GP fees for releasing medical information

[big ears]

GPs are allowed to charge but the charge is recommended by the BMA and I think £120 is excessive. Our GPs charge £40-£70 depending on the length of report. For a 14 yr old with no illnesses declared and a preliminary report it should not be that hard. I would go back to the GP and ask them to reconsider. Stating that if there was a declared illness you could understand the fee but for your 14 yr old it does seem a bit excessive. If that does not work you could write to other GP practices in your area asking how much they charge. If it is lower then write to NHS Scotland asking for their input as you are tied to your GP and this essentially is a monopoly.

At the end of the day this function is outside of the NHS and not covered by your NI and therefore can be charged at what ever rate they want.

Good luck.

BE

 

[Highlandsjohn]

GPs are allowed to charge but the charge is recommended by the BMA and I think £120 is excessive. Our GPs charge £40-£70 depending on the length of report. For a 14 yr old with no illnesses declared and a preliminary report it should not be that hard. I would go back to the GP and ask them to reconsider. Stating that if there was a declared illness you could understand the fee but for your 14 yr old it does seem a bit excessive. If that does not work you could write to other GP practices in your area asking how much they charge. If it is lower then write to NHS Scotland asking for their input as you are tied to your GP and this essentially is a monopoly.

At the end of the day this function is outside of the NHS and not covered by your NI and therefore can be charged at what ever rate they want.

Good luck.

BE

Why should the op contact NHS Scotland,when he lives in England,where the rules and advice are different.
(no communication from the GP after 21 days,proceed with the application) Have I misread the post?
This would certainly appear to be a good test case for England,as Miki said early on.
Scotland is a lost cause as far as the medical fee is concerned. john

 

[Orion]

Why should the op contact NHS Scotland,when he lives in England,where the rules and advice are different.
(no communication from the GP after 21 days,proceed with the application) Have I misread the post?
This would certainly appear to be a good test case for England,as Miki said early on.
Scotland is a lost cause as far as the medical fee is concerned. john

Absolutely correct.

GPs are allowed to charge but the charge is recommended by the BMA and I think £120 is excessive. Our GPs charge £40-£70 depending on the length of report. For a 14 yr old with no illnesses declared and a preliminary report it should not be that hard.

It's not a 'medical report' that's being referred to, it's the simple medical evidence or 'tick box' form that they are being asked to complete, (or ignore) .

 

[Apthorpe]

It can't take as long as 10 minutes to provide and send the information. The charge is grossly excessive - £720 per hour. It scaled up to annual income of £1.5 million. I'd complain formally to the practice on the grounds of completely unjustifiable and exploitative pricing.
And listen to Orion!

 

[Orion]

The real kicker to all this is that there is no actual requirement for GPs to place the 'enduring marker' on the applicants medical records anyway!

FAC/SGC holders are having to jump through all the hoops, and in some cases stump up extortionate amounts for a simple form - which shouldn't even be required for the issuing process if the FLD follow HOG - and all the while one of the major components of the 'medical evidence' scheme isn't being insisted on. If a certain shooting organisation believe that this process in it's present form, (that they signed off on), would ever lead to a 10 year certificate life through 'continual monitoring', then they have been living in cloud cuckoo land.

Thanks to forum member CharlieT who posted this extract from the NPCC FELWG minutes which illustrates exactly why it is so badly flawed:

DO - We are now at the stage where some forces operate on the proviso of no medical screening = no certificate. The enduring marker is still in progress and is being negotiated with home office. The imminent statutory guidance should include more latitude for police to refuse the certificate in the absence of medical screening at the first stages of application.

DO - Argued to home office that forces should be able to ask for medical details at first stage of application, as opposed to forces asking for medical information – final decision lies with minister

The enduring marker has not been finalised, it will be included in the guidance which will be distributed the doctors. It has been agreed there will be no cost to policing and home office have proposed that they will include a suggestive cost within the guidance i.e £50, home office are to add this into the guidance, but it is accepted that this fee is only indicative.

Note that there is still no proposal to make the enduring marker a statutory duty for GPs, simply 'guidance'. And the section I've highlighted in red above should serve as a warning that the police will probably in future be playing fast and loose with the content of any future Home Office Guidance, as they will be consulted on what appears in it, while the shooting community will have no representation.

