this issue.</p>
<p class=DHNS>Government ministers claim that PCTs have been issued with clear guidance to not only prohibit this appalling breach of the principles of the NHS, but also to enforce the ban which applies to use of expensive telephone numbers under any circumstances. I understand however that the Department of Health is unable to enforce compliance with the statutory duty to have regard to the NHS Constitution held by all NHS bodies and their contractors, nor may it compel PCTs to enforce the terms of GP contracts as approved by parliament.</p>
<p class=DHN>With the NHS in England now increasingly being "liberated" from central control, unaccountable local bodies have extensive discretion in how they apply the principles of this "National" service. The authority to make these decisions is now even passing from public servants to GPs.</p>
<p class=DHNS>Please refer to the additional information given below. This covers <a href="#_A_clear_example">a recent new case</a> which clearly demonstrates my point, and explains the position with <a href="#_Practices_which_have">older cases</a>.</p>
<p class=DHN>I must encourage, and am happy to assist with, attempts to obtain a formal statement of the position taken by the Department of Health with regard to enforcement.</p>
<p class=DHN>Please obtain direct confirmation of the policy being followed by any (every) local PCT. I have named only those cases where I am sure that the policy is stated openly. There is extensive evidence to show that it is in effect.</p>
<hr>
<p class=DHH1><a name="_A_clear_example"></a>A clear example to demonstrate this point</p>
<p class=DHN><a target="_blank" href="http://www.skeldocs.org.uk/">Skelmanthorpe Family Doctors</a>, a NHS practice in Huddersfield, has just adopted a new additional telephone number (08443 878186) offering "advanced functions". It retains a "Basic Line" on 01484 766918.</p>
<p class=DHN>The advanced functions are funded by a subsidy of around 4p per call minute which is paid through the surgery's network telephone service provider, <span class=DHName>Talk Talk</span>, by whichever telephone company is used to make the call. This cost is invariably met by callers as a "Service Charge", with an additional "Access Charge". (<a href="#_Relative_cost_of">See below examples of relative call costs</a>.)</p>
<p class=DHNS>I have been assured by the local Primary Care Trust, <span class=DHName>NHS Kirklees</span> (part of the Calderdale, Halifax and Kirklees Cluster, led by Mike Potts), that it has fully investigated this arrangement and it is deemed to be compliant with the PCT's interpretation of the relevant contractual requirements</p>
<p class=DHNS>I personally find Mr Potts (in common with many of his colleagues) to have made a rather perverse decision, given that every NHS GPs is under a contractual obligation not to <span class=DHQuote>“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”</span>.</p>
<p class=DHN>The option to call an alternative “basic line”, offering inferior services, does not ensure that “<span class=DHQuote>persons will not pay more</span>”. This arrangement explicitly presents the opportunity to “<span class=DHQuote>pay more</span>” in order to gain “enhanced” access to NHS services.</p>
<p class=DHNS>An indication of how much more is paid to call the 084 number in question is given <a href="#_Relative_cost_of">below</a>. Unless it can be shown that "the arrangement as a whole" does not include any users of the commonly used tariffs listed, then the practice and the PCT may be seen to have been "satisfied" without reference to relevant information about the cost of telephone calls.</p>
<p class=DHN>Alternatively, they may have deliberately set aside this requirement, which is intended to reinforce the current longstanding principles of the NHS. They may have chosen to adopt the wholly different principle that it is acceptable for patients to have a "Choice" of NHS service, differentiated by price.</p>
<p class=DHN>It is also possible that, rather than checking actual call costs, they may have only consulted some highly opinionated marketing material, which is referenced on <a target="_blank" href="http://www.threevalleys.org.uk/info.htm">this page of the practice website</a>. I have commented on two of the published items - “<a target="_blank" href="http://nhspatient.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/supporting-surgery-line.html">Supporting Surgery Line</a>” and “<a target="_blank" href="http://nhspatient.blogspot.co.uk/2011/11/daisy-surgery-line-and-enhanced.html">… Enhanced Telephony</a>”. If the "poster" which is illustrated is displayed in the surgery, then a number of items warrant investigation by the ASA.</p>
<p class=DHH2><a name="_Relative_cost_of"></a>Relative cost of calling the two numbers</p>
<p class=DHN>The type ‘g11’ call incurs both a “Service Charge”, which is around 4p per minute in all cases, and an “Access Charge”, which is currently seen to be widely variable. These two elements are currently “bundled” together into a single rate. The cost of calling geographic numbers is also, although far less, variable. Because the relevant regulations refer only to the difference between the cost of calling the practice and the cost of an equivalent call to a geographic number (prohibiting cases where this is positive), only the differences need be shown.</p>
<p class=DHN>The <b><u>additional</u></b> cost of calling 08443 878186 (call type ‘g11”), over that of calling 01484 766918 (for a call of the stated average duration of 3 minutes) is as follows:</p>
<table width=100% table-width:fixed><col width=3%><col width=30%><col width=67%>
<tr><td class=DHTab>£</td><td class=DHTab>BT (most popular call plan)</td><td class=DHTab> 8.6p per minute</td></tr>
<tr><td class=DHTab>£</td><td class=DHTab>Talk Talk (most popular call plan)</td><td class=DHTab>10.6p per minute</td></tr>
<tr><td class=DHTab>£</td><td class=DHTab>Virgin Media (most popular Talk Plan)</td><td class=DHTab>13.3p per minute</td></tr>
<tr><td class=DHTab>£</td><td class=DHTab>Vodafone (pay monthly)</td><td class=DHTab>35.0p per minute</td></tr>
</table>
<p class=DHN>(There are many further and more extensive illustrations of the difference between the cost of a call to a geographic number as against various types of 084 number in the table - “<a target="_blank" href="http://www.fairtelecoms.org.uk/nhs-084-numbers---evidence-of-call-charges.html">NHS 084 numbers - Evidence of call charges</a>”. This includes references to published tariffs in all cases, to support the information given above.)</p>
<p class=DHH2><a name="_Practices_which_have"></a>NHS GPs which have long been using expensive numbers</p>
<p class=DHN>The case highlighted above is notable because it has only recently arisen, with a new 084 number. This two-tier approach is also followed by many GPs who have been using expensive numbers for many years. In some cases they are explicitly <b><u>directed</u></b> to use the two-tier approach by the PCT.</p>
<p class=DHN>Those who were using expensive numbers when the current contractual revisions were introduced in April 2010 are required to:<br><span class=DHQuote>“take all reasonable steps … to ensure that, having regard to the arrangement as a whole, persons will not pay more to make relevant calls than they would to make equivalent calls to a geographical number”</span></p>
<p class=DHN>The option to call an alternative “basic line”, offering inferior services, does not ensure that “<span class=DHQuote>persons will not pay more</span>”. This arrangement explicitly presents the opportunity to “<span class=DHQuote>pay more</span>” in order to gain “enhanced” access to NHS services.</p>
<p class=DHNS>All users of 084 telephone numbers are able to take the “<span class=DHQuote>step</span>“ of migrating to the equivalent 034 number, so as to retain all of the “enhanced” features of their telephone service. All calls to all 03 numbers are charged at the same rate as calls to geographic number – thereby no caller would ever “<span class=DHQuote>pay more</span>”. Because calls to 03 numbers do not incur a "Service Charge", migration would cause the subsidy of the costs of the practice telephone system to be lost.</p>
<p class=DHN>I have not seen any evidence to show that any PCT thinks that it may not be “<span class=DHQuote>reasonable</span>” for a NHS GP to meet the costs of its chosen telephone system in full. I have not seen any evidence to show that any provider of telephone service to GPs imposes penalty charges on those who choose to migrate during the term of an arrangement, so as to cause this step not to be “ <span class=DHQuote>reasonable</span>”. </p>
<p class=DHN>The telecoms industry in general thinks it “reasonable” to offer migration at any point during the term of an arrangement without penalty. I am aware that some have made unsubstantiated claims that one particular provider of GP telephone systems fails to adhere to this general industry policy. Until there is clear evidence of this unreasonable behaviour, one must assume that migration to the equivalent 034 number is a “<span class=DHQuote>reasonable step</span>” open to NHS GP users of 084 numbers.</p>
<p class=DHH2>fair telecoms</p>
<p class=DHN>The <span class=FTCchar>fair telecoms campaign </span>fully supports the Ofcom proposals for the “Service Charge” and “Access Charge” elements, which comprise the cost of calling a 084 number to be “unbundled” so that they can each be seen separately. </p>
<p class=DHN>Under these proposals, Skelmanthorpe Family Doctors would have to declare alongside 08443 878186 -<br><span class=DHQuote>“A call to use the enhanced facilities will cost you 4p per minute, plus your phone company’s access charge”</span>.</p>
<p class=DHN>We believe that opening up the situation in this way will be welcomed by those who have difficulty in making their Service Charge clear, whilst the wide variety of Access Charges are hidden within bundled rates, as they are at present. We believe however that there is no essential reason to wait until this becomes a regulatory requirement. Because BT is presently prohibited from adding an Access Charge, the current level of the Service Charge is seen in the current BT tariff.</p>
<p class=DHN>We encourage all those who benefit from Service Charges to start the process of declaring and justifying this charge now – noting that the same enhanced facilities can be provided using 03 numbers with no Service Charge. The action required of those who cannot justify a Service Charge is obvious and straightforward – if they require a non-geographic number, they must migrate to 03 without delay.</p>
<p class=DHNS>Any comments here that relate specifically to the political issue of retention of the NHS, with its very specific principles, are personal to David Hickson. If the NHS is to be replaced by an alternative service for England which permits charges to be imposed on those accessing health services, as they do so, then the <span class=FTCchar>fair telecoms campaign</span> is only concerned that these charges be clearly declared. </p>
<p class=DHN>It may be that the love affair between the people of England and the NHS has been shown not to have lasted up to its 64<sup>th</sup> birthday, because COLLECTIVELY they think they do not need it and they are not prepared to feed it. If so, the <span class=FTCchar>fair telecoms campaign</span> can only campaign for its new replacement to behave properly, by being totally open in the way that it takes money from them for its services.</p>
<br />
<br />
David Hicksonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04098965183402991445noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1547492502568950157.post-47212736053987183072012-06-14T21:13:00.000+01:002012-06-14T21:13:15.584+01:00The NHS Direct 084 telephone number rip-off is extended by at least six months<style type='text/css'>.DHN {margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:10.0pt; font-size:14.0pt; font-family:'Book Antiqua', serif}.DHNS {margin-top:25.0pt; margin-bottom:10.0pt; font-size:14.0pt; font-family:'Book Antiqua', serif}.DHEmph {color:#FF00FF; font-weight:bold}.DHName {color:#000080; font-weight:bold}</style>
<!--start summary--><p class=DHN>The delay in completing implementation of the 111 service for urgent access to NHS services (see <a href="http://www.dh.gov.uk/health/2012/06/nhs-111-rollout/">DH news release</a>) means that the withdrawal of the non-urgent health advice and information service provided by <span class=DHName>NHS Direct</span> on 0845 46 47 will be delayed.</p><!--end summary-->
<p class=DHNS>Although <span class=DHName>BT</span>, which provides this number and benefits from a revenue share payment of around 2p per minute when it is called from non-<span class=DHName>BT</span> services, includes 0845 calls in its call plans, <b>most telephone call service providers </b>(who have to pay this fee to BT) <b>do not</b>. Callers therefore pay up to 41p per minute to access the NHS Direct service.</p>
<p class=DHN>Plans to migrate <span class=DHName>NHS Direct</span> to 0<span class=DHEmph>3</span>45 46 47 were shelved when the 111 service was announced. Calls to offer the 0345 46 47 number to run in parallel (with minimal publicity so as to avoid confusion) have not been heeded. All calls to all 03 numbers are charged on the same terms as calls to geographic numbers (commonly free of charge).</p>
<p class=DHN>Exactly the same situation applies to the many other 0845 numbers used by NHS and other public bodies - notably <span class=DHName>HMRC</span> and the <span class=DHName>DWP agencies</span> - all of which should have begun the move to 03 numbers many years ago. Adopting the 034 equivalent of a 084 number, a facility assured by<span class=DHName> Ofcom</span>, provides a convenient and cost-effective way of making the transition, or even allowing for extended parallel operation.</p>
