Discussion
Why do we need to pre-auth on a card? Everyone working or receiving benefits is on "the system" and the money can be taken at source if required in a similar way to court orders that can be deducted at source via RTI. It should be simple and uncontroversial (no-one has to pay a penny if they follow the rules).
I know the reality is unfortunately quite different as we don't have the IT systems for this, there would be outrage from the left about the poor having money taken away from them when it's not their fault, and we would need several layers of red tape and an appeals process for those that feel they have been unfairly penalised....
I know the reality is unfortunately quite different as we don't have the IT systems for this, there would be outrage from the left about the poor having money taken away from them when it's not their fault, and we would need several layers of red tape and an appeals process for those that feel they have been unfairly penalised....
Tuna said:
technodup said:
ou wouldn't even need to pay a tenner. It would be a pre-auth on a card so it only actually comes off if you don't show.
That said it would need to be prob £25 to be effective. £10 is expendable to too many.
Unfortunately £10 would be too much for the people who're most likely to need seeing.That said it would need to be prob £25 to be effective. £10 is expendable to too many.
I don't think anyone is suggesting punishing poor people who attend or cancel. Just charging the selfish people who neither attend nor cancel.
I'm sure I read something like 20% of appointments are wasted. At £100k per GP per year, that's £20k per year, per GP, in the bin. That's the income tax from 2.5 people, collected and just thrown away.
Plus 20% of all the associated costs of running the surgery.
(back of envelope accounting, I know, but whichever way we look at it, it's a large cost, and a large slice of capacity, going to waste for pure selfishness).
Rovinghawk said:
Tuna said:
Unfortunately £10 would be too much for the people who're most likely to need seeing.
In which case all they have to do is turn up for the appointment they've arranged.10 pounds might be expendable to some but it's a step in the right direction.
Rovinghawk said:
Tuna said:
Unfortunately £10 would be too much for the people who're most likely to need seeing.
In which case all they have to do is turn up for the appointment they've arranged..
In many ways I'd prefer to see a drop-in centres that avoided inflexible appointments in favour of giving patients a chance to be seen (though not necessarily for long, and not necessarily by the GP). It would get round the issue of doctors sitting on their hands during no-shows, would increase social care, patient satisfaction and the chances of picking up issues earlier. The only restriction would have to be on the number of times a patient can queue for trivial problems in a given period.
The introduction of targets to GP appointments, followed shortly by restrictive pre-booking processes distorted the system - and now the 'fixes' are all about making the magic numbers go up rather than quality of care for the community.
Can’t really believe what I read here sometimes. Charges for appointments? Just in case they don’t turn up? Since when did a no-show actually cost money? What a ridiculously complicated so-called solution to a non-problem. Typical over-complication and misdirection of any NHS question.
Are we trying to discourage surgery attendance of ill people by imposing costs as penalties for perceived disrespect? Any other occupation would capitalise on the opportunity by filling the unexpected relaxation of time constraints by taking that time to fulfil other pressing matters. Do we really think the doctor just sits there twiddling his thumbs for 15 minutes? Of course not.
Every time I have sat in the waiting room, frequently over the last three years, it has been full. What’s wrong with receptionists calling the next name on the list – and the next if no reply – the waiting patients would be very grateful for the unexpected promptness.
If a patient absentmindedly, or as an example of the reason for the consultation in the first place, forgets an appointment, or tries to cancel one using the phone and is kept on an interminable wait and hangs up, just how are they guilty of this assumed waste of a doctor’s time? The doctor gets paid exactly the same for his time and there is no loss of income to the NHS of any consequence. It’s supposed to be a sevice. It’s becoming akin to parking charges or congestion fees.
Are we trying to discourage surgery attendance of ill people by imposing costs as penalties for perceived disrespect? Any other occupation would capitalise on the opportunity by filling the unexpected relaxation of time constraints by taking that time to fulfil other pressing matters. Do we really think the doctor just sits there twiddling his thumbs for 15 minutes? Of course not.
Every time I have sat in the waiting room, frequently over the last three years, it has been full. What’s wrong with receptionists calling the next name on the list – and the next if no reply – the waiting patients would be very grateful for the unexpected promptness.
If a patient absentmindedly, or as an example of the reason for the consultation in the first place, forgets an appointment, or tries to cancel one using the phone and is kept on an interminable wait and hangs up, just how are they guilty of this assumed waste of a doctor’s time? The doctor gets paid exactly the same for his time and there is no loss of income to the NHS of any consequence. It’s supposed to be a sevice. It’s becoming akin to parking charges or congestion fees.
Thorodin said:
Can’t really believe what I read here sometimes. Charges for appointments? Just in case they don’t turn up? Since when did a no-show actually cost money? What a ridiculously complicated so-called solution to a non-problem. Typical over-complication and misdirection of any NHS question.
Are we trying to discourage surgery attendance of ill people by imposing costs as penalties for perceived disrespect? Any other occupation would capitalise on the opportunity by filling the unexpected relaxation of time constraints by taking that time to fulfil other pressing matters. Do we really think the doctor just sits there twiddling his thumbs for 15 minutes? Of course not.
Every time I have sat in the waiting room, frequently over the last three years, it has been full. What’s wrong with receptionists calling the next name on the list – and the next if no reply – the waiting patients would be very grateful for the unexpected promptness.
If a patient absentmindedly, or as an example of the reason for the consultation in the first place, forgets an appointment, or tries to cancel one using the phone and is kept on an interminable wait and hangs up, just how are they guilty of this assumed waste of a doctor’s time? The doctor gets paid exactly the same for his time and there is no loss of income to the NHS of any consequence. It’s supposed to be a sevice. It’s becoming akin to parking charges or congestion fees.
So, our money wasted then. The service to the community that we pay for, and which doctors want to provide, wasn't as good as it could have been, because some people abused it.Are we trying to discourage surgery attendance of ill people by imposing costs as penalties for perceived disrespect? Any other occupation would capitalise on the opportunity by filling the unexpected relaxation of time constraints by taking that time to fulfil other pressing matters. Do we really think the doctor just sits there twiddling his thumbs for 15 minutes? Of course not.
Every time I have sat in the waiting room, frequently over the last three years, it has been full. What’s wrong with receptionists calling the next name on the list – and the next if no reply – the waiting patients would be very grateful for the unexpected promptness.
If a patient absentmindedly, or as an example of the reason for the consultation in the first place, forgets an appointment, or tries to cancel one using the phone and is kept on an interminable wait and hangs up, just how are they guilty of this assumed waste of a doctor’s time? The doctor gets paid exactly the same for his time and there is no loss of income to the NHS of any consequence. It’s supposed to be a sevice. It’s becoming akin to parking charges or congestion fees.
If 20% of the day's appointees don't show up, then there won't be enough people in the waiting room to fill the appointments, will there? So the GP's expensive time and talent goes to waste.
If you book a table in a busy restaurant and don't show up, you can expect them to hit your card. Perfectly reasonably.
Thorodin said:
Can’t really believe what I read here sometimes. Charges for appointments? Just in case they don’t turn up? Since when did a no-show actually cost money? What a ridiculously complicated so-called solution to a non-problem. Typical over-complication and misdirection of any NHS question.
That post is brilliantly ignorant. If you look back at what I was originally saying, there is a lot of wasted cost when a small minority of people consistently make unnecessary appointments where there is no medical need. Part of the reason for making a nominal charge would be to discourage that behaviour. The few times that I have been to see my GP they are normally running late so a few missed appointments would help them get back on schedule. I wouldn't be surprised if they work on the basis that some people wont turn up anyway.
As others have said, its not like the GP sits there staring at the wall for 15 minutes if the person doesn't turn up for their appointment.
As others have said, its not like the GP sits there staring at the wall for 15 minutes if the person doesn't turn up for their appointment.
technodup said:
Cobnapint said:
So you get an appointment in 6 days time and pay your tenner, but feel much better on day 4 and are clearly making a recovery. You don't feel the need to go to the doctor's anymore - what happens to your tenner?
You wouldn't even need to pay a tenner. It would be a pre-auth on a card so it only actually comes off if you don't show.That said it would need to be prob £25 to be effective. £10 is expendable to too many.
PurpleMoonlight said:
Breadvan72 said:
May has just said that Parliament cannot tie the hands of Governrnent.
WTAF? I mean: WTFFFF? How to be Prime Minister and score minus 1 billion points in your Constitutional Law exam! Parliament exists to tie the hands of Government. That is what it is for. Ask Charles I about that.
Meanwhile, in June 2018, the Government still does not know what Brexit means, but no one may question Brexit, because The People magically knew in June 2016 that - whatever Brexit turns out to be in March 2019 - that is what the People voted for. Remember : The People knew exactly what they were voting for. No one else knows what the People voted for, or what the People are going to get, but The People know.
There are not enough unicorns in all the World to make this amount of sparkly magical delight! Seriously, are any of you Leavers not beginning to have just the faintest glimmer of a doubt about how this is going?
I get the impression that May wants to get on with effecting her interpretation of what the people want and finds all this democratic and legislative stuff a hindrance.WTAF? I mean: WTFFFF? How to be Prime Minister and score minus 1 billion points in your Constitutional Law exam! Parliament exists to tie the hands of Government. That is what it is for. Ask Charles I about that.
Meanwhile, in June 2018, the Government still does not know what Brexit means, but no one may question Brexit, because The People magically knew in June 2016 that - whatever Brexit turns out to be in March 2019 - that is what the People voted for. Remember : The People knew exactly what they were voting for. No one else knows what the People voted for, or what the People are going to get, but The People know.
There are not enough unicorns in all the World to make this amount of sparkly magical delight! Seriously, are any of you Leavers not beginning to have just the faintest glimmer of a doubt about how this is going?
Thorodin said:
Can’t really believe what I read here sometimes. Charges for appointments? Just in case they don’t turn up? Since when did a no-show actually cost money? What a ridiculously complicated so-called solution to a non-problem. Typical over-complication and misdirection of any NHS question.
Are we trying to discourage surgery attendance of ill people by imposing costs as penalties for perceived disrespect? Any other occupation would capitalise on the opportunity by filling the unexpected relaxation of time constraints by taking that time to fulfil other pressing matters. Do we really think the doctor just sits there twiddling his thumbs for 15 minutes? Of course not.
Every time I have sat in the waiting room, frequently over the last three years, it has been full. What’s wrong with receptionists calling the next name on the list – and the next if no reply – the waiting patients would be very grateful for the unexpected promptness.
If a patient absentmindedly, or as an example of the reason for the consultation in the first place, forgets an appointment, or tries to cancel one using the phone and is kept on an interminable wait and hangs up, just how are they guilty of this assumed waste of a doctor’s time? The doctor gets paid exactly the same for his time and there is no loss of income to the NHS of any consequence. It’s supposed to be a sevice. It’s becoming akin to parking charges or congestion fees.
So it's 9am. The 9am patient hasn't turned up, so they call the 9.10 patient in. Except the 9.10 patient isn't there because they still have 10 minutes until their appointment. What then? Call the 9.20 in (little Doris that likes to chat and will be in there for 15 minutes). The 9am patient then turns up a minute late....Are we trying to discourage surgery attendance of ill people by imposing costs as penalties for perceived disrespect? Any other occupation would capitalise on the opportunity by filling the unexpected relaxation of time constraints by taking that time to fulfil other pressing matters. Do we really think the doctor just sits there twiddling his thumbs for 15 minutes? Of course not.
Every time I have sat in the waiting room, frequently over the last three years, it has been full. What’s wrong with receptionists calling the next name on the list – and the next if no reply – the waiting patients would be very grateful for the unexpected promptness.
If a patient absentmindedly, or as an example of the reason for the consultation in the first place, forgets an appointment, or tries to cancel one using the phone and is kept on an interminable wait and hangs up, just how are they guilty of this assumed waste of a doctor’s time? The doctor gets paid exactly the same for his time and there is no loss of income to the NHS of any consequence. It’s supposed to be a sevice. It’s becoming akin to parking charges or congestion fees.
You'd have to be pretty hard of thinking to think this would work!
What is wrong with people sticking to their commitments?
And as for saying there is no cost if people don't turn up... Really?!
Thorodin said:
Can’t really believe what I read here sometimes. Charges for appointments? Just in case they don’t turn up? Since when did a no-show actually cost money? What a ridiculously complicated so-called solution to a non-problem. Typical over-complication and misdirection of any NHS question.
I can see several problems with the plan. Firstly government would have to exclude pensioners, children, and anybody on benefits. So that would cut out a lot of users. Further, GP surgery are not equipped to take credit card payments, and link them to appointments. So the surgeries would all need new software, new credit card facilities, new accounting proceeds. It quite possible the plan could cost more than it saves.crankedup said:
I feel a G.E. coming along this late Autumn. Government has some major reforms on the way involving personal tax and allowances (NHS funding). Additionally if the remain section of Parliament hinder the Government regarding brexit then May could call a GE to settle that one way or other. Either a large majority to push trough brexit or bust. Taxation issues she will seek a mandate, both huge issues of course.
She tried that a year ago and failed dismally.Even if it is supposedly for the NHS, a mandate of increasing taxation is never going to win votes.
Thorodin said:
Can’t really believe what I read here sometimes. Charges for appointments? Just in case they don’t turn up? Since when did a no-show actually cost money? What a ridiculously complicated so-called solution to a non-problem. Typical over-complication and misdirection of any NHS question.
seems the missed appointments rack up to 1 billionhttps://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/jan/02/pa...
My wife works for the NHS. One problem is staff sickness....so many of her colleges are on long term leave with bulls
t, sorry - stress. Even in the small hospice where she works most of the feckless employees simply don't pull their weight or never show up. The management can't do anything so the staff just take the piss.
It doesn't matter how much money you throw into the bottomless money pit that is the NHS...you will never make it any better. It's no different to British Leyland back in the day. It's just too big to ever be viable.
t, sorry - stress. Even in the small hospice where she works most of the feckless employees simply don't pull their weight or never show up. The management can't do anything so the staff just take the piss. It doesn't matter how much money you throw into the bottomless money pit that is the NHS...you will never make it any better. It's no different to British Leyland back in the day. It's just too big to ever be viable.
amgmcqueen said:
May seems to have found Corbyn's magic money tree!
Seriously....how long can the Tories keep this useless woman at the helm? Having an avid remainer in charge of Brexit has been an unmitigated disaster. They need to get rid of her asap before the damage she's causing is irreversible!
May is quite possibly a Leaver. She backed Remain because she thought that Remain would win. She has few principles if any, and she only cares about being in power. She seems to be a narrow minded Little Englander. She presided over xenophobic policies and has projected a lot of xenophobic optics, as Home Secretary and as PM. She seems intent on a type of Brexit which many of the leading leave campaigners did not argue for, and some even argued against. She claims (using her magical crazy unicorn powers) that the Brexit she is aiming for (and even she does not know quite what that is yet) is what all who voted leave wanted. Indeed, it is what "The People" wanted, because anyone who voted remain is permanently excluded from being "The People" forever after. Seriously....how long can the Tories keep this useless woman at the helm? Having an avid remainer in charge of Brexit has been an unmitigated disaster. They need to get rid of her asap before the damage she's causing is irreversible!
The main disaster here is not the Tory Government, disastrous though that is. The main disaster is not the disastrous Corbyn opposition, disastrous though that is The main disaster here is Brexit. Only the most stubborn are failing to see that. I suspect that the penny has dropped for many Leavers, but people are stubborn, hate to admit that they were wrong, and especially hate to admit that they were conned by some of the biggest charlatans in recent political history.
Breadvan72 said:
The main disaster here is Brexit. Only the most stubborn are failing to see that. I suspect that the penny has dropped for many Leavers, but people are stubborn, hate to admit that they were wrong, and especially hate to admit that they were conned by some of the biggest charlatans in recent political history.
I disagree the disaster of brexit is the government plan, or rather lack of coherent plan. The idea that the UK could move from 40 years of the EU and move outside its institution including the SM and CU, in 2 years (or even 4 years) was crazy. The EFTA/EEA and CU plan called Flexit, was both coherent and achievable. It was rejected because a) it might still involve some (all) FOML and b) it has been grossly misinterpreted by both remain and leave.
It would have moved us outside the CAP and CFP. We would have regained direct access to the international bodies which set standards. We would be subject to only about 30% of EU regulations, most of which come from the international bodies on which we would now be directly represented.
We might even have saved some money.
Mrr T said:
Breadvan72 said:
The main disaster here is Brexit. Only the most stubborn are failing to see that. I suspect that the penny has dropped for many Leavers, but people are stubborn, hate to admit that they were wrong, and especially hate to admit that they were conned by some of the biggest charlatans in recent political history.
I disagree the disaster of brexit is the government plan, or rather lack of coherent plan. The idea that the UK could move from 40 years of the EU and move outside its institution including the SM and CU, in 2 years (or even 4 years) was crazy. The EFTA/EEA and CU plan called Flexit, was both coherent and achievable. It was rejected because a) it might still involve some (all) FOML and b) it has been grossly misinterpreted by both remain and leave.
It would have moved us outside the CAP and CFP. We would have regained direct access to the international bodies which set standards. We would be subject to only about 30% of EU regulations, most of which come from the international bodies on which we would now be directly represented.
We might even have saved some money.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff