0844 calls to doctors

36square

Robothell
I won't create another lengthy post. Instead, I'd prefer to deal with your points via PM.

However, I wouldn't want anyone to be misled by this:
"they reach that salary. And then pay out £420 a year to the GMC, several hundred pounds a year to the Royal College of GPs to stay affiliated, thousands of pounds for professional indemnity (see point about litigation above) and a few hundred quid to the BMA. Not to mention the overheads of staff wages, electricity, public liability insurance etc, etc, etc."
Some people might infer that GPs pay the salaries of nurses, receptionists etc out of their own 'salaries' which, we are agreed, average around £100,000. This is clearly not the case, that figure is what they have left after meeting those expenses.

Referring back to Silent Calls Victim's link, the man from the BMA argued that 0844 provided better service for patients. That has not been my experience. There’s no great benefit to having your call answered automatically and then hearing a message to wait or call back later and paying more for the call. The system seems designed to maximise revenue.

Until someone comes up with evidence to the contrary, I’m convinced that GPs are gaining a material benefit from 0844 numbers either directly or indirectly.

If GPs are so concerned to improve their service to patients, why don’t they enable online booking of appointments and communication by e-mail.

Dentists seem to manage without 0844 numbers.

Silent_Calls_Victim

GPs would perhaps argue that they would not have these expensive phone systems if they could not rely on subsidy from patients. I would respond by suggesting that there are equally good systems available that do not rely on 0844 numbers which might be a little more expensive for practices, but are perfectly affordable. This is seen by the fact that many NHS GPs use them.

It is commonly alleged that the 0844 GP systems are over-configured to the limit that the revenue share income could possibly sustain, thus maximising the profit for the provider. It is because the income projections are over-optimistic that the practice ends up having to make a sizeable contribution in addition, as confirmed by Richard Vautrey.

The issue is probably around poor judgement in response to smart salesmanship - offering something for nothing - rather than pure profit. As things stand there is no question that a practice benefits financially by having costs that should fall to it being met by patients.

Sorry to spoil any illusions. Dentists and schools have their own version of the system most commonly used by 0844 GPs. (I won't post a link that would promote it to moneysaving dentists and schools. For those looking to research it, the keyword is "Line".)

Artofdookie

Silent_Calls_Victim wrote: »

moneysaving dentists

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

dadsma

Chrissy_Boy wrote: »

you could have an engaged tone but the "call back later" message is effectively the same thing. C

Hi Chrissy Boy, with respect, an engaged tone lets the caller know that the number is busy, at no cost. Then they ring off and they phone again. They will not incur any cost until they actually get through to the surgery to make an appointment etc. In stark contrast, although the "call back later" message also leads to the the caller having to call again, with an 0844 number there is a cost:
BT, Talk Talk and other providers have a call set-up charge of about 8p in addition to the 4.5p per minute charge, plus vat. That means the caller has the privilege of paying over 13p every time they get the "call back later" message, even for a call that lasts just a few seconds. That is how we incurred a cost of £3.60 to make an appointment with our GP.

You may wonder why some systems are not configured to busy the line when they are unable to queue incoming calls. Could it be something to do with the income generated for the 0844 provider for every "call back later" message?