<p class=DHNS><span class=DHName>The BMA</span>, which has welcomed this delay, will no doubt be grateful for the assistance provided for non-urgent cases by <span class=DHName>NHS Direct</span> during its industrial action. It continues to sanction an extension to the rip-off being practiced by its GP members using 0844 numbers (which are never included in Call Plans), by denying the fact that they too can migrate to 034 numbers for the remaining period of their use of systems which require non-geographic numbers from a particular provider.</p>
<p class=DHN>Whilst the <span class=DHName>BMA</span> continues to support what many see as simple greed by some of its members, getting their chosen telephone system paid for by their patients, its chances of securing support from the public for its industrial action in defence of their financial interests are significantly diminished.</p>
<p class=DHNS>(There is much to say about 111 itself!)</p>
<br />
<br />David Hicksonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04098965183402991445noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1547492502568950157.post-46987895858317261742012-06-06T12:54:00.003+01:002012-06-06T18:31:22.046+01:00Who is undermining the NHS - GPs or a private sector businessman?<style type='text/css'>.DHN {margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:10.0pt; font-size:14.0pt; font-family:'Book Antiqua', serif}.DHNS {margin-top:25.0pt; margin-bottom:10.0pt; font-size:14.0pt; font-family:'Book Antiqua', serif}.DHH1 {margin-top:18.0pt; color:#000080; font-weight:bold; margin-bottom:10.0pt; font-size:18.0pt; font-family:'Trebuchet MS', Helvetica, sans-serif}.DHQuote {color:#E36C0A; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic}a.DHAnno {color:#9D2FAF; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; vertical-align:text-top; font-size:8.0pt}.DHEmph {color:#FF00FF; font-weight:bold}.DHName {color:#000080; font-weight:bold}.DHTab {border-bottom:6pt solid transparent; vertical-align:top; font-size:14.0pt; font-family:'Book Antiqua', serif}</style>
<p class=DHN>Despite being given 12 months in which to change their arrangements (from 1 April 2010), over 1,000 NHS GPs in England and Wales <a href="#n2" class=DHAnno>2</a> continue to breach the terms of their contracts by using <b>084 telephone numbers</b>. These numbers cost patients up to 41p per minute more to call, than for an equivalent call to a geographic number.</p>
<p class=DHH1>The obvious solution</p>
<p class=DHN>The obvious way for those who wish, or are contractually obliged, to continue to take advantage of the <span class=DHEmph>“enhanced telephony”</span> features available with non-geographic numbers would be to switch to the 034 equivalent of their 084 number - e.g. 0844 477 1799 becomes 0344 477 1799. All calls to all 03 numbers are charged at no more than the cost (if any) of an equivalent call to a geographic number and the cost of the <span class=DHEmph>“enhanced telephony”</span> features is met by the user of the number, rather than callers.</p>
<p class=DHN>The <span class=DHName>BMA</span> advises it members <a href="#n3" class=DHAnno>3</a> to claim that it would not be <b>“reasonable”</b> for them to vary their arrangements in this way, as is demanded by the terms of their contract with the NHS. As NHS GPs are provided with funding to meet the costs incurred in providing their NHS services, meeting the cost of their telephone system without subsidy at the expense of patients must surely be regarded as <b>“reasonable”</b>. (This is indeed what the overwhelming majority of NHS GPs do.)</p>
<p class=DHH1>The obstacle?</p>
<p class=DHN>It is standard practice in the telecoms industry to permit migration from a 084 number to the equivalent 034 number at any point during the term of an arrangement, without penalty. For this variation not to be a <b>“reasonable step”</b> for a GP to take, the telephone service provider in question must therefore be deviating from this standard.</p>
<p class=DHN>There are roughly 12,177 NHS GP surgeries in the UK. One provider of a Surgery telephone system using 084 numbers, offers migration to the equivalent 034 number <a href="#n1" class=DHAnno>1</a>, although not one of its customers is known to have taken up this offer. It also claims that 1 in 5 (20%) of these surgeries are using its system <a href="#n1" class=DHAnno>1</a>, whereas there are only 1,322 cases (11%) of surgeries using 084 numbers <a href="#n2" class=DHAnno>2</a>. Even if one allows for a little marketing hyperbole (however sickening), there can be no question that this company is primarily responsible for the numbers which the <span class=DHName>BMA</span> claims cannot be “reasonably” changed to 034 - even though it cannot be responsible for as many as 184% of the cases! (My estimate is around 84%.)</p>
<p class=DHN>The Chief Executive of this company was seen on television on Sunday evening, declaring that exaggerated claims made him feel sick (<a href="http://tinyurl.com/dhtiny/ytp?KoJqWm4Ecbg">view this clip</a>). He was also seen stating that command of the detail of one’s business is absolutely vital (<a href="http://tinyurl.com/dhtiny/ytp?M4KSNJtsIVs">view this clip</a>). I was delighted to see him lay out his principles in this way.</p>
<p class=DHH1>My challenge</p>
<p class=DHN><!--start summary--><a href="http://www.weebly.com/uploads/4/2/3/2/4232833/hickson_riley_1_june_2012.pdf">I have written to the businessman in question</a>, asking him to confirm that his company does indeed allow its NHS GP customers to vary their arrangements on “reasonable” terms. I stress the need for this to be made clear to those who are responsible for enforcing compliance with the GP NHS contracts. Although I wrote before his TV appearance was broadcast, his broadcast comments present the hope of a swift and accurate response.<!--end summary--></p>
<p class=DHN>If such an assurance is provided, then attention must switch to the <span class=DHName>BMA</span>. At a time when the <span class=DHName>BMA</span> is seeking public support for its battle with the government over pension arrangements, it would not be well placed if it were seen to be arguing <a href="#n3" class=DHAnno>3</a> that it was not reasonable for its members to meet the full cost of their chosen telephone systems, without the benefit of subsidy at the expense of patients.</p>
<p class=DHN>The <span class=DHName>Department of Health</span> has been involved in an extensive investigation of this matter, involving both the<b> <span class=DHName>BMA</span></b> and the provider of this surgery telephone system. In its recently published Further Guidance <a href="#n4" class=DHAnno>4</a>, it has however failed to make any explicit reference to the option of migration from 084 to 034 numbers.</p>
<p class=DHH1>I comment</p>
<p class=DHN>If the principles of our beloved NHS are to be retained through the on-going reforms, it is vital that scams such as the improper use of 084 telephone numbers as a way of indirectly obtaining subsidy at the expense of patients are firmly and swiftly eradicated. Those who are opposed to these principles are entitled to express their views, however we need to know where they stand and what we can expect from those who administer the NHS and those who serve it.</p>
<hr>
<p class=DHH1>Notes</p>
<table width=100% table-width:fixed><col width=5%><col width=5%><col width=5%><col width=85%>
<tr><td class=DHTab>1.</td><td class=DHTab colspan=3><a name=n1></a>The claim about the number of users of the system in question and the option to migrate to 034 numbers are found on <a href="http://www.networkeuropegroup.com/DifferentNumberRanges.html">this web page</a>.</td></tr>
<tr><td class=DHTab>2.</td><td class=DHTab colspan=3><a name=n2></a>My listing of cases from NHS sources can be found from <a href="http://tiny.cc/GP084Regs">this summary</a>.</td></tr>
<tr><td class=DHTab>3.</td><td class=DHTab colspan=3><a name=n3></a>The relevant <span class=DHName>BMA</span> advice to its members is found, underlined beginning with the words <span class=DHQuote>“in cases such as this …”</span>, on the second page of <a href="http://www.bma.org.uk/images/084guidancejuly2011_tcm41-207983.pdf">this Guidance</a>.</td></tr>
<tr><td class=DHTab>4.</td><td class=DHTab colspan=3><a name=n4></a>The <span class=DHName>Department of Health</span> <span class=DHEmph>“Further Guidance”</span> on this issue is <a href="http://www.dh.gov.uk/health/2012/02/084-numbers/">published here</a>.</td></tr>
</table>
<br />
<br />David Hicksonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04098965183402991445noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1547492502568950157.post-10370188136602885292012-04-21T19:00:00.000+01:002012-04-22T09:31:59.669+01:00NHS GPs are still adopting 084 telephone numbers, 2 years after this was prohibited<style type='text/css'>.DHN {margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:10.0pt; font-size:14.0pt; font-family:'Book Antiqua', serif}.DHNS {margin-top:25.0pt; margin-bottom:10.0pt; font-size:14.0pt; font-family:'Book Antiqua', serif}.DHH1 {margin-top:18.0pt; color:#000080; font-weight:bold; margin-bottom:10.0pt; font-size:18.0pt; font-family:'Trebuchet MS', Helvetica, sans-serif}.DHH2 {color:#000080; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; margin-bottom:10.0pt; text-decoration:none; font-size:16.0pt; font-family:'Trebuchet MS', Helvetica, sans-serif}.DHQuote {color:#E36C0A; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic}.DHBold {margin-bottom:10.0pt; font-size:14.0pt; font-family:'Arial Black', 'sans-serif'}.DHHigh {background:#FFFF00}.DHAnno {color:#9D2FAF; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; vertical-align:text-top; font-size:8.0pt}.DHEmph {color:#FF00FF; font-weight:bold}.DHName {color:#000080; font-weight:bold}.DHTab {border-bottom:6pt solid transparent; vertical-align:top; font-size:14.0pt; font-family:'Book Antiqua', serif}</style>
<p class=DHN><b>From: David Hickson of the Fair Telecoms Campaign - campaigner for the NHS</b></p>
<p class=DHN>New regulations were added to the NHS GP contracts in April 2010, prohibiting use of telephone numbers which cost more than an equivalent call to a geographic number.</p>
<p class=DHN>Except in a few cases, where callers incur sizeable "out of plan" penalty charges for daytime calls to geographic numbers, the 0844 numbers listed below are more expensive. This applies to callers from landlines, mobiles and payphones.</p>
<p class=DHN>The higher cost is simply explained by the fact that all 084 numbers attract a "revenue share" (paid by the call originating telephone company to the benefit of the user of the number). The amount varies, but in the case of the numbers listed below, it is equivalent to a 4p per minute subsidy being paid by the caller to the person called.</p>
<!--start summary--><p class=DHNS>On 27 March 2012, Secretary of State for Health <a target="_blank" href="http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2012-03-27a.1326.4&s=%28telephone+OR+number+OR+call%29+AND+%28%28084+OR+0844+OR+0845%29+OR+%22revenue+sharing%22%29#g1327.0">Andrew Lansley confirmed in parliament</a>:</p>
<p class=DHN>"<span class=DHQuote style="font-family:'Arial Black';font-style:normal">We have made it very clear that GPs should not be using 0844 numbers</span>".</p>
<p class=DHNS>There are <a target="_blank" href="http://tiny.cc/GP084Regions">1,247 surgeries still using these numbers in England and Wales</a> <a href="#Note"><span class=DHAnno>note</span></a>. They have failed to comply with their contracts, which demand, in effect, that they vary the terms of their arrangements by migrating to the equivalent 034 number. If they wish, they could cancel their existing arrangements altogether, but this is not demanded.</p>
<p class=DHNS>Of perhaps greater concern is the fact that the following NHS GP practices have newly adopted these expensive numbers <b><u>in the last couple of months</u></b>:</p><!--end summary-->
<table width=100% table-width:fixed><col width=5%><col width=5%><col width=5%><col width=85%>
<tr><td class=DHTab>◊</td><td class=DHTab colspan=3><a target="_blank" href="http://handsworthmedicalpractice.com">Handsworth Medical Practice</a> - Handsworth Avenue, Highams Park, London, E4 9PD - <font color=red><span style='color:red'>0844 387 8525</span></font></td></tr>
<tr><td class=DHTab>◊</td><td class=DHTab colspan=3><a target="_blank" href="http://www.upstairs-surgery.co.uk/">Chadwell Heath Health Centre</a> - Ashton Gardens, Chadwell Heath, Romford, Essex RM6 6RT - <font color=red><span style='color:red'>0844 387 8044</span></font></td></tr>
<tr><td class=DHTab>◊</td><td class=DHTab colspan=3><a target="_blank" href="http://www.knowlehousesurgery.co.uk/">Knowle House Surgery</a> - 4 Meavy Way, Plymouth, Devon, PL5 3JB - <font color=red><span style='color:red'>0844 387 8895</span></font></td></tr>
<tr><td class=DHTab>◊</td><td class=DHTab colspan=3><a target="_blank" href="http://www.abbey-dale.co.uk/">Abbey Dale Medical Centre</a> - 50 Common Edge Road, Blackpool, Lancashire, FY4 5AU - <font color=red><span style='color:red'>0844 387 8685</span></font></td></tr>
</table>
<p class=DHH1>Positions taken on this issue</p>
<p class=DHN>(see <a href="#_Possible_sources_for">Possible sources for further comment</a> below)</p>
<table width=100% table-width:fixed><col width=2%><col width=5%><col width=5%><col width=88%>
