Cost GP Medical Checks

[pierred]

My GP took my money in November £35 then after chasing them numerous times was told in February they would not do it as they had not seen me enough,
immediately instructed Medcert to take over, they were messed about by GP with it taking 3 months for them to release my records after legal action was threatened

 

[bobthedug]

My GP took my money in November £35 then after chasing them numerous times was told in February they would not do it as they had not seen me enough,
immediately instructed Medcert to take over, they were messed about by GP with it taking 3 months for them to release my records after legal action was threatened

There are some GPs, from what I have seen on other posts regarding this issue, that seem to think that their opinion is being sought as to whether the applicant is safe to be entrusted with a firearm.
They are simply being asked if the applicant has suffered from X, Y or Z and to tick a few boxes.
If all GPS refused on the basis that they haven't seen you often enough, the likes of Medcert would be overwhelmed.

 

[mealiejimmy]

Some GPs don't understand what they're being asked to do and some are actively obstructive
A friend of mine in Peebles was told by his GP surgery that thy wanted £200 for the GP letter and that he had to have a £30 consultation every 3 months to check the state of his mental health.
He told the police about this and they "had words" with the surgery about the 3 monthly consultation and that was got rid of, but the £200 charge for the letter remained

Cheers

Bruce

 

[seastalker]

Last two times £15.00

Kev

 

[25 Sharps]

Yep, originally there was a genuine objective with these GP checks.... since then GPs have realised just what a cash cow it can become.

It should simply be a low cost efficient way of establishing someones mental state for owning a firearm.... instead its been turned into a 'for those that can afford it' exercise.

Tell you something- if my GP asked me for £200 to £250 I would firstly ask for a complete costing breakdown with each element of cost identified, if I see that (which I suspect at that price he is ) bumping up the job up for financial gain unduly, I would serve him notice of reporting the practice to each and every relevant governing body I could find.

Back in the day the clowns at BASC claimed they would sort this with price caps as did other shooting organisations... obviously none have achieved anything.

The GMC has already told them they are not obliged to provide these letters and they are not part of their NHS remit so you could stamp your feet al you want, it’s up to them how much they charge just as it is up to me how much I charge someone for a house footing!

 

[mealiejimmy]

Have a look at an FAC or SGC application form - this is what is at the bottom of the first page:

"I give the police permission to contact my GP and/or specialist to obtain factual details of any medical history in relation to my suitability to possess a firearm and/or shotgun. This authority is valid for the life of the certificate(s). I understand that my GP may share sensitive personal data with the police concerning my physical and mental health for the purpose of enabling the police to make a fully informed decision on my application or continued suitability, and I hereby consent to this processing of my personal data."

Since this GP stuff all kicked off back in 2016, no-one from Police Scotland has been able to answer this simple question:
If you want input from my GP about my medical condition, why don't you feckin call him?

Cheers

Bruce

 

[Franchi Matt]

The GMC has already told them they are not obliged to provide these letters and they are not part of their NHS remit so you could stamp your feet al you want, it’s up to them how much they charge just as it is up to me how much I charge someone for a house footing!

I should imagine IF you wanted ground work you would be competitively quoting, so its not strictly up to you how much you charge really is it?

My point was - that you clearly missed - regardless of obligation or not some GP's are blatantly taking the ****, IF my GP attempted that I'd be all over them, as for feet stamping.... is that some childish ground wokers name calling?

 

[Liveonce]

I should imagine IF you wanted ground work you would be competitively quoting, so its not strictly up to you how much you charge really is it?

My point was - that you clearly missed - regardless of obligation or not some GP's are blatantly taking the ****, IF my GP attempted that I'd be all over them, as for feet stamping.... is that some childish ground wokers name calling?

The risk of “I’d be all over them” is that they inform the police of your “attitude”, which could be detrimental to your application, which is why many now not liking their own GP fee just walk away to the likes of medcert.

 

[25 Sharps]

I should imagine IF you wanted ground work you would be competitively quoting, so its not strictly up to you how much you charge really is it?

My point was - that you clearly missed - regardless of obligation or not some GP's are blatantly taking the ****, IF my GP attempted that I'd be all over them, as for feet stamping.... is that some childish ground wokers name calling?

You’d be all over them?! With what exactly? I don’t think you have a grasp of the situation at all.

They have no obligation whatsoever to provide the report, you have no comeback on them, zero, zilch.

Just as I do when I’m not fussed about winning a job I put I price on it that if I do win it, it’s worth doing but is hopefully enough to put people off. Or on the flip side if I know they are struggling I will price as highly as I think I can get away with, to maximise my profit. So yes, it is strictly up to me how much I put on a job, just as it is for the doctor where that job falls outside of their obligations.

As for saying you were stamping your feet, not name calling, I was implying you were behaving like a child who couldn’t have what they want, obviously a bit too subtle.

 

[andyk]

A lot of the GPs I know are convinced that they are being asked to vouch, in some way, for the applicant's suitability.

I would think, in the majority of situations, the high fee are because of this and not profiteering. Most really don't want to be doing these forms which is something the BMA overlooked when agreeing that GPs might (I say might as they can't be compelled to) help out. As @25 Sharps says, that leads to them pricing at a level intended to put people off.

Many employed GPs don't keep their private fees (the surgery gets them) so have no vested interest in charging for financial gain.

That's not to say some don't profiteer or behave improperly (I remember the chap on here who was told his GP conscientiously objected but could have their conscience calmed with enough money) but I fear the fundamental issue is a reluctance to be involved borne out of a mistaken impression that they are giving a professional opinion.

I imagine the Police could be clearer that they are not seeking that, only a confirmation that the declaration is correct, but wonder if they would rather have the ambiguity there, as to make clear that it is not the GPs responsibility to assess the applicant would highlight it being theirs.

As an aside, once the initial review is done and the marker placed on the system, there is no reason for future requests to the GP.

 

[bobthedug]

A lot of the GPs I know are convinced that they are being asked to vouch, in some way, for the applicant's suitability.

I would think, in the majority of situations, the high fee are because of this and not profiteering. Most really don't want to be doing these forms which is something the BMA overlooked when agreeing that GPs might (I say might as they can't be compelled to) help out. As @25 Sharps says, that leads to them pricing at a level intended to put people off.

Many employed GPs don't keep their private fees (the surgery gets them) so have no vested interest in charging for financial gain.

That's not to say some don't profiteer or behave improperly (I remember the chap on here who was told his GP conscientiously objected but could have their conscience calmed with enough money) but I fear the fundamental issue is a reluctance to be involved borne out of a mistaken impression that they are giving a professional opinion.

I imagine the Police could be clearer that they are not seeking that, only a confirmation that the declaration is correct, but wonder if they would rather have the ambiguity there, as to make clear that it is not the GPs responsibility to assess the applicant would highlight it being theirs.

As an aside, once the initial review is done and the marker placed on the system, there is no reason for future requests to the GP.

I cannot find it to hand, but it is perfectly clear on the Police forms that the doctors are not asked to make any assesment as to the applicants suitability to possess firearms