timbrayford
Well-Known Member
Available at the touch of a button no doubt, who on earth uses stamps these day they are not needed for email
BASC says don’t pay medical fee
- Thread starter David63
- Start date
Available at the touch of a button no doubt, who on earth uses stamps these day they are not needed for email
This whole sorry shambles should have been sorted before implementation.
GP's take their lead from their Local Medical Committee. Just read page 3 of the following link to get a feel of how Devon GP's are being advised on the subject.
http://www.devonlmc.org/?sc=libext&id=30248&acc=12794921
GP's take their lead from their Local Medical Committee. Just read page 3 of the following link to get a feel of how Devon GP's are being advised on the subject.
http://www.devonlmc.org/?sc=libext&id=30248&acc=12794921
darkstalker
Well-Known Member
I am afraid you have no insight into the process involved in "ticking the box". Do you really believe that a GP will only spend two minutes to answer those questions! It involves going through the whole notes of the patient. I know this because I have done this in the past. The notes are not all in the computerised record as new patients will have printed records with only sketchy details on the "summary". And, if somebody has a history of a mental health disorder, the GP will have to decide if he has any concerns or not. How do you think that decision is arrived at? It will involve going through the last 5 years' records to look for "red flags". I am always out to help my patients who are shooting enthusiasts and have written letters of support free of charge for the last 10 years. But, to say that ticking those boxes is equivalent to "sticking stamps" only reeks of ignorance.
I am all for BASC standing up for shooters (don't forget that I am one as well) but that does not give the license for an office holder to accuse GPs of trying to fleece their patients out of greed. I have never got into a heated argument even when contentious issues are discussed on the forum but for an organisation to stand by the above remark is distasteful and has forced my hand. I do not intend to direct any personal offence towards David BASC!
Orion
Well-Known Member
Deerstalker.
Surely the initial letter just requires a tick to confirm the patient has or has not suffered from one of the listed ailments. It does not ask for a more detailed report, such details would form part of any subsequent medical report requested by the police the cost of which would be borne, quite rightly, by the patient.
Surely the initial letter just requires a tick to confirm the patient has or has not suffered from one of the listed ailments. It does not ask for a more detailed report, such details would form part of any subsequent medical report requested by the police the cost of which would be borne, quite rightly, by the patient.
timbrayford
Well-Known Member
Unbelievable ineptitude for the 21st century, no wonder the NHS is NBGSee post #23
darkstalker
Well-Known Member
CharlieT,
The second question straightforward to answer. It is the first question which needs detailed inspection the patient record and careful consideration on the part of the GP
The second question straightforward to answer. It is the first question which needs detailed inspection the patient record and careful consideration on the part of the GP
darkstalker
Well-Known Member
Thanks for posting this link. Very useful reference
On the two occasions that I have had a request for a medical report in the last couple of months, I have requested the police (and advised my patients of the same) to foot the bill as the patient had no significant medical problems to raise concern.
Answering those questions us as simple as anyone saying what their credit card and phone bill was on the 16th day of the month for the last 5 years.
You'd have to check every statement. Some of which probably aren't online. It is far from a simple tick box job.
You'd have to check every statement. Some of which probably aren't online. It is far from a simple tick box job.
I'm not sure where the idea has come from that it is quite right for the cost of a report to be borne by the patient: to me, it seems quite wrong!
Essentially, an applicant who is unfortunate enough to suffer from, or have suffered from, something that might affect his fitness to own and use firearms is put at risk of a bill of an uncertain amount (I'd suspect a couple of hundred quid) in order for a general practitioner to provide the police with the information they need to discharge their statutory duty.
In some ways, I'm surprised that this doesn't clash with disability discrimination rules.
How is it different in charging someone for the police to issue an fac?
All FAC/SGC applicants/renewers must pay a specified statutory fee to the police.
Unless I've misunderstood, only people with a particular kind of medical history have to pay unspecified additional fees to their general practitioner to cover the cost of reports requested by the police.
Last edited:
If this report is outside the usual work then someone has to pay.
It's the same as occupational health and travel immunisation.
If you have chronic conditions your travel insurance is more too, do you find that acceptable?
Indeed. However, as it is the work is undertaken ostensibly for the public good it seems reasonable that the police (who are requesting the report in order to be able to discharge their statutory duty) should have some public funds available to pay the general practitioners.
No it isn't.
Yes, but that's how insurance works. Nothing to do with statute law, or the public good.
Malxwal
Well-Known Member
My father has just received a £60 bill from his GP after being contacted direct by Police Scotland regarding his medical records for his upcoming renewal. He has no abnormal medical history,and had not even signed anything to say he was happy for Police Scotland to contact his GP.
BASC will be getting a call on this one.
BASC will be getting a call on this one.
Last edited:
Okay, so what's wrong with the system that is used to notify the DVLA?
If a patient presents with a condition that affects their ability to drive, then their doctor will advise the DVLA. Seems to work there.
If there is anything else required, then who pays can be decided by a bun fight between the applicant and the FEO with the doctor in the middle.
I think that's more sensible. Although who pays for the buns should be agreed beforehand.
If a patient presents with a condition that affects their ability to drive, then their doctor will advise the DVLA. Seems to work there.
If there is anything else required, then who pays can be decided by a bun fight between the applicant and the FEO with the doctor in the middle.
I think that's more sensible. Although who pays for the buns should be agreed beforehand.
timbrayford
Well-Known Member
In all seriousness I am quite shocked that the NHS and Police still use archaic and expensive pen and paper technology, I think that it is really cheeky of them to expect the consumer to pay for this, in a true commercial environment it just wouldn't be tolerated.
I am a GP. It costs us 800 £ a working hour to run the place (pay the mortgage, staff etc). I am afraid we cannot do and take responsibility for administrative work for nothing. If the business cannot pay it's bills we could potentially loose our homes to the bank
Last edited:
It is the patient's responsibility to notify the DVLA.
Similar threads