<tr><td class=DHTab rowspan='2'>•</td><td class=DHTab colspan=3>Enforcement of the terms of the GP contracts is currently the responsibility of the (shortly to be abolished) <span class=DHName>Primary Care Trusts</span>.</td></tr>
<tr><td class=DHTab colspan=3><span class=DHName>Mr Lansley</span> may care to explain how he believes that the ban may be enforced, and why enforcement is not being carried out.</td></tr>
<tr><td class=DHTab rowspan='2'>•</td><td class=DHTab colspan=3><span class=DHName> The British Medical Association</span> appears to support this form of co-payment - patients subsidising GPs' telephone systems.</td></tr>
<tr><td class=DHTab colspan=3>It claims that practices would not be able to afford the cost of their chosen telephone system without this additional financial support from patients.</td></tr>
<tr><td class=DHTab rowspan='2'>•</td><td class=DHTab colspan=3>The four numbers listed above in red are assigned to <span class=DHName>Talk Talk Business</span>. It appears that they have been allocated to a reseller - <span class=DHName>NEG Ltd</span> (part of the <span class=DHName>Daisy Group</span>).</td></tr>
<tr><td class=DHTab colspan=3><span class=DHName>NEG</span> stoutly defends use of these revenue sharing numbers, especially for the provision of "socially important services".</td></tr>
</table>
<p class=DHNS>As well as the practices themselves, it would be interesting to know which of the above believe that access to NHS services should continue to be "<span class=DHEmph>free at the point of need</span>". It is fair for us to pay our telephone services providers for calls, but incurring a premium to subsidise the costs of the NHS provider is unacceptable and prohibited.</p>
<p class=DHN>Some may suggest that in the new "patient-centred" <span class=DHName>English Health Service</span>, patients should pay to subsidise the costs of a GP's telephone system. I campaign for the retention of the <span class=DHName>NHS</span> in England.</p>
<p class=DHH1>I comment - </p>
<p class=DHN><b><i>Mr Lansley's ongoing reforms are intended to remove central control from the NHS.</i></b></p>
<p class=DHN><b><i>If he cannot ensure that its basic principles, which he affirms, are enforced, then we no longer have a NATIONAL Health Service worthy of the name.</i></b></p>
<p class=DHNS>See <a href="#_My_proposed_remedy">my proposed remedy</a> below.</p>
<hr size=2>
<p class=DHN><a name="Note"></a><b>Note:</b> The contractual conditions referred to by Mr Lansley apply only to the NHS in England. Identical conditions apply in Wales, where they are enforced by the Local Health Boards.</p>
<p class=DHH1><a name="_Possible_sources_for"></a>Possible sources for further comment:</p>
<table width=100% table-width:fixed><col width=5%><col width=5%><col width=5%><col width=85%>
<tr><td class=DHTab>♦</td><td class=DHTab colspan=3><b>The Department of Health</b>. The Department will be able to clarify the terms of the relevant contractual requirements. <span class=DHName>Andrew Lansley</span>'s office will be able to confirm what he meant by "… <span class=DHQuote>should not be using </span>…".</td></tr>
<tr><td class=DHTab>♦</td><td class=DHTab colspan=3><b>The British Medical Association</b>. Comment may be provided by <span class=DHName>Dr. Richard Vautrey</span> - Deputy Chairman of the <span class=DHName>BMA General Practitioners Committee</span> and partner in <a target="_blank" href="http://www.nhs.uk/ServiceDirectories/Pages/GP.aspx?Pid=DEAB9673-3D5B-4AD1-B40C-4DB87E1E4E50&TopicId=9#7df6cdc9-c429-4afd-8132-6a5ff0a32d47">Meanwood Group Practice</a>, Leeds (0844 477 1799). Each area is served by a <span class=DHName>Local Medical Committee</span>, representing the interest of local GPs.</td></tr>
<tr><td class=DHTab rowspan='2'>♦</td><td class=DHTab colspan=3><b>Talk Talk</b>. The numbers provided by <span class=DHName>NEG</span> are on services provided by <span class=DHName>Talk Talk Business</span>. <span class=DHName>Talk Talk</span> will be happy to confirm that all of its direct clients are able to migrate from 084 to 034 numbers at any point during the term of their contract, without penalty. If this same facility is not withheld by <span class=DHName>NEG</span>, then its NHS GP clients are able to utilise it so as to comply with their NHS contractual requirements at a cost which is not unreasonable.</td></tr>
<tr><td class=DHTab colspan=3><span class=DHName>Talk Talk</span> will also be able to confirm that its residential customers who use their landline for weekday daytime calls are advised to subscribe to its Talk UK Anytime tariff. This charges 13.1p + 6p per minute for calls to the (type "g11") 0844 numbers listed above, as against "zero" for a call of up to one hour to a geographic or 03 number. (Those who subscribe to its Talk UK Evenings and Weekends tariff are penalised for "out of plan" Weekday Daytime calls to geographic numbers at the rate of 13.1p + 7.95p per minute.)</td></tr>
<a name="Daisy"></a><tr><td class=DHTab rowspan='4'>♦</td><td class=DHTab colspan=3><b>Daisy Group Plc</b> - owners of <span class=DHName>NEG</span>. Daisy Chief Executive, and "Apprentice" judge, <span class=DHName>Matt Riley</span>, is ready to defend his company's role in pressing these numbers on GPs and to contradict the view of the Secretary of State. (See <a target="_blank" href="http://tinyurl.com/dhtiny/ytp?T37hmIpBOMM">this BBC North West Tonight item from 2 August 2011</a>.)</td></tr>
<tr><td class=DHTab colspan=3><span class=DHName>Mr Riley</span> seems not to understand how the industry works. His broadcast statement could be taken to suggest that Talk Talk, along with all other landline call providers, charge for 0844 calls at "local rates". Nobody has ever done this. <span class=DHName>Daisy</span> itself charges 6.5p per minute for "type g11" 0844 calls, as against 2p per minute for "local, regional and national" calls (see <a target="_blank" href="http://www.daisygroupplc.com/doc_download/860-daisy-line-and-calls-tariffs">Daisy Fixed Line Tariffs</a>).</td></tr>
<tr><td class=DHTab colspan=3>When he says " <span class=DHQuote>we'd only charge a local rate call</span>", <span class=DHName>Mr Riley</span> fails to suggest under what circumstances <span class=DHName>Daisy</span> would alter its present charging policy; he is certainly not referring to the situation as it exists.</td></tr>
<tr><td class=DHTab colspan=3><span class=DHName>The BBC</span> was wrong to suggest that Daisy is in any way a party to the contracts between its GP clients and the NHS. <b>If GPs use information provided by <span class=DHName>Daisy</span>, it is they who are fully responsible for the accuracy of that information.</b></td></tr>
<tr><td class=DHTab>♦</td><td class=DHTab colspan=3><b>Primary Care Trusts</b>. These are now managed on a "Clustered" basis by 50 bodies covering areas of England. Each of the Clusters appears to have adopted a slightly different policy regarding enforcement. In almost all cases this amounts to tolerance of this breach of the principles of the NHS.</td></tr>
</table>
<p class=DHH1><a name="_My_proposed_remedy"></a>My proposed remedy</p>
<p class=DHN>Where the technical benefits available with "non-geographic" numbers are thought to be cost-effective, these can be provided using 03 numbers - for which calls are charged at the same rate (if any) as calls to geographic numbers in all cases.</p>
<p class=DHN>03 numbers are not subject to revenue sharing, so GPs choosing to deploy the benefits obtained must meet the full cost of their telephone systems without the benefit of subsidy at the expense of their patients. GPs are funded, from our taxation, to provide NHS services. If they believe this funding to be inadequate, they can argue their case. Whilst the principles of the NHS remain in effect, they cannot be permitted to take money from patients.</p>
<p class=DHN>For those currently using systems which rely on the features of non-geographic numbers, <b><u>they must immediately migrate from 084 to the equivalent 034 number</u></b>. A plan for this can be agreed by the parties. This could include a gesture on the part of <span class=DHName>Talk Talk Business</span> to relieve some of the costs of using non-geographic numbers.</p>
<br />
<br />David Hicksonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04098965183402991445noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1547492502568950157.post-33107227059815072462012-04-19T12:00:00.000+01:002012-04-22T09:26:41.553+01:00Silent Calls - Ofcom imposes penalty of £750,000 on HomeServe<style type='text/css'>.DHN {margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:10.0pt; font-size:14.0pt; font-family:'Book Antiqua', serif}.DHNS {margin-top:25.0pt; margin-bottom:10.0pt; font-size:14.0pt; font-family:'Book Antiqua', serif}.DHH1 {margin-top:18.0pt; color:#000080; font-weight:bold; margin-bottom:10.0pt; font-size:18.0pt; font-family:'Trebuchet MS', Helvetica, sans-serif}.DHH2 {color:#000080; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; margin-bottom:10.0pt; text-decoration:none; font-size:16.0pt; font-family:'Trebuchet MS', Helvetica, sans-serif}.DHQuote {color:#E36C0A; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic}.DHBold {margin-bottom:10.0pt; font-size:14.0pt; font-family:'Arial Black', 'sans-serif'}.DHHigh {background:#FFFF00}.DHAnno {color:#9D2FAF; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; vertical-align:text-top; font-size:8.0pt}.DHEmph {color:#FF00FF; font-weight:bold}.DHName {color:#000080; font-weight:bold}.DHTab {border-bottom:6pt solid transparent; vertical-align:top; font-size:14.0pt; font-family:'Book Antiqua', serif}</style>
<p class=DHN><b>From: David Hickson, of the Fair Telecoms Campaign - veteran Stop Silent Calls campaigner</b></p>
<!--start summary-->
<p class=DHNS><span class=DHName>Ofcom</span> has today announced that it will finally use the increased powers granted by parliament in 2010.</p>
<p class=DHN>For the first time, it will impose a serious penalty against a company found to be making <span class=DHEmph>Silent Calls</span> - See <a target="_blank" href="http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/enforcement/competition-bulletins/open-cases/all-open-cases/cw_905/?utm_source=updates&utm_campaign=cw_905">Update note - 19 April 2012</a>.</p><!--end summary-->
<p class=DHN>After nearly nine years of my campaigning on this topic, it could be that Ofcom has finally decided to use the powers which it has always held.</p>
<p class=DHNS>The detail of the scale and precise nature of the nuisance caused by <span class=DHName>HomeServe</span>, so as to warrant a penalty of <span class=DHEmph>£750,000</span>, is still unknown.</p>
<p class=DHN>I fear that it may be no greater than that caused by many other companies who operate within the tolerance limits set by <span class=DHName>Ofcom</span> - </p>
<table width=100% table-width:fixed><col width=5%><col width=5%><col width=5%><col width=85%>
<tr><td class=DHTab>•</td><td class=DHTab colspan=3>Hanging up in silence is OK if you make enough calls that day on which you speak to someone.</td></tr>
<tr><td class=DHTab>•</td><td class=DHTab colspan=3>Repeated Silent Calls are OK on successive days, but not on the same day.</td></tr>
<tr><td class=DHTab>•</td><td class=DHTab colspan=3>Use of ineffective Answering Machine Detection equipment (which inevitably causes Silent Calls, on an unknown scale) is tolerated.</td></tr>
</table>
<p class=DHNS>I comment - </p>
<p class=DHN><b><i>If this penalty is deserved and is to be effective as a deterrent for others, then Ofcom must make the situation totally clear.</i></b></p>
<p class=DHN><b><i>I believe that Ofcom must respond to the wishes of parliament, clearly declared in 2006 - </i></b></p>
<p class=DHN>" <span class=DHQuote style="font-family:'Arial Black';font-style:normal">we expect you to use your powers to <u>eradicate</u> the nuisance of Silent Calls</span>".</p>
<p class=DHN><b><i>This is not an issue of market regulation, requiring balance and tolerance, it is a case where Ofcom must simply prohibit unacceptable behaviour in the public interest.</i></b></p>
<p class=DHNS>(See my blogging "<a target="_blank" href="http://scvictim.blogspot.co.uk/2011/07/homeserve-and-npower-my-response-to.html">HomeServe and nPower - my response to Ofcom's persistent misuse of its persistent misuse powers</a>")</p>
<br />
<br />David Hicksonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04098965183402991445noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1547492502568950157.post-63691371216766832862012-04-04T12:00:00.000+01:002012-04-22T09:21:41.351+01:00Ofcom proposes a fairer system for telephone call charges<style type='text/css'>.DHN {margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:10.0pt; font-size:14.0pt; font-family:'Book Antiqua', serif}.DHNS {margin-top:25.0pt; margin-bottom:10.0pt; font-size:14.0pt; font-family:'Book Antiqua', serif}.DHH1 {margin-top:18.0pt; color:#000080; font-weight:bold; margin-bottom:10.0pt; font-size:18.0pt; font-family:'Trebuchet MS', Helvetica, sans-serif}.DHH2 {color:#000080; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; margin-bottom:10.0pt; text-decoration:none; font-size:16.0pt; font-family:'Trebuchet MS', Helvetica, sans-serif}.DHQuote {color:#E36C0A; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic}.DHBold {margin-bottom:10.0pt; font-size:14.0pt; font-family:'Arial Black', 'sans-serif'}.DHHigh {background:#FFFF00}.DHAnno {color:#9D2FAF; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; vertical-align:text-top; font-size:8.0pt}.DHEmph {color:#FF00FF; font-weight:bold}.DHName {color:#000080; font-weight:bold}.DHTab {border-bottom:6pt solid transparent; vertical-align:top; font-size:14.0pt; font-family:'Book Antiqua', serif}</style>