And you think it's bad now!

 

[B&W FOX]

GP replies to TV Police Firearms letters
Date sent: Friday 24 November 2017

To All BBOLMC Practices

Issue date: 24.11.17​

My email earlier today said I would be speaking to Zoey Evans the TV Police Firearms Manager. We have now had a very good conversation
The first thing to say is that I feel she is on our side. She has managed to get the Home Office to agree that individual forces can modify the original mandatory Home Office letter to GPs (the current Thames Valley version is attached).
I also sense a rebellious spirit amongst police forces beyond the Thames Valley over the attitude of the Home Office and Shooting lobby groups.
Her revised letter contains the following boxed text summarising the TV police request

By submitting the application your patient has given consent for police to contact their GP in order to obtain factual details of their medical history or a copy of their full medical records, and for the GP to provide this information to the police. Any issue of cost is a matter between you and your patient. This consent is valid during the application process and through the duration of the certificate, which lasts for five years. If you have any concerns about your patient being issued with a firearm and/or shot gun certificate you will need to respond to this letter within 28 days. Your response letter should be in accordance with the BMA guidelines: https://www.bma.org.uk/advice/employment/ethics/ethics-a-to-z/firearms If you do not respond to this letter within 28 days it will be assumed that you have no relevant information and your patients application will proceed to grant. Please place a firearm code on the patients record. If the patient begins to suffer from a relevant medical condition (listed overleaf) or if there are any other factors that give rise to concern, please contact the police immediately so that we can review the persons continued suitability. Please use the following firearm codes which can be used with the four main IT systems used in GP practices in England, Wales and Scotland. The Read code should remain on the patient record while the firearm certificate is valid. We will inform you if the certificate is revoked, cancelled or expires, whereupon you should inactivate the Read code. I must clarify that I am not asking you to advise me as to whether a certificate should be granted or not. That responsibility rests entirely with the police.

The letter in reply that many of you seem to be using looks my original draft, first written after the BMA made a big mess of its initial negotiation. There was then a hiatus before the BMA advice got to where it is now. My letter was drafted to plug the gap.
However, nowadays one of the 5 BMA letters should serve the purpose of most practices and I suggest people use these. See link above
Zoey and I have agreed to work together. She recognises the pressure GPs are under. Her aim is simplicity for GPs and appropriate remuneration of non-NHS work.

 

[B&W FOX]

Medical reports a licensing viewpoint.

Right, time for an opposite view, lets see how much of an argument I cause!! I have a background in licensing (local authority - not firearms) and have looked into the issue of the medical letters/reports for all applications, especially as my area now expect this before determining an licence...

www.thestalkingdirectory.co.uk

The above thread has more information as to the medical fee issue and shooting organization response's.

 

[Orion]

Zoey and I have agreed to work together. She recognises the pressure GPs are under. Her aim is simplicity for GPs and appropriate remuneration of non-NHS work.

How very chummy that the FLD Manager now puts 'simplicity for GPs' before adhering to the Home Office Guidance - worth noting that the BBOLMC letter quoted above is dated November 2017 and TVP appear to have moved away from the stated 'no reply within 28 days = no concerns'!

 

[Sonicdmb73]

Afternoon, All.

My son, who is 14, recently applied for his SGC. Today I received a letter from our GP practice stating that they have been asked by the Police for medical information and will only supply it if I pay a fee of £120! I spoke to the Police who told me that what medical practices do is not governed by the BMA and that they can do what they like in respect of what they charge and even whether they release information to the Police.

I’d be interested in hearing members’ views on this issue and learning of any relevant experience.

Of course, if I don’t pay the (exorbitant) fee, that’s the end of the application.

All the best,

Dom

I would add a further option write back to your GP practice and ask for a properly itemised invoice. A letter asking for a fee is not a legal invoice.
I would agree with the other advice ask the FLD in writing to explain the no answer from GP no ticket comment.
I would push for either the grant of the certificate or refusal in writing.
I regret backing down years ago and missing years off having my SGC. Nothing other than a personal dislike by the child Officer of the local police. So maybe I am a little biased but I still don’t like the idea any abuse of process.

 

[kes]

Maybe your shooting organisation (who you should contact), will take up your case as a test case, having failed to justify JR to themselves and subsequently having asked for specific examples. I would do as the others have advised as well, particularly the above advice which allows the police a dignified exit from an unsustainable position.

