Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 13

Thread: How much ??????

  1. #1
    Veteran ROBERT6500's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    SOMERSET / WILTSHIRE / DORSET.
    Posts
    6,023

    How much ??????

    I've just been asked to pay 85 for a medical report by my local surgery to renew my SGC.
    Where the hell did they get this fictitious figure of 85 from ? That's the highest price I have ever heard about any surgery asking for. Needless to say I shall be in the surgery within the next 48 hours requiring a full explanation of what the hell they think they are doing ?
    You see ? it happens to us all.
    The Original Shootinguk Moderator.
    Resident Coach on Shootinguk.
    Association of Professional Shooting Instructors. (A.P.S.I.)
    C.P.S.A Safety Officer.
    B.A.S.C

  2. #2
    Young Shot
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    The state of confusion, also known as Oklahoma, USA
    Posts
    260
    Allow me to start out saying that I agree with the policy that if someone is either a threat to themselves or to someone else then yes a medical professional is obligated to inform the proper authorities. Therefore I feel sorry for you, Robert. As an American, I see no reason for any person to be required to present any form of medical record/information, although many have tried to get this instigated here in the USA, most notably the recently rejected pass administration, it keeps getting either rescinded or legislated against.
    .
    I have been asked by a psychiatrist, whom I was sent to see by a counselor/psychologist while going through a divorce, whether I owned any guns or not and I did answer her honestly. She went on and prescribed for me an anti-depressant, Zoloft, which I took for a couple of months. Now since neither person, Psychiatrist or Psychologist saw me as a threat nothing occurred. Since that time, nearly 18 years ago I have bought multiple firearms; handguns, rifles, and shotguns, and have obtained a concealed/open carry permit. This is the norm here in the USA.
    .
    Robert it seems to me that requiring you to provide any medical information, at your cost, is done solely to hinder you from exercising a legal act and pastime.
    .
    Gary

  3. #3
    Veteran neutron619's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Cambridgeshire
    Posts
    1,992
    Quote Originally Posted by ROBERT6500 View Post
    I've just been asked to pay 85 for a medical report by my local surgery to renew my SGC.
    Where the hell did they get this fictitious figure of 85 from ? That's the highest price I have ever heard about any surgery asking for. Needless to say I shall be in the surgery within the next 48 hours requiring a full explanation of what the hell they think they are doing ?
    You see ? it happens to us all.
    Unfortunately Rob, you - like almost everyone else in this country - appear to be under the impression that healthcare is free, provided by the NHS. That's only true to a degree. In fact, the NHS does pay for NHS-sanctioned treatments. The people they pay - GPs - are actually organized as private businesses, run for profit, as they have been ever since days of old. The only thing that changed in 1948 was that the taxpayer started keeping them in the life to which they had become accustomed, rather than clients rich enough to pay their fees.
    .
    Unfortunately for us, however, signing off SGC renewals isn't on the NHS list of "allowed treatments" which makes any and all requests chargeable as "private" work. Some surgeries are reasonable about this; most are not. I was charged 140 for my original letters and medical report, even though I ended up withdrawing my very first application. It's par for the course, unfortunately - but we're only surprised about it, I'll warrant, because of our misconceptions about who is working for whom and who is profiting from that work.
    .
    On the one hand, I'm all for private healthcare provision, but this particular "hidden" and much misunderstood example is a disgrace. If more people knew about it, we'd have switched to the usual public-private health insurance system that almost everyone else agrees is the best way of providing nationalized healthcare. Or do we have it already?
    Freedom is having the right to offend and be offended; politeness is temporarily eschewing that right in respect of others; maturity is understanding the compromise and applying it.

  4. #4
    Super Moderator BerettaSV10's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Shropshire
    Posts
    2,205
    When I renewed mine they wanted 30, which was a bit more palatable, moved to new doctors a few months ago as old one has closed down. will be a couple of years before I find out the charge.
    Can't beat having a day out shooting clays.