<p class=DHN><b>From: David Hickson of the Fair Telecoms Campaign</b></p>
<!--start summary--><p class=DHN><span class=DHName>Ofcom</span> proposals released today announce <span class=DHEmph>the end of the 084 telephone number "rip-off"</span> practiced by many businesses and public bodies. (<a target="_blank" href="http://media.ofcom.org.uk/2012/04/04/simplified-call-charges-to-help-consumers/?utm_source=updates&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=non-geo-no-condocNR">See Simplified call charges to help consumers</a>.)</p><!--end summary-->
<p class=DHN><span class=DHName>Ofcom</span> also proposes to clear up the situation with calls to 080 numbers, so that the recipient pays the full cost, whether the call is made from a landline or a mobile.</p>
<p class=DHNS>As with calls to "Premium Rate Service" 087 and 09 numbers, all calls to 084 numbers include a cost which is passed on to the person receiving the call - a "<span class=DHEmph>Service Charge</span>".</p>
<p class=DHN>At present the charge is only regulated when the call is made using <span class=DHName>BT</span>. The new proposals will cause the cost of all calls to 08, 09 and 118 numbers to be transparent to the caller in all cases - <u>including the separate amount of the charge to the benefit of the person receiving the call</u>.</p>
<p class=DHNS>This will have a radical effect on <span class=DHName>banks</span>, <span class=DHName>insurance companies</span> and others who use these numbers for "service" lines, at a charge to their benefit which is not presently being declared. Even more radical will be the need for public bodies, notably <span class=DHName>NHS</span> providers but also <span class=DHName>HMRC</span> and the <span class=DHName>DWP</span> agencies such as <span class=DHName>JobCentres</span> and the <span class=DHName>Pensions Service</span>, who cannot charge for their services, to simply <span class=DHEmph>stop using these numbers</span>.</p>
<p class=DHN>Where necessary, they will have to switch to numbers from the <span class=DHEmph>03</span> range, on which calls are charged at the same rate as call to "geographic" (01/02) numbers, <u>with no revenue sharing permitted</u>.</p>
<p class=DHNS>The proposals are detailed and complex, but the essential principles are solid.</p>
<p class=DHN>If, for example, a <span class=DHName>GP</span> were to continue using a <span class=DHEmph>0844</span> number, its website and patient leaflet would have to include the advice:</p>
<p class=DHN>"<span class=DHQuote>This call will cost you 5 pence per minute plus your phone company's access charge</span>"</p>
<p class=DHN>No provider of NHS services could do this! There are still <span class=DHEmph>over 1,000</span> <span class=DHName>NHS GP</span> surgeries using these numbers.</p>
<p class=DHNS>When complete, this will represent a fulfilment of what I have been campaigning for over many years - most especially with relevance to the NHS. In conjunction with other campaigners I will be consolidating efforts to ensure that these changes are understood and fully implemented under the banner of the "<span class=DHEmph> Fair Telecoms Campaign</span>".</p>
<br />
<br />David Hicksonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04098965183402991445noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1547492502568950157.post-75563857955928764642012-03-14T15:54:00.001+00:002012-03-15T09:41:24.410+00:00The NHS Hospital Phone rip off continues, although with one less example<style type='text/css'>.DHN {margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:10.0pt; font-size:14.0pt; font-family:'Book Antiqua', serif}.DHNS {margin-top:25.0pt; margin-bottom:10.0pt; font-size:14.0pt; font-family:'Book Antiqua', serif}.DHH1 {margin-top:18.0pt; color:#000080; font-weight:bold; margin-bottom:10.0pt; font-size:18.0pt; font-family:'Trebuchet MS', Helvetica, sans-serif}.DHQuote {color:#E36C0A; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic}.DHBold {margin-bottom:10.0pt; font-size:14.0pt; font-family:'Arial Black', 'sans-serif'}.DHTab {border-bottom:1pt solid; border-right:1pt solid; padding:5pt; vertical-align:top; font-size:14.0pt; font-family:'Book Antiqua', serif}.DHTab1 {border-bottom:1pt solid; padding:5pt; vertical-align:top; font-size:14.0pt; font-family:Arial,'sans-serif'; font-weight:bold}</style>
<p class=DHN><!--start summary-->Aside from permitting the scandalous misuse of "personal numbers" for bedside phone services by appointed contractors, the NHS itself continues to use expensive 084 phone numbers (<a href="#NHS_Bodies">see details below</a>). It also allows contracted GPs to do the same (<a href="#GPs">see details below</a>).<!--end summary--> An idea of the additional costs incurred is found from <a target=_blank href="http://tiny.cc/GP084Costs">this table</a>.</p>
<p class=DHNS>Following a public consultation in 2008/9, Directions from the Department of Health gave NHS bodies 12 months from 22 December 2009 in which to cease use of numbers that were more expensive than the cost of an equivalent call to a geographic number. The same requirement was imposed on contracted GPs with effect from 1 April 2010.</p>
<p class=DHN>The possibility of future changes by Ofcom makes it impossible for the regulations to directly specify particular numbers or ranges. Under current conditions however,<br><b>the undeniable meaning of these regulations is a ban on use of all 084 numbers. </b></p>
<p class=DHN>The hospitals and other bodies listed below continue to fail to comply, however I am pleased that one has just announced that it will now start to comply, over 15 months late.</p>
<p class=DHH1>The Switch</p>
<p class=DHBold>From 2 April 2012, the North East London NHS Foundation Trust will switch from 084 numbers onto 03 numbers. (see <a target=_blank href="http://www.nelft.nhs.uk/news_publications/84">this press release</a>)</p>
<p class=DHN>All 03 numbers are guaranteed to cost no more than the cost of a call to a "geographic" 01 or 02 number. This applies to landlines, mobiles and payphones and covers the terms of call inclusive packages and bundles.</p>
<p class=DHN><b>The switch from 084 to 03 is what many NHS Bodies and GPs should be doing</b>, as this enables them to continue to take advantage of the features of what is known as "Enhanced Telephony", but <u>without the cost being passed on to the caller</u>. With 084 numbers telephone companies often take advantage of the situation by adding their own excessive premium as well. This is also prohibited on 03 numbers.</p>
<p class=DHN>Some NHS Bodies have already done the switch, including NHS Blood and Transplant (0300 123 23 23) and the NHS Choose and Book Appointments Line (0345 60 88888).</p>
<p class=DHN>The same is happening (again too slowly) throughout the public sector. A former hard case, the DLVA, has switched (0300 790 680x). Even HMRC has started the process with the Tax Credits helpline (0345 300 3900), although it retains all its other numbers on 0845 without offering the 0345 equivalents as an alternative.</p>
<p class=DHN>The three Gloucestershire bodies listed below are intending to do the same switch within the next six months (up to 21 months late).</p>
<hr>
<p class=DHH1><a name="NHS_Bodies"></a>NHS Bodies that still fail to comply</p>
<p class=DHN>The following list shows direct providers of NHS services still failing to comply with the effective ban on use of 084 numbers more than 15 months after the 12 month period of grace granted to them has expired.</p>
<p class=DHN>In those cases marked with a "*" an alternative geographic number is published, however the 084 number remains in use and is sometimes even mistakenly commended as being cheaper to call.</p>
<p class=DHN>Those shown in italics are known to have firm plans to comply.</p>
<p class=DHN>The NHS Direct NHS Trust is exempted from the regulations. 0345 46 47 has been specifically set up for use as an alternative to 0845 46 47, but it refuses to make this available.</p>
<table width=100% table-width:fixed style='border: 2pt solid; border-collapse: collapse'>
<tr><td class=DHTab1>LONDON</td><td class=DHTab></td></tr>
<tr><td class=DHTab>Barking, Havering and Redbridge Hospitals NHS Trust</td><td class=DHTab>0845 130 4204 *</td></tr>
<tr><td class=DHTab>Barnet and Chase Farm Hospitals NHS Trust</td><td class=DHTab>0845 111 4000 *</td></tr>
<tr><td class=DHTab>Basildon & Thurrock University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust</td><td class=DHTab>0845 155 3111 *</td></tr>
<tr><td class=DHTab><i>North East London NHS Foundation Trust</i></td><td class=DHTab><i>0844 600 1200</i></td></tr>
<tr><td class=DHTab>University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust</td><td class=DHTab>0845 155 5000 *</td></tr>
<tr><td class=DHTab1>NORTH OF ENGLAND</td><td class=DHTab></td></tr>
<tr><td class=DHTab>Bradford and Airedale Teaching Primary Care Trust</td><td class=DHTab>0845 111 5000 *</td></tr>
<tr><td class=DHTab>Calderdale and Huddersfield NHS Foundation Trust</td><td class=DHTab>0844 8110101 *</td></tr>
<tr><td class=DHTab>Mid Yorkshire Hospitals NHS Trust</td><td class=DHTab>0844 811 8110 *</td></tr>
<tr><td class=DHTab>Northumbria Healthcare NHS Trust</td><td class=DHTab>0844 811 8111</td></tr>
<tr><td class=DHTab>Northumberland, Tyne and Wear NHS Trust</td><td class=DHTab>0844 811 5522</td></tr>
<tr><td class=DHTab1>MIDLANDS AND EAST</td><td class=DHTab></td></tr>
<tr><td class=DHTab>North Staffordshire Primary Care Trust</td><td class=DHTab>0845 602 6772</td></tr>
<tr><td class=DHTab>Luton and Dunstable Hospital NHS Foundation Trust</td><td class=DHTab>0845 127 0 127</td></tr>
<tr><td class=DHTab>Spire Parkway Hospital, Solihull (providing NHS services)</td><td class=DHTab>0845 850 1451</td></tr>
<tr><td class=DHTab1>SOUTH OF ENGLAND</td><td class=DHTab></td></tr>
<tr><td class=DHTab><i>Gloucestershire Primary Care Trust</i></td><td class=DHTab><i>08454 221500</i></td></tr>
<tr><td class=DHTab><i>Gloucestershire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust</i></td><td class=DHTab><i>08454 222 222</i></td></tr>
<tr><td class=DHTab><i>Gloucestershire Care Services (currently a NHS body)</i></td><td class=DHTab><i>08456 598100</i></td></tr>
<tr><td class=DHTab>Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust</td><td class=DHTab>0845 155 1000</td></tr>
<tr><td class=DHTab>Plymouth Hospitals NHS Trust</td><td class=DHTab>0845 155 8155 *</td></tr>
<tr><td class=DHTab1>NATIONAL</td><td class=DHTab></td></tr>
<tr><td class=DHTab>Blackpool Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (National Artificial Eye Service)</td><td class=DHTab>0845 60 50 561</td></tr>
<tr><td class=DHTab>Marie Stopes International (many centres - providing NHS services)</td><td class=DHTab>0845 300 3740</td></tr>
</table>
<p class=DHH1><a name="GPs"></a>GPs that fail to comply</p>
<p class=DHN>I publish a database, derived from NHS Choices for England, of those NHS GPs which use 084 numbers. This was recently presented as evidence in support of a parliamentary debate on the subject (<a target=_blank href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201212/cmhansrd/cm120124/halltext/120124h0002.htm#12012442000001">see Hansard</a>).</p>
<p class=DHN>In responding to the debate, Simon Burns MP, Minister of State (Health Services), gave a strong indication that he does not share my view that our NHS is a universal service in which use of 084 telephone numbers is unacceptable. He referred to my published list of cases - <a target=_blank href="http://tiny.cc/Burnslist">http://tiny.cc/Burnslist</a> and the associated table of call costs for leading providers of telephone call services (<a target=_blank href="http://tiny.cc/GP084Costs">http://tiny.cc/GP084Costs</a>) as follows:</p>
<p class=DHN><span class=DHQuote>"People say that there are 1,300 GP practices that charge more than they should; what they do not say is which practices they are, and they do not provide the robust proof that overcharging is happening …</span></p>
<p class=DHN><span class=DHQuote>"GP practices are adhering to the regulations and not costing patients more than they should. The PCTs vigorously enforce the regulations."</span></p>
<p class=DHNS>In my briefing for the debate, I referred to there being "nearly 1,300 surgeries", not "1,300 practices". I have never alleged that telephone companies are “overcharging”, they bill in accordance with their published tariffs.</p>
<p class=DHN>By alleging that NHS GPs are allowed to levy any charge on NHS patients, Mr Burns was getting ahead of himself, as this aspect of the government's "NHS reform" plans has not yet even been published.</p>
<br />
<br />David Hicksonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04098965183402991445noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1547492502568950157.post-91419743501034314342012-02-24T15:22:00.000+00:002012-03-06T05:56:52.723+00:00NHS Bodies forced to re-assess their policy on tolerating use of 084 telephone numbers<style type='text/css'>.DHN {margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:10.0pt; font-size:14.0pt; font-family:'Book Antiqua', serif}.DHNS {margin-top:25.0pt; margin-bottom:10.0pt; font-size:14.0pt; font-family:'Book Antiqua', serif}.DHH1 {margin-top:18.0pt; color:#000080; font-weight:bold; margin-bottom:10.0pt; font-size:18.0pt; font-family:'Trebuchet MS', Helvetica, sans-serif}.DHQuote {color:#E36C0A; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic}.DHTab {border-bottom:6pt solid transparent; vertical-align:top; font-size:14.0pt; font-family:'Book Antiqua', serif}</style>
<!--start summary--><p class=DHN>Pressure from campaigners has finally produced a positive response from the Department of Health to the widespread failure to implement the ban on use of expensive telephone numbers in the NHS, which was first announced on 14 September 2009.</p>
<p class=DHNS>Yesterday the Department of Health issued <a target=_blank href="http://www.dh.gov.uk/health/2012/02/084-numbers/">Further Guidance on The use of 084 numbers in the NHS</a>. This was addressed to <b>NHS bodies</b> which themselves use these numbers and to the Primary Care Trusts which are required to enforce the contractual conditions imposed on <b>GPs</b>.</p><!--end summary-->
<p class=DHN>There are currently <b>over 1,000 GP practices</b> using 084 numbers and many NHS bodies also persist in subsidising the cost of their telephone systems at the expense of patients and other callers. All 084 numbers provide a subsidy to the user at the expense of callers.</p>
<p class=DHNS>This only applies to England, although the devolved governments would do well to address this problem also - especially as they have no current plans to replace the NHS with an alternative system.</p>
<p class=DHN>Details of all the GPs and the costs of calling them are published in <a target=_blank href="tiny.cc/GP084DB">my database</a>.</p>
<p class=DHN>Some of the key NHS bodies are <a target=_blank href="http://nhspatient.blogspot.com/2011/08/nhs-bodies-in-breach-of-directions-to.html#Bodies_in_Breach">listed here</a>.</p>
<p class=DHH1>The New Guidance</p>
<p class=DHN>It is important to understand that the "Further Guidance" does not in any way change the formal position. It simply restates what is contained in the relevant Directions and regulations and confirms the understanding which all should have derived from this. Sadly, many have been misled as a result of efforts to maintain this abuse of the principles of the NHS.</p>
<p class=DHN>The key points made are as follows:</p>
<table width=100% table-width:fixed><col width=5%><col width=5%><col width=5%><col width=85%>
<tr><td class=DHTab rowspan='2'>•</td><td class=DHTab colspan=3>To ensure that the requirements may be sustained through forthcoming changes to telephone regulations, there is no <u>explicit</u> permission or prohibition of any particular group of telephone numbers. Determination of what is prohibited is based on meeting the following requirement:</td></tr>
<tr><td class=DHTab colspan=3><span class=DHQuote>"Persons should not be charged more to contact an NHS body or Primary Medical Service contractor, than they would if they were calling a geographic number in the same manner."</span></td></tr>
<tr><td class=DHTab rowspan='3'>•</td><td class=DHTab colspan=3>Evidence to enable this determination should be based upon:</td></tr>
<tr><td class=DHTab>ο</td><td class=DHTab colspan=2>Cost-per-call information from telephony providers.</td></tr>
<tr><td class=DHTab>ο</td><td class=DHTab colspan=2>Information provided by patients showing the cost of calling as against the cost they incur when calling a geographic number from the same phone.</td></tr>
<tr><td class=DHTab rowspan='4'>•</td><td class=DHTab colspan=3>This specifically rejects suggestions that it is appropriate to make the determination in other ways.</td></tr>
<tr><td class=DHTab>ο</td><td class=DHTab colspan=2>It is not acceptable to use only opinions offered by interested parties, e.g. the provider of telephone service to the GP or NHS Body. An "assurance" that a provider believes that their number should be cheap to call is of no value whatsoever.</td></tr>
<tr><td class=DHTab rowspan='2'>ο</td><td class=DHTab colspan=2>Alleged "industry standard" methods for presenting a minimum call cost, with the proviso that it may be greater are of no use in making a determination.</td></tr>
<tr><td class=DHTab colspan=2>It is made clear that the determination must be made on consideration of "the arrangement as a whole", not just the circumstances of a particular group of callers. It is stated:</td></tr>
</table>
<p class=DHH1>The conclusion</p>
<p class=DHN>If one considers the reality of the current situation with telephone tariffs and the variety of tariffs that are used, there is no 084 number that may presently be used in compliance with the regulations and Directions. – See <a target=_blank href="http://tiny.cc/GP084Costs">my table of relative costs</a>.</p>
<p class=DHN>All users of 084 numbers, who are bound to retain use of a non-geographic number from a particular provider due to a contract, or who wish to deploy the benefits of a non-geographic number, are free to migrate to <b>the equivalent 034 number</b>. Calls to 03 numbers are guaranteed to be charged are no greater rate than that of calling a geographic number from the same mobile, landline or payphone, including through the terms of call inclusive packages. All known providers of telephone service to 084-using NHS bodies and NHS GPs are known to offer this facility. Other more appropriate remedies may be available, but this is known to be available in every case.</p>
<p class=DHN>03 numbers do not provide the financial subsidy (at the expense of callers) that is enjoyed by users of 084 numbers. The consequential increased cost would return that NHS provider to the same situation as other similar providers, who meet their costs from the NHS funding provided for the purpose. There is no way that such a situation could be deemed to be "unreasonable".</p>
<p class=DHN>There have been suggestions that some providers impose unreasonable costs or restrictions on migration. If this is so, then evidence of this irregular business practice must be provided, so that these providers can be seen to be engaged in unnecessarily intervening in the politics of the NHS.</p>
<p class=DHH1>My comment</p>
<p class=DHN>I look forward to hearing that NHS Chief Executives have indeed revised their policies after “<span class=DHQuote>considering the implications of this further guidance</span>”, as demanded by the Department of Health. The original measures set deadlines of Christmas 2010 for NHS Bodies and 1 April 2011 for GPs to cease using 084 numbers.</p>
<p class=DHN>Public support for the principles of the NHS, allegedly also seen from GPs and the government, should help to ensure that we are now finally able to get rid of this blight on the NHS.</p>
<br />
<br />David Hicksonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04098965183402991445noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1547492502568950157.post-71733642688547618582012-02-21T11:02:00.000+00:002012-02-21T11:02:54.177+00:00Health Services Minister, Simon Burns, challenged on NHS GP charges<style type='text/css'>.DHN {margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:10.0pt; font-size:14.0pt; font-family:'Book Antiqua', serif}.DHNS {margin-top:30.0pt; margin-bottom:10.0pt; font-size:14.0pt; font-family:'Book Antiqua', serif}.DHEmph {color:#FF00FF; font-weight:bold}</style>
<!--start summary--><p class=DHN>Please see my open message to Simon Burns, Minister of State (Health Services), published <a href="http://nhspatient.blogspot.com/2012/02/open-message-to-simon-burns-regarding.html">at this link</a>.</p>
<p class=DHN>This enables the issue of GPs using expensive telephone numbers to be seen in the context of the government's intentions for health service provision in England.</p><!--end summary-->
<p class=DHNS>In a recent debate in parliament, Mr Burns made the bizarre assertion that <b>NHS GPs are allowed to charge patients for access to NHS services</b>.</p>
<p class=DHN>He accused me, and others, of alleging that they were charging more than they "<b>should</b>".</p>
<p class=DHNS>I most certainly alleged that nearly 1,300 surgeries are listing on NHS Choices as having 084 telephone numbers, which means that the cost of their telephone system is subsidised.</p>
<p class=DHN>This subsidy is generally provided by their patients and other callers, who pay <b>their respective telephone companies</b> more to call these numbers than they would to make an equivalent call to a geographic number. This fact places the GPs in breach of their NHS contracts.</p>
<p class=DHNS>If Mr Burns and his colleagues succeed in introducing a "<span class=DHEmph>patient focussed</span>" health service to replace the NHS in England, then it will be natural for patients to expect to get "<span class=DHEmph>value for money</span>" from their healthcare providers, as they exercise choice as <b>consumers</b>.</p>
<p class=DHN>For the time being however we have a "<span class=DHEmph>National</span>" Health Service, funded by taxation, and contracted providers are not permitted to make any charge whatsoever, as services are accessed "<span class=DHEmph>free at the point of need</span>". I am fighting to defend and retain this.</p>
<br />
<p class=DHNS>Mr Burns also dismissed my evidence because it identified only individual GP surgeries, as shown on NHS Choices, rather than the practices which operate the surgeries.</p>
<p class=DHN>This petty-minded wriggling approach provides a most clear indication that, despite some warm words, Burns is simply <b>not interested in whether or not the principles of the NHS are being upheld</b>.</p>
<p class=DHNS>I hope that those who are concerned about these matters will recognise this precise, concrete evidence of the way in which Health Ministers are currently approaching their duties.</p>
<p class=DHN>Please contact me for further information and comment.</p>
<br />
<br />David Hicksonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04098965183402991445noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1547492502568950157.post-38063368103009489932012-01-20T07:17:00.001+00:002012-02-08T01:31:17.724+00:00Parliament to debate 'Use of 084 telephone numbers in the NHS'<style type='text/css'>.DHN {margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:10.0pt; font-size:14.0pt; font-family:'Book Antiqua', serif}.DHNS {margin-top:25.0pt; margin-bottom:10.0pt; font-size:14.0pt; font-family:'Book Antiqua', serif}.DHQuote {color:#E36C0A; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic}.DHEmph {color:#FF00FF; font-weight:bold}.DHTab {border-bottom:6pt solid transparent; vertical-align:top; font-size:14.0pt; font-family:'Book Antiqua', serif}</style> <!--start summary--><p class=DHNS>Bob Ainsworth MP for Coventry North East will be leading a debate on this topic in Westminster Hall, at 12:30 next Tuesday, 24 January. A government minister will reply.</p><!--end summary--> <p class=DHN>This will cover the fact that <a target="_blank" href="http://tinyurl.com/DHTiny/GP084?Regs">nearly 1,300 NHS GP surgeries in England</a> continue to use these expensive numbers, despite revisions to their contracts which should have brought this to an end by 1 April 2011.</p><p class=DHN>I hope that Mr Ainsworth, and other MPs who may contribute, will stress the need for the government to make the situation clear to all, and in particular to ensure that officers of the Primary Care Trusts fulfil their duties properly by enforcing the terms of the contracts on their GPs.</p><p class=DHN id="keypoints">The key points are as follows:</p><table width=100% table-width:fixed><col width=5%><col width=5%><col width=5%><col width=85%>
<tr><td class=DHTab rowspan='2'>•</td><td class=DHTab colspan=3>As telephone tariffs stand, <b>there is no 084 number that can be used in the NHS</b>.</td></tr>
<tr><td class=DHTab colspan=3>The NHS is universal in its scope and available to all on equal terms. There will always be some who will pay more to call 084 numbers. (See <a target="_blank" href="http://tinyurl.com/DHTiny/GP084?Costs">current tariff examples</a>.)</td></tr>
<tr><td class=DHTab rowspan='5'>•</td><td class=DHTab colspan=3><b>GPs tied into long term telephone system arrangements must still comply</b>.</td></tr>
<tr><td class=DHTab colspan=3>If necessary, they can change to the 034 equivalent of their 084 number.</td></tr>
<tr><td class=DHTab colspan=3>This would mean that they will henceforward incur the full cost of their chosen telephone system, without the benefit of subsidy at the expense of patients.</td></tr>
<tr><td class=DHTab colspan=3>The revised contracts demand that they "<span class=DHQuote>take reasonable steps</span>" to ensure that patients do not pay more - this step must be considered to be "<span class=DHQuote>reasonable</span>".</td></tr>
<tr><td class=DHTab colspan=3>Migration to 03 is an option offered by all telephone service providers, including that responsible for most of these cases. (See <a target="_blank" href="http://tinyurl.com/DHTiny/GP084?escape">this note</a>.)</td></tr>
<tr><td class=DHTab rowspan='3'>•</td><td class=DHTab colspan=3><b>The terms of the GP contracts are clear, but are made confusing by those who oppose their intention and purpose</b>.</td></tr>
<tr><td class=DHTab colspan=3>Local NHS officers, who have to enforce the terms of the contracts, have not been able to overcome resistance from those who argue that patients should pay some of the costs incurred by GPs and other NHS providers. This is the <span class=DHEmph>privatisation of the NHS</span>, which many fear that the government is prepared to tolerate.</td></tr>
<tr><td class=DHTab colspan=3>If the government truly believes in the principles of the NHS, now and for the future, then it must intervene to ensure that these principles are fully respected - if necessary, by strong enforcement action against those who continue to breach them.</td></tr>
</table><p class=DHN>GPs may be quick to point out that some NHS hospitals and other NHS bodies also use these numbers, in breach of equivalent Directions issued to them. I argue that these bodies are not only in breach, but are making enforcement of similar requirements unnecessarily difficult. (See the list in my blogging - "<a target="_blank" href="http://nhspatient.blogspot.com/2011/08/nhs-bodies-in-breach-of-directions-to.html#Bodies_in_Breach">NHS Bodies in Breach ...</a>".)</p><br />
<br />David Hicksonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04098965183402991445noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1547492502568950157.post-31038224225144651672012-01-06T03:44:00.000+00:002012-01-06T03:44:09.304+00:00GPs using expensive telephone numbers - the "escape route" is revealed by NEG<style type='text/css'>.DHN {margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:10.0pt; font-size:14.0pt; font-family:'Book Antiqua', serif}.DHNS {margin-top:25.0pt; margin-bottom:10.0pt; font-size:14.0pt; font-family:'Book Antiqua', serif}.DHBold {margin-bottom:10.0pt; font-size:14.0pt; font-family:'Arial Black', 'sans-serif'}.DHHigh {background:#FFFF00}.DHEmph {color:#FF3634; font-weight:bold}.DHName {color:#000080; font-weight:bold}</style>
<p class=DHN>Many NHS GPs use expensive 084x telephone numbers as a means of subsidising the cost of their telephone system at the expense of patients. (See <a href="http://tiny.cc/GP084DB">my database of cases</a> and a <a href="http://tiny.cc/GP084Map">map</a>.) Since April 2011, those in England and Wales have been doing so in breach of their NHS contracts.</p>
<p class=DHN>Many claim that use of a 084 number is essential to support use of a telephone system called "<span class=DHName>Surgery Line</span>", provided by <span class=DHName>NEG</span>, part of <span class=DHName>The Daisy Group</span>. I am now delighted to be able to report that <span class=DHName>NEG</span> now confirms on its website - <a href="http://www.networkeuropegroup.com/DifferentNumberRanges.html">Different Number Ranges</a> - that this is untrue.</p>
<p class=DHNS>It is particularly significant that <span class=DHName>NEG</span> confirms that <span class=DHHigh><span class=DHName>Surgery Line</span> may be used with <span class=DHEmph>034</span> numbers</span>.</p>
<p class=DHN>Calls to all <span class=DHEmph>03</span> numbers are charged at no more than the equivalent cost of a call to a geographic number, from all types of phone and including the terms of packages.</p>
<p class=DHN><span class=DHEmph>03<u>4</u></span> numbers are however special. They are only available to <u>existing users of 084 numbers</u> for the purpose of migration to the equivalent number, e.g. <b>0<span class=DHEmph>8</span>44 477 1799 to 0<span class=DHEmph>3</span>44 477 1799</b>.</p>
<p class=DHNS>This means that:</p>
<!--start summary--><p class=DHN><span class=DHBold>all existing users of "Surgery Line" can take advantage of NEG's offer for them to migrate to 034 numbers,<br>to comply with their NHS contracts, whilst retaining all the benefits of the Surgery Line system.</span></p><!--end summary-->
<p class=DHNS>It has been claimed that <span class=DHName>NEG</span> imposes contract termination penalties on its customers if they cease use of their 084 number. As it now clearly offers use of numbers from a "migration only" range, it would be absurd for it to penalise those who wish to take advantage of this offer.</p>
<p class=DHN>It must be noted that those who migrate to 034 will be incurring the full cost of the "<span class=DHName>Surgery Line</span>" system, as they lose the benefit of subsidy at the expense of patients, which funds the system when a 084 number is used. It is however perfectly normal for NHS GPs to meet the costs of running their surgeries using only the NHS funding provided for the purpose. It would be absurd for them to pretend that meeting the cost of their chosen telephone system is "<b><i>unreasonable</i></b>".</p>
<p class=DHNS><b>I am delighted that <span class=DHName>Daisy Group</span>, the owner of <span class=DHName>NEG</span>, has finally made this very positive move.</b></p>
<p class=DHN>I hope that this news will be swiftly communicated to:</p>
<p class=DHN>• all "<span class=DHName>Surgery Line</span>" users</p>
<p class=DHN>• their patients, and</p>
<p class=DHN>• the local NHS bodies who enforce GPs compliance with their NHS contracts.</p>
<p class=DHN>This option of migration has always been available, but it is now <u>directly offered to <span class=DHName>Surgery Line</span> users</u>.</p>
<p class=DHN>I also hope that the <span class=DHName>BMA</span>, which has shown great interest in this topic, will now advise its members that this option of migration is now explicitly made available, rather than urging them to claim that the cost which would be incurred is "<b><i>unreasonable</i></b>".</p>
<br />
<br />David Hicksonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04098965183402991445noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1547492502568950157.post-77706270666591581882011-12-18T13:57:00.002+00:002011-12-19T11:57:13.342+00:00Doctors face regulation as providers of "Premium Rate Phone services"<style type='text/css'>.DHN {margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:10.0pt; font-size:14.0pt; font-family:'Book Antiqua', serif}.DHNS {margin-top:25.0pt; margin-bottom:10.0pt; font-size:14.0pt; font-family:'Book Antiqua', serif}.DHQuote {color:#E36C0A; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic}.DHHigh {background:#FFFF00}.DHName {color:#000080; font-weight:bold}</style>
<!--start summary--><p class=DHN>Premium rate phone service regulator <span class=DHName>PhonePay Plus</span> has invited <a href="http://tiny.cc/GP084DB">over 1,400 NHS GPs</a> and other users of <b>084x telephone numbers</b>, including <span class=DHHigh>NHS Direct</span>, <span class=DHHigh>HMRC</span> and the <span class=DHHigh>DWP agencies</span>, to present their views on the prospect of having to pay it a fee and submit to its regulation - <a href="http://www.phonepayplus.org.uk/News-And-Events/News/2011/12/PhonepayPlus-issues-call-for-inputs-on-regulation-of-08xx-numbers.aspx">see this news release</a>.</p><!--end summary-->
<p class=DHNS><span class=DHName>Ofcom</span> will be consulting on use of PhonePay Plus as a potential enforcer for its revised regulation of 084 numbers, in the New Year. Ofcom will need to apply an effective means of compelling those who benefit from the revenue sharing mechanism to declare the <b>Service Charge</b> which is indirectly paid to them by callers. This applies to <b>all users of 084 numbers</b>, who generally apply the financial benefit to offset the cost of their telephone service, rather than taking it as a cash payment.</p>
<p class=DHNS><span class=DHName>PhonePay Plus</span> explains its regulatory role in its consultation document - <a href="http://www.phonepayplus.org.uk/News-And-Events/News/2011/12/~/media/Files/PhonepayPlus/Consultation%20PDFs/PhonepayPlus_Call_for_Inputs_08xx_Numbers.pdf">Call for inputs around the extension of PhonePay Plus regulation to remaining revenue-sharing ranges</a>. This covers services delivered by telephone "<span class=DHQuote>which are charged above standard rate to a consumer’s phone bill and/or pre-pay account</span>", including downloading ringtones, voting on TV shows, directory enquiry services and chat-lines.</p>
<p class=DHN>It explains how its regulatory framework is well suited to deal with those who benefit, on a lesser scale, but <b><u>in exactly the same way</u></b> as those who provide the services listed above.</p>
<p class=DHNS><span class=DHName>GPs who have evaded the ban</span> in their contracts on use of 084 numbers may wish to comment on the prospect of being regulated in the same way as providers of "adult" chat-lines.</p>
<p class=DHN><span class=DHName>HMRC</span> may wish to express a view on having to pay a levy of perhaps 0.35% of its revenue share from telephone calls to a regulator of its activities.</p>
<p class=DHN><span class=DHName>JobCentre Plus and the Pensions Service</span> may not be wholly content to be classed as members of the same industry as the producers of "the X factor" and "Strictly".</p>
<p class=DHNS>For myself, I hope that as the reality of what is involved with 084 numbers is finally recognised, we will find that all providers of taxation-funded public services at last cease using them. The 03 range of numbers is available for them to utilise geographic anonymity and certain advanced functions, with the option of easy migration to the equivalent 034 number. Calls to 03 numbers are invariably charged at no greater rate than calls to 01 or 02 numbers, under all tariffs, and use of the revenue sharing mechanism is prohibited.</p>
<br />
<br />David Hicksonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04098965183402991445noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1547492502568950157.post-30388874829851513082011-11-20T10:00:00.001+00:002011-11-21T02:41:23.293+00:00Will Talk Talk be fined for Silent Calls - and what about undermining the NHS?<style type='text/css'>.DHN {margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:10.0pt; font-size:14.0pt; font-family:'Book Antiqua', serif}.DHNS {margin-top:25.0pt; margin-bottom:10.0pt; font-size:14.0pt; font-family:'Book Antiqua', serif}.DHEmph {color:#FF00FF; font-weight:bold}.DHName {color:#000080; font-weight:bold}</style>
<p class=DHN>An article by a Mail on Sunday reporter - <a target="_blank" href="http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-2063666/TalkTalk-facing-new-Ofcom-fine-silent-calls.html?ito=feeds-newsxml">TalkTalk facing new Ofcom fine over silent calls</a> – suggests that I may have been wrong to make the assumption headlined in <a target="_blank" href="http://davidhicksonmedia.blogspot.com/2011/10/talk-talk-joins-list-of-silent-callers.html">a previous release</a>.</p>
<!--start summary--><p class=DHNS>It is claimed that sources now suggest that Ofcom will not follow the same approach with <span class=DHName>Talk Talk</span> as it recently did with <span class=DHName>Homeserve</span> and <span class=DHName>nPower</span>.</p>
<p class=DHN>Although <span class=DHName>Ofcom</span> issued Notifications of Misuse to both companies, neither was subject to a penalty nor an enforceable obligation to cease the practice.</p><!--end summary-->
<p class=DHN><span class=DHName>Ofcom</span> treats many millions of Silent Calls as not being misuse at all; it applies a <span class=DHEmph>percentage tolerance</span> and recently introduced a “<span class=DHEmph>one a day is OK</span>” rule.</p>
<p class=DHNS>We know that <span class=DHName>Ofcom</span> “has issues” with <span class=DHName>Talk Talk</span>, having previously taken action against it on another matter.</p>
<p class=DHN>I too “have issues” - it is expensive <span class=DHName>Talk Talk</span> telephone numbers that are being used by many NHS GPs to subsidise the cost of their telephone systems at the expense of patients and in breach of their NHS contracts. I have published a list of 1,115 NHS surgeries using expensive <span class=DHName>Talk Talk</span> numbers (80% of the total of such cases).</p>
<p class=DHNS>If <span class=DHName>Talk Talk</span> were, exceptionally, to be subjected to a financial penalty for persistent misuse, this could appear to be spite by <span class=DHName>Ofcom</span>, as many other Silent Callers do not even have their known Silent Calling brought to public attention. Furthermore, as <span class=DHName>Ofcom</span> is in the habit of not publishing details of the scale of the misuse, we will have no idea about whether or not the penalty is proportionate.</p>
<p class=DHN>Neither <span class=DHName>Talk Talk</span>, nor its agent, can be fined for undermining the NHS. It is the GPs who may follow their guidance who are actually breaching their NHS contracts by using expensive telephone numbers. <span class=DHName>Talk Talk</span> is however a major part of the problem – it could become a major part of the solution.</p>
<br />
<br />David Hicksonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04098965183402991445noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1547492502568950157.post-80601585430709029762011-11-10T12:01:00.000+00:002011-11-10T17:26:14.558+00:00Daisy Group endorses "co-funding" for access to NHS services<style type='text/css'>.DHN {margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:10.0pt; font-size:14.0pt; font-family:'Book Antiqua', serif}.DHNS {margin-top:25.0pt; margin-bottom:10.0pt; font-size:14.0pt; font-family:'Book Antiqua', serif}.DHH1 {margin-top:18.0pt; color:#000080; font-weight:bold; margin-bottom:10.0pt; font-size:18.0pt; font-family:'Trebuchet MS', Helvetica, sans-serif}.DHH2 {color:#000080; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; margin-bottom:10.0pt; text-decoration:none; font-size:16.0pt; font-family:'Trebuchet MS', Helvetica, sans-serif}.DHQuote {color:#E36C0A; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic}.DHBold {margin-bottom:25.0pt; font-size:14.0pt; font-family:'Arial Black', 'sans-serif'}.DHHigh {background:#FFFF00}.DHEmph {color:#FF00FF; font-weight:bold}.DHName {color:#000080; font-weight:bold}.DHTab {border-bottom:6pt solid transparent; vertical-align:top; font-size:14.0pt; font-family:'Book Antiqua', serif}</style>
<p class=DHN>The government argues that through the reforms to the NHS, its principles will remain intact. Suggestions that increased commercial involvement may lead to hidden charges and disguised <span class=DHHigh>co-funding</span> arrangements have been denied. But is this assurance a little shallow and too late ...</p>
<p class=DHNS>The <span class=DHName>Surgery Line</span> telephone system, allegedly used by up to 20% of doctor's surgeries in England, is claimed to be "<span class=DHQuote>The revolutionary <span class=DHHigh>co-funded</span> <span class=DHEmph>enhanced telephony</span> service, designed specifically for GP surgeries</span>".</p>
<p class=DHN><span class=DHName>Daisy Group</span>, led by Chief Executive<span class=DHName> Matthew Riley</span>, featured as a business guru on "<span class=DHName>The Apprentice</span>", bought the company behind the product last year and now presents it under its own name as <span class=DHName>Daisy Surgery Line</span>.</p>
<!--start summary--><p class=DHNS><span class=DHName>Daisy</span> may be one of many commercial providers of services used for the NHS, who would argue that patients should pay through <span class=DHHigh>co-funding</span> arrangements. <span class=DHName>The BMA</span>, representing those who will lead Clinical Commissioning Groups, supports this argument.</p>
<p class=DHN><b>I believe that this issue has to be nailed now</b>, before we are talking about paying thousands of pounds for "NHS" treatment, rather than a few pounds to book an appointment with a NHS GP.</p><!--end summary-->
<p class=DHH1>The arguments</p>
<p class=DHN>I have sought to engage with <span class=DHName>Mr Riley</span>, in the hope of persuading him that <span class=DHHigh>co-funding</span> is not currently acceptable for access to NHS services. I have tried to explain that the benefits of <span class=DHEmph>Enhanced Telephony</span> can only be used by NHS providers via a 03 number, so that callers do not incur a premium charge.</p>
<p class=DHN>Things may change in future for the NHS, but the principles of universal equal access and "free at the point of need" remain in the NHS Constitution at present. Proponents of the <span class=DHHigh>co-funding</span> of telephone access to NHS services have argued their point strongly in responses to recent public consultations, but their view has been rejected.</p>
<p class=DHNS>Despite the ban on use of numbers that cost more, <span class=DHName>Daisy Group</span> continues to maintain that use of 084 telephone numbers to <span class=DHHigh>co-fund</span> the <span class=DHName>Surgery Line</span> system at the expense of callers is acceptable in the NHS. It appears to defend this by leaning on the fact that some <span class=DHName>BT</span> callers incur penalty charges for calling geographic numbers outside the terms of their Call Plan, which are greater than the premium charged for calling 084 numbers.</p>
<p class=DHBold>This increasingly rare and wholly anomalous situation cannot be exploited to provide a justification for "<span class=DHHigh>co-funding</span>", when NHS providers have to consider all whom they serve.</p>
<table width=100% table-width:fixed><col width=5%><col width=5%><col width=5%><col width=85%>
<tr><td class=DHTab>•</td><td class=DHTab colspan=3><span class=DHName>Daisy Group</span> seems to ignore the fact that those subscribed to the most used <span class=DHName>BT</span> tariff (Unlimited Anytime), and its social tariff (BT Basic), pay nothing to call geographic rate numbers (including 03), whereas they pay a call setup fee plus 4p or 5p per minute to call the numbers used for Surgery Line.</td></tr>
<tr><td class=DHTab>•</td><td class=DHTab colspan=3><span class=DHName>Daisy Group</span> seems to regard as irrelevant the fact that all mobile and public payphone callers pay more, often amounting to many pounds more for a call, despite a ministerial statement regarding the relevant terms of the NHS GP contract - "<span class=DHQuote>It is absolutely clear that there is no distinction between landlines, mobiles or payphones</span>".</td></tr>
</table>
<p class=DHH1>The public debate</p>
<p class=DHN>Statements of fact from <span class=DHName>Daisy Group,</span> <span class=DHName>The BMA</span>, <span class=DHName>Ofcom</span> and many others are covered in this blogging - <a target="_blank" href="http://nhspatient.blogspot.com/2011/11/daisy-surgery-line-and-enhanced.html">Daisy Surgery Line and "Enhanced Telephony"</a>.</p>
<p class=DHNS><span class=DHName>Daisy Group</span> has declared itself ready to participate in factual public debate on these issues. I am delighted to engage. In particular, I would be delighted to read that <span class=DHName>Daisy Group</span> and <span class=DHName>the BMA</span> no longer hold the positions referred to above, despite them being fairly derived from existing published material.</p>
<br />
<br />David Hicksonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04098965183402991445noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1547492502568950157.post-87837597229909253782011-10-28T01:13:00.000+01:002011-10-28T01:13:06.814+01:00Virgin Media STILL overcharging callers trying to avoid Tesco Business Rate numbers | Ofcom does nothing (no news there!)<style type='text/css'>.DHN {margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:10.0pt; font-size:14.0pt; font-family:'Book Antiqua', serif}.DHNS {margin-top:25.0pt; margin-bottom:10.0pt; font-size:14.0pt; font-family:'Book Antiqua', serif}.DHEmph {color:#FF00FF; font-weight:bold}.DHName {color:#000080; font-weight:bold}</style>
<!--start summary--><p class=DHNS>Further to my release of 22 September, <a href="http://davidhicksonmedia.blogspot.com/2011/09/virgin-media-overcharging-callers.html">Virgin Media overcharging callers trying to avoid Tesco Business Rate numbers</a>, I understand the problem is still continuing. <span class=DHName>Virgin Media</span> has not refunded the historic overcharges and some callers to <span class=DHName>Tesco</span> <span class=DHEmph>geographic </span>numbers are being charged for operator connected calls to <span class=DHEmph>MOBILE</span>, as well as <span class=DHEmph>0845</span>, numbers.</p><!--end summary-->
<p class=DHN>I have been in direct contact to confirm the detail of cases that continue to be reported on the <span class=DHName>SayNoTo0870</span> and <span class=DHName>MoneySavingExpert</span> forums (<a href="http://www.saynoto0870.com/cgi-bin/forum/YaBB.cgi?num=1310901185/79#79">Links available here</a>).</p>
<p class=DHNS><span class=DHName>Virgin Media</span> and <span class=DHName>Tesco</span> need to get the situation sorted and issue <span class=DHEmph>public apologies</span> for what is clearly a mistake.</p>
<p class=DHNS><span class=DHName>Ofcom</span> should get involved in cases like this, which are obviously having a serious impact on many people, <b>without waiting for every victim to come forward</b> and register a formal complaint with it.</p>
<p class=DHN>When <span class=DHName>Ofcom</span> is seen to be ineffective and reluctant to act – <b>why would people bother to raise individual complaints?</b></p>
<p class=DHN>We have the right to expect <span class=DHName>Ofcom</span> to <span class=DHEmph>act with intelligence</span>, not shuffle papers, collect statistics and <b>deliberately discourage receipt of the information which would cause it to act</b>.</p>
<p class=DHNS>There is an echo of the way in which <span class=DHName>Ofcom</span> deals with my other focus of attention – Silent Calls – see <a href="http://scvictim.blogspot.com/">my Silent Calls Victim blog</a>.</p>
<br />
<br />David Hicksonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04098965183402991445noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1547492502568950157.post-3847907919605315932011-10-27T16:13:00.001+01:002011-10-28T01:24:12.003+01:00Barking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust - poor patient services and charges for access to the NHS<style type='text/css'>.DHN {margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:10.0pt; font-size:14.0pt; font-family:'Book Antiqua', serif}.DHNS {margin-top:25.0pt; margin-bottom:10.0pt; font-size:14.0pt; font-family:'Book Antiqua', serif}.DHQuote {color:#E36C0A; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic}</style>
<p class=DHN>I quote a <a href="http://nds.coi.gov.uk/content/detail.aspx?ReleaseID=421772&NewsAreaID=2">Department of Health Media Release</a> today:</p>
<p class=DHN>"<span class=DHQuote>Health Secretary Andrew Lansley today said that the standard of patient services provided by Barking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust must improve substantially</span>."</p>
<p class=DHNS>I endorse this view. <!--start summary-->“BHR” is one of a number of NHS bodies which continue to use 084 telephone numbers, so as to obtain subsidy for their costs at the expense of patients. (See <a href="http://nhspatient.blogspot.com/2011/08/nhs-bodies-in-breach-of-directions-to.html">this briefing</a>.) This is despite clear Directions issued by Mr Lansley's Department in December 2009, demanding compliance by December 2010. <!--end summary--></p>
<p class=DHN>I hope that Mr Lansley will ensure that this is amongst the issues which this rogue Trust will have to address, albeit nearly two years late.</p>
<p class=DHNS>It is vital that NHS Bodies cease use of telephone numbers that cause patients to incur a premium charge, primarily to follow the principle that the NHS does not levy charges on patients.</p>
<p class=DHN>This is also important so as to demonstrate to GPs, contracted providers of NHS services, that they too need to comply with the terms of their contracts by ceasing use of 084 numbers.</p>
<br />
<br />David Hicksonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04098965183402991445noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1547492502568950157.post-64031813801222744072011-10-21T09:15:00.000+01:002011-10-21T20:42:45.269+01:00At last - HMRC responds to the call to adopt 0345 telephone numbers !!<style type='text/css'>.DHN {margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:10.0pt; font-size:14.0pt; font-family:'Book Antiqua', serif}.DHNS {margin-top:25.0pt; margin-bottom:10.0pt; font-size:14.0pt; font-family:'Book Antiqua', serif}.DHH1 {margin-top:18.0pt; color:#000080; font-weight:bold; margin-bottom:10.0pt; font-size:18.0pt; font-family:'Trebuchet MS', Helvetica, sans-serif}.DHQuote {color:#E36C0A; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic}.DHEmph {color:#FF00FF; font-weight:bold}.DHName {color:#000080; font-weight:bold}</style>
<p class=DHN>I wrote to <span class=DHName>David Gauke, Exchequer Secretary</span>, on 7 June 2010 asking him to review the use of 0845 telephone numbers by HMRC and consider the need to move to 03xx numbers. (<a href="http://dhpsc.blogspot.com/2010/06/ministerial-briefing-fees-for-access-to.html">See Ministerial briefing - Fees for access to public services by telephone</a>)</p>
<p class=DHNS>Around 18 months later, the necessary action starts. <span class=DHName>Mr Gauke</span> announced on Wednesday 19 October, <a href="http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2011-10-19a.72977.h">in a written answer</a>, that </p>
<!--start summary--><p class=DHN>"<span class=DHQuote>HMRC expect that they will, by the end of the year be able to offer <u>an 0345 number for those customers calling its tax credit helpline</u> (which last year accounted for around 40% of the total calls handled by its contact centre network).</span></p>
<p class=DHN><span class=DHQuote>"The provision of a 0345 number is expected to result in significant cost savings for the majority of callers to the line.</span>"</p><!--end summary-->
<p class=DHNS>This long overdue admission that use of 03xx numbers is not only <span class=DHEmph>more equitable</span>, but that it does indeed result in <span class=DHEmph>cost savings for the majority of callers</span>, is a most satisfying result.</p>
<p class=DHNS>We now look to the <span class=DHName>DWP agencies</span>, <span class=DHName>NHS Direct</span> and other misusers of 084x numbers for the provision of public services (not least <span class=DHName>NHS GPs</span>) to follow this fine example by immediately adopting 034x alternatives for their primary numbers. There are indeed many others (from the 60%) which <span class=DHName>HMRC</span> should be addressing immediately.</p>
<hr>
<p class=DHH1>Points of detail</p>
<p class=DHN>My specific proposal to use the option of 034x equivalent alternatives to 084x numbers has been widely promoted. See the following items for extended coverage of the arguments:</p>
<p class=DHN>• <a href="http://dhpsc.blogspot.com/2010/09/0845-telephone-numbers-jobcentre-plus.html#_My_proposal">My proposal for those using 084x numbers for the delivery of public services</a> - September 11, 2010.</p>
<p class=DHN>• <a href="http://homepage.ntlworld.com/davidhickson/DHMG/index_files/RP?53">Coverage of the issue by "BBC Five Live Investigates"</a> - September 12, 2010.</p>
<p class=DHN>• <a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmtreasy/731/731vw18.htm">My evidence to the Commons Treasury Committee investigating HMRC</a> - November 2010. </p>
<p class=DHNS>This matter has been under review by HMRC at least since the time when I was invited to join a working group addressing the matter in August 2010. Representatives of a number of organisations also serving on this group, who themselves use 084 numbers to obtain subsidy from callers, urged HMRC not to change at that time!</p>
<p class=DHNS>HMRC (and others) are not bound to await a new telephony contract to utilise the simple option of migration to the 0345 equivalent of any 0845 number. Any delay is simply playing for time and extending the period during which service users will continue to subsidise the cost of providing the service. All providers of network telephone service permit migration from 084 to 034 equivalent numbers at any time within the term of a contract without penalty.</p>
<p class=DHNS>The only callers who would not enjoy a cost saving on a total move from 0845 to 0345 are those who incur penalty charges from their telephone service provider, generally BT, for calling geographic rate (01/02/03) numbers outside the terms of their selected Call Plan. If it wished, HMRC could retain a 0845 number, as an alternative, for the benefit of those in this perverse position.</p>
<p class=DHNS>A set-back in the position of DWP was reflected in a written answer this week – <a href="http://davidhicksonmedia.blogspot.com/2011/10/dwp-allows-work-programme-providers-to.html">see DWP allows Work Programme providers to "charge" participants</a></p>
<br />
<br />David Hicksonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04098965183402991445noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1547492502568950157.post-7650482100816857022011-10-20T09:31:00.000+01:002011-10-21T20:42:31.113+01:00DWP allows Work Programme providers to "charge" participants<style type='text/css'>.DHN {margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:10.0pt; font-size:14.0pt; font-family:'Book Antiqua', serif}.DHNS {margin-top:25.0pt; margin-bottom:10.0pt; font-size:14.0pt; font-family:'Book Antiqua', serif}.DHH1 {margin-top:18.0pt; color:#000080; font-weight:bold; margin-bottom:10.0pt; font-size:24.0pt; font-family:'Trebuchet MS', Helvetica, sans-serif}.DHQuote {color:#E36C0A; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic}.DHBold {margin-bottom:10.0pt; font-size:14.0pt; font-family:'Arial Black', 'sans-serif'}.DHEmph {color:#FF00FF; font-weight:bold}.DHEmphH {color:#C000FF; background:#FFFF00; font-weight:bold}.DHName {color:#000080; font-weight:bold}</style>
<p class=DHN><i>(See the exchange and the additional information provided by my annotation at <a href="http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2011-10-17b.72249.h">this item on TheyWorkForYou</a>)</i></p>
<p class=DHH1>Background</p>
<p class=DHN><span class=DHBold>The current scandal</span> of imposing potentially modest charges for access to public services through use of telephone numbers where the charge paid includes "<span class=DHQuote>a revenue sharing component</span>" is rife.</p>
<p class=DHN>The fact that such charges are collected indirectly, often received only as a subsidy to offset costs and sometimes lost amongst the complexity of telephone tariffs makes it easy for them to be hidden.</p>
<p class=DHN>This applies to all use of 0843, 0844, 0845, 0871, 0872 and 0873 numbers, which are now classified by <span class=DHName>Ofcom</span> as " <span class=DHQuote>Business Rate</span>". New regulations covering their use are expected to be announced by <span class=DHName>Ofcom</span> early in 2012.</p>
<p class=DHN><span class=DHBold>The benefit derived</span> is (roughly) <span class=DHEmph>between 2p and 10p per call minute</span>,<br>whereas the additional cost (over that of a call to a 01/02/03 number) can be <span class=DHEmph>over 40p per minute</span>.</p>
<p class=DHN>There is not even a direct proportionality; calls to 0845 numbers yielding 2p per minute can incur an additional cost (e.g. for T-Mobile contract customers) of 41p per minute.</p>
<p class=DHN><span class=DHBold>My campaigning focus</span>, for this issue, is on <span class=DHName>HMRC</span>, the <span class=DHName>DWP agencies</span>, <span class=DHName>NHS Direct</span>, a number of <span class=DHName>other NHS Bodies</span> and the large number of <span class=DHName>NHS GPs</span> who are now in breach of their NHS contracts, by using numbers that cost more than the cost of "<span class=DHQuote>equivalent calls to a geographical number</span>". These are perhaps the most important cases, but there are many others.</p>
<p class=DHH1>NEWS STORY</p>
<!--start summary--><p class=DHN><span class=DHBold>The government's position</span> on the issue of charging for access to public services is neatly summarised in a written answer from <span class=DHName>Chris Grayling, Minister of State - DWP</span>, to a question about whether <span class=DHName>Work Programme providers</span> are permitted to use 084 / 087 numbers. See <a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm111017/text/111017w0003.htm#subhd_226">Hansard 17 October c644W</a>.</p><!--end summary-->
<p class=DHN><span class=DHName>Mr Grayling</span> confirms that, so long as they meet the minimal requirements on call cost declaration (which currently permit the denial of there being any financial benefit to the user of the number), <span class=DHEmphH>Work Programme providers are permitted to levy a charge on those seeking to move from benefits to work</span> in this way.</p>
<p class=DHH1>My comment</p>
<p class=DHN><span class=DHBold>This scandal will continue</span> until the government - probably through the <span class=DHName>Cabinet Office</span> - gets to grips with the issue. It must clearly determine <span class=DHEmph>where it is appropriate to charge users for access to public services</span> and demand that <span class=DHEmph>the existence of this charge be declared</span> (notwithstanding the perversity of telephone tariffs, which are outside the control of users).</p>
<p class=DHN>I await acceptance of my offer to place my understanding and knowledge of this issue at the disposal of the government.</p>
<br />
<br />David Hicksonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04098965183402991445noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1547492502568950157.post-18951260859231333062011-10-14T00:30:00.000+01:002011-10-14T03:46:14.004+01:00Talk Talk joins the list of Silent Callers not likely to receive a £2 Million fine<style type='text/css'>.DHN {margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:10.0pt; font-size:14.0pt; font-family:'Book Antiqua', serif}.DHNS {margin-top:25.0pt; margin-bottom:10.0pt; font-size:14.0pt; font-family:'Book Antiqua', serif}.DHH1 {margin-top:18.0pt; color:#000080; font-weight:bold; margin-bottom:10.0pt; font-size:18.0pt; font-family:'Trebuchet MS', Helvetica, sans-serif}.DHQuote {color:#E36C0A; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic}.DHBold {margin-bottom:10.0pt; font-size:14.0pt; font-family:'Arial Black', 'sans-serif'}.DHEmph {color:#FF00FF; font-weight:bold}a.DHEmphH {color:#8033E6; font-weight:bold}.DHName {color:#000080; font-weight:bold}</style>
<!--start summary--><p class=DHN>Ofcom has today announced (<a href="http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/enforcement/competition-bulletins/open-cases/all-open-cases/cw_905/?utm_source=updates&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=cw_905">see Consumer Bulletin</a>) that <span class=DHName>Talk Talk</span> has been served with a formal <span class=DHEmph>Notification of Persistent Misuse of the Telephone Network</span> on account of making an excessive number of Silent Calls.</p>
<p class=DHN>It is important to note that Ofcom regards a number of Silent Calls that is proportionately small as being acceptable, even if the number is very large in absolute terms.</p>
<p class=DHN>This is of particular interest to me in the context of my other campaigning role - <span class=DHName>Talk Talk</span> is the company behind the vast majority of the expensive telephone numbers being used by NHS GPs<!--end summary--> (<span class=DHEmph>see below for </span><a href="#_Talk_Talk_in" class=DHEmphH >the NHS related aspect of this story</a>).</p>
<p class=DHH1>No use of the increased maximum penalty</p>
<p class=DHN>This follows two other recent cases of Notifications of Misuse by making Silent Calls - against <span class=DHName>Homeserve</span> and <span class=DHName>nPower</span>. In both cases Ofcom has decided, after receipt of representations, not to impose the financial penalty, of up to £2 Million, which it recently claimed was necessary.</p>
<p class=DHN>Ofcom sought, and the government has granted, an increase to the previous maximum penalty of £50,000, because it was not thought large enough to address the misuse by large companies. (see <a href="http://davidhicksonmedia.blogspot.com/2010/09/most-silent-callers-will-not-be-fined.html">the government announcement and my comment at the time</a>.)</p>
<p class=DHN>We now see these cases of companies which are amongst the largest in their respective sector, and therefore likely to be making very many automated calls, where Ofcom has decided that it does not even need to impose a penalty of up to £50,000. This increased penalty is thereby seen neither to be necessary, nor effective as a deterrent.</p>
<p class=DHH1>No requirement to cease the practice</p>
<p class=DHN>Whilst the financial penalty is available to deal with past misuse that Ofcom has failed to address, Ofcom also has the power to impose a specific requirement for a company not to make Silent Calls. Neither <span class=DHName>Homeserve</span> nor <span class=DHName>nPower</span> have been made subject to an "<span class=DHEmph>Enforcement Notification</span>" requiring them to cease the practice of making Silent Calls.</p>
<p class=DHN>Ofcom's statutory duty "<span class=DHQuote>to further the interests of citizens in relation to communications matters</span>" would best be fulfilled by preventing Silent Calls from being made, not by leaping in with penalties to cover events that occurred many months ago and publishing meaningless over-complex and unenforceable pseudo-regulations.</p>
<p class=DHN><b>Not one company is currently subject to a specific regulatory requirement not to make Silent Calls</b>, even though Ofcom has always held the power to impose such a requirement and to have it enforced through an injunction, if necessary.</p>
<p class=DHH1>No publication of the misuse</p>
<p class=DHN>Some time after the issuing of a Notification, Ofcom publishes a redacted copy of the Notification that has been served. In the case of <span class=DHName>Homeserve</span> this was nearly 2 months later, that for <span class=DHName>nPower</span> is still not published after more than 3 months.</p>
<p class=DHN>Viewing the <a href="http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/enforcement/competition-bulletins/open-cases/all-open-cases/HomeServe.pdf">published copy</a> of the Notification on <span class=DHName>Homeserve</span>, one sees that all of the information detailing the scale of the misuse has been redacted.</p>
<p class=DHN>We therefore have no way of knowing the seriousness of the Misuse undertaken by Homeserve (or any other offender) nor the proportionality of Ofcom's decision not to impose a penalty.</p>
<p class=DHNS><span class=DHBold>I have long held the view that Ofcom is persistently misusing its Persistent Misuse powers</span></p>
<hr>
<p class=DHH1><a name="_Talk_Talk_in"></a>Talk Talk is alleged to prevent application of the principles of the NHS by GPs</p>
<p class=DHN>Perhaps now is a good time to draw attention to the fact that <span class=DHName>Talk Talk</span> is the provider to <span class=DHEmph>1,114 (80%)</span> of the <span class=DHEmph>1,401</span> cases of NHS GPs using expensive telephone numbers - in England and Wales this is in breach of their contracts.<br>[see <a href="https://spreadsheets.google.com/spreadsheet/pub?hl=en_US&hl=en_US&output=html&key=0Ahj34-jsbIWldFU4OUpiaE1RM3hHcENHOUExaGxqN1E&single=true&gid=0&gridlines=false">my tables</a> - including the "<a href="https://spreadsheets.google.com/spreadsheet/pub?hl=en_US&hl=en_US&key=0Ahj34-jsbIWldFU4OUpiaE1RM3hHcENHOUExaGxqN1E&single=true&gid=3&output=html">Top 20</a>" summaries]</p>
<p class=DHN>To retain the technical benefits available from a non-geographic number without causing callers to incur any additional cost, it is standard practice for telephone companies to allow customers to migrate from a 084 to a 03 number, at any point during their contract and without penalty. <b>All calls to 03 numbers are charged on the same basis as those to 01/02 "geographic" numbers.</b> The option to change only the second digit of the number is guaranteed to be available, e.g. 0844 477 1799 to 0344 477 1799. This provides the obvious route open to NHS GPs who are required to vary the terms of their arrangements to avoid patients paying a premium to call them.</p>
<p class=DHN>The <span class=DHName>BMA</span> however advises that "<span class=DHQuote>many GP practices have signed multi-year contracts with telephone services providers which cannot be varied, renegotiated or terminated without substantial financial penalty</span>". It suggests that this provides a valid basis for a practice claiming that migration to a 03 number would be "unreasonable".</p>
<p class=DHN>If the <span class=DHName>BMA</span> is correct, as many practices claim, then this would imply that <span class=DHName>Talk Talk</span> is preventing GPs from being able to comply with the principles of the NHS. <span class=DHName>Talk Talk</span> receives a revenue share of roughly 4-5 pence per minute on calls to the 0844 numbers used by GPs. This is paid by the call originating telephone company, which obviously passes this cost on in its call charges. <span class=DHName>Talk Talk</span> does pass some of this benefit on to the GP directly, however it is claimed that this cannot be more than 2p per call minute.</p>
<p class=DHN>GPs obviously benefit by the full value of the 4-5p per minute, because they do not have to pay <span class=DHName>Talk Talk</span> for their line and the facilities deployed, nor for the lease on the equipment provided to support their system. <span class=DHName>Talk Talk</span> must however have some questions to answer if, as is alleged, it is exceptionally preventing GPs from giving up this improper subsidy of their costs at the expense of patients.</p>
<br />
<br />David Hicksonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04098965183402991445noreply@blogger.com2