You could quote HO guidance, as much is made above of the current position but, as an individual, they are NOT GOING TO LISTEN, unless its as part of an argument to ask them to explain why your son needs anything other than the standard tick form completed, for which there is no charge.

I wonder how long this appalling situation will continue without overarching action from 'our' side?
Get it all in writing - as also suggested above.

 

[big ears]

Why should the op contact NHS Scotland,when he lives in England,where the rules and advice are different.
(no communication from the GP after 21 days,proceed with the application) Have I misread the post?
This would certainly appear to be a good test case for England,as Miki said early on.
Scotland is a lost cause as far as the medical fee is concerned. john

My bad thought he was in Scotland!! Contact NHS England then.

 

[Highlandsjohn]

.

My bad thought he was in Scotland!! Contact NHS England then.

Perhaps your 'bad' can be extrapolated to the rest of your post. john

 

[big ears]

Absolutely correct.



It's not a 'medical report' that's being referred to, it's the simple medical evidence or 'tick box' form that they are being asked to complete, (or ignore) .

If a GP signs any document about your health it is classed as a report. What is being asked for is NOT provided by the NHS and therefore has to be paid by the individual. We in the NHS are struggling to treat ill patients due to lack of medical time and money.

 

[big ears]

.

Perhaps your 'bad' can be extrapolated to the rest of your post. john

That’s very personal and probably reflects your lack of understanding of the issues. I work in the NHS and understand the issue completely. Before you put insulting posts perhaps you should take time to fully appraise yourself of all of the facts.

 

[Highlandsjohn]

That’s very personal and probably reflects your lack of understanding of the issues. I work in the NHS and understand the issue completely. Before you put insulting posts perhaps you should take time to fully appraise yourself of all of the facts.

I don't see where I insulted you Big Ears and am surprised you took it that way, it was not my intension.
You obviously never read the post properly so why should I put credence on the rest of the information you supplied on the subject.
I know you work in the NHS you keep telling us. I never contradicted anything in those other posts, as I assumed you knew what you were talking about, and accepted it as being fact.john.

 

[J@mes]

Luckily(?) My GP report only cost £27, but when the invoice came through it stated

"If payment is not made within 7 days of this letter we will inform the firearms office that you may have a condition to hide which would prevent you from obtaining a certificate"

I went ****ing ballistic, phone the surgery and told them they were a disgrace and phoned BASC to tell them I was being blackmailed. BASC got on to them that week.

When my pal got the invoice a month later, the wording had changed.

 

[Orion]

If a GP signs any document about your health it is classed as a report. What is being asked for is NOT provided by the NHS and therefore has to be paid by the individual. We in the NHS are struggling to treat ill patients due to lack of medical time and money.

In terms of the firearms licensing process there is a specific reference to a 'medical report' being something that is required if the applicant either declares a relevant medical condition, (applicant pays), or if a further medical report is required at the behest of the police, (they pay).

The initial request for medical information is not referred to as a 'medical report', so for the purposes of this thread and any other referring to the medical evidence scheme there is a difference.

Agreed that neither is provided by the NHS, which I'm sure we all understand, but there is currently, (to quote the HOG and initially agreed by the BMA), "no expectation of a fee" for the latter and, as we are seeing, no standardisation of fees when it does become a requirement for whatever reason.

 

[finnbear270]

The OP should join his practice online medical records system, also his kids, just print off your records Free Gratis & send it in.

 

[Miki]

The OP should join his practice online medical records system, also his kids, just print off your records Free Gratis & send it in.

There is some confusion going on here, no one wants or has asked for anyones medical records, not the OP. the OP's son. the Police or the Home Office.
What has been requested (by the Police) is that a 'mark' is put on the patients medical records to indicate that he has firearms and a few 'Yes/No' questions which echo the questions asked on the original application. No 'medical judgement' is offered or requested.

 

[finnbear270]

Miki, This is in the first lines of the OP text, ....... My son, who is 14, recently applied for his SGC. Today I received a letter from our GP practice stating thatMy son, who is 14, recently applied for his SGC. Today I received a letter from our GP practice stating that they have been asked by the Police for medical information and will only supply it if I pay a fee of £120!