  5. #5
    Beginner
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Location
    Hampshire, Portsmouth
    Posts
    42
    Quote Originally Posted by ROBERT6500 View Post
    I've just been asked to pay 85 for a medical report by my local surgery to renew my SGC.
    Where the hell did they get this fictitious figure of 85 from ? That's the highest price I have ever heard about any surgery asking for. Needless to say I shall be in the surgery within the next 48 hours requiring a full explanation of what the hell they think they are doing ?
    You see ? it happens to us all.
    Hi Rob , blimey that seems expensive? Not sure if a renewal is any different than an application but I wasn't charged? I see my GP once a year for a check up re my arthritis also the consultant at the hospital again annually, I did write to both of them prior telling that I had applied for a SGC.
    I had an appointment with the consultant during the application faze so spoke to him direct, he was in full support and offered to write to them, I asked about charges he said they don't normally charge?
    Iam a NHS patient not private. Best of luck cheers Chris

  6. #6
    Veteran neutron619's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Cambridgeshire
    Posts
    1,992
    Quote Originally Posted by Chris-m View Post
    I had an appointment with the consultant during the application faze so spoke to him direct, he was in full support and offered to write to them, I asked about charges he said they don't normally charge?
    Iam a NHS patient not private.
    Well - equally, not being on the NHS approved list of things they'll pay for, GPs can choose to charge or not for these things. You obviously have a generously-minded GP - is he a shooter do you think?
    Freedom is having the right to offend and be offended; politeness is temporarily eschewing that right in respect of others; maturity is understanding the compromise and applying it.

  7. #7
    Beginner DOTN_Will's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Location
    Wiltshire
    Posts
    54
    In my experience GPs have always charged for these type of things. In a previous job we needed medical reports for applicants and most of them were charged at least a nominal fee (but no two GPs charged the same amount). It was never as much as Rob has been charged here though, it does seem like a high amount.
    .
    Try finding a new GP?

  8. #8
    Beginner
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Location
    Hampshire, Portsmouth
    Posts
    42
    Quote Originally Posted by neutron619 View Post
    Well - equally, not being on the NHS approved list of things they'll pay for, GPs can choose to charge or not for these things. You obviously have a generously-minded GP - is he a shooter do you think?
    Yes, I was lucky! The consultant offered to do the letter, not the GP, I wrote to both just to advise them I had applied, I just happened to have an appointment with the consultant while applying.
    Interestly he spoke more about shooting than my arthritis! He had, had a go and he was very keen, he was also keen for me to get more excersise! So yes he was I suppose!
    I've been with the same GPs practice all of my life iam 62, been seeing the consultant again for 30 years all be it once a year for both.
    My wife used to be a medical secretary to a cardiologist a letter was around 30 some years ago, however that was from his private practice, cheers Chris
    Last edited by Chris-m; 29-Sep-2017 at 11:21 AM. Reason: Finished off!

  9. #9
    Young Shot eblok's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    N.Somerset
    Posts
    189
    Without wanting to get drawn into a long discussion on this one, some of the comments on the running of the NHS and GP surgeries are not entirely accurate. Misinformation leads to misunderstanding the issue. Yes, GP practices are private companies, not government provided, but nowadays they are rarely the profit machines you speak of and GP's are certainly not the astronomical earners you have in mind from days of old (reading that back it makes me feel waaaaay older than I am!)

    These days the surgeries get their money from the government by meeting specific targets, and i suppose a lot of surgeries see the GP sitting writing a letter as taking them away from a task that would get reimbursement from the NHS and as thus charge for the privilege instead. With may surgeries struggling and closing down, you can see why the chance to take a few extra quid is difficult for them to refuse. The GP's themselves are piled under a mountain of paperwork from standard appointments already, resulting in them staying for hours after the surgery closes (unpaid) to catch up each day. Drafting letters to keep the police happy is no doubt bottom of the priority list!

    I should add, when I first got my certificate the GP never charged for a letter, and I have yet to have a renewal since moving practice so who knows what will happen. For me the issue is the disconnect between the government legislators, the police and the GP's. As far as I'm aware the government have said it is not a legal requirement yet the police demand the letter. The government have said the shooter shouldn't be charged, but then haven't given the GP surgeries adequate advice on this either.

    Cost aside, I think this is a particularly difficult area to get right. The police need to be informed if there is risk to public safety which they cannot get without asking the GP as all of the records are stored independently. However, having a pro/anti-shooting GP has massive effects on your application/renewal and is an extra person in the process that can cause complication.

    To summarise, the GP's need to be told specifically by government/NHS, etc, what the charge is, that they cannot refuse to write the letter, and that it is solely to comment on the candidates impact on public safety rather than a platform to view their personal opinions on fieldsports.

    NB: No, I'm not a GP, however someone living under the same roof is and I have to listen/deal with a lot of the associated aggro!

  10. #10
    Veteran neutron619's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Cambridgeshire
    Posts
    1,992
    Quote Originally Posted by eblok View Post
    Without wanting to get drawn into a long discussion on this one, some of the comments on the running of the NHS and GP surgeries are not entirely accurate. Misinformation leads to misunderstanding the issue. Yes, GP practices are private companies, not government provided, but nowadays they are rarely the profit machines you speak of and GP's are certainly not the astronomical earners you have in mind from days of old (reading that back it makes me feel waaaaay older than I am!)


    ...
    I appreciate your comments are probably most directed at me.
    .
    I suppose you allowed for the possibility that some GP (practices) are extremely profitable in what you said and that is undoubtedly correct too on the basis of some of those I've had contact with.
    .
    In my last job I worked for one of the software companies which provided tracking software for the "incentive" schemes. The most contentious was the age 40-74 health checks where the government mandates that everyone over that age should be tested every 5 years for a range of potentially serious conditions. My company provided the means of tracking eligibility and who had received health checks or not - not least so that people didn't get the same invitation letter every month, even though they said "yes please" and had a check at the first opportunity.
    .
    The trouble with this scheme is not that it's a silly thing to do in principle, but that it's a bung to GPs dressed up as an "essential" public service. Whatever you think of the medical value of the system (i.e. does it catch people who wouldn't otherwise be diagnosed with diabetes, COPD, etc. or not?), the taxpayer value was abominable.
    .
    One would reasonably think that the GPs should be paid for doing the extra work, and indeed, our software was initially designed to generate reports for the local PCT - or whatever they're called now - to administer the payments. We counted the number of completed health checks, sent off the information to the group of managers administering the payments (and it was always a group managing to do about an hour's work a month between them) and they paid the money.
    .
    In several of the PCTs we worked for, this was not apparantly good enough for the GPs, who demanded to be paid whether or not they had actually performed the health check on the somewhat thin justification that sending the invitation letters was "hugely expensive".
    .
    Although the GP's were in no way obligated to actually participate in the program and did not have to spend any time writing invitation letters or actually doing health checks, they managed to persuade their previously more willing colleagues that it would be much better to have free money, rather than money for work done (I wonder how they managed to persuade them) and suggested that they should be paid for invitations rather than completed health checks.
    .
    Of course, the PCT, receiving pressure from above, capitulated and showered taxpayer money left, right and centre after that. We received instructions to alter our software to detect invitations rather than completed health checks and - lo and behold - two days after the change was rolled out, one of the practices who had agitated most for the change, registered the sending of 8000 health check invitations on the system, for a tidy profict of 160,000.
    .
    It doesn't end there, of course. The PCT weren't in fact completely stupid and realised that the system was open to abuse, so they asked us to implement a series of checks to make sure the health checks were being performed properly. Blood test results, for example, turn up in multiple places on multiple systems and are hard to fake, so the arrival of results for the standard set of tests recorded after the health check in the patients' records was used as a marker of the work actually having been done.
    .
    This was sensible precaution, but it was not possible to apply any such check to the invitation code recorded, upon which payment was eventually based, except by questioning patients to inquire whether any letters had been received. I left that company about 18 months ago, but it was insinuated to me before I left that the reason two senior GPs in that PCT were driving round in shiny new BMWs was that patients in the area hadn't actually received their invitations, in spite of the codes indicating this being recorded in their records. Investigations were ongoing and I believe the postal service was being used as a convenient scapegoat...
    .
    For my part, I've no problem paying for healthcare. I just wish it was a) up front and b) done in some way that helped to reduce the number of frivolous appointments. I'd suggest something like a 2.50 charge to see the GP, which would be deducted from the cost of any presciption required as a result, but which could also be waived at the GPs discretion. There are GPs on the take, but most are good and I'd say that if we trust them to treat our health / bodies with respect, we ought to be able to trust them to say "yes, Mrs Goggins - your appointment today was justifiable and I'm happy to refund your attendance fee". I daresay we'd have fewer snowflakes with mild snuffles turning up after that.
    Last edited by neutron619; 29-Sep-2017 at 01:48 PM.
    Freedom is having the right to offend and be offended; politeness is temporarily eschewing that right in respect of others; maturity is understanding the compromise and applying it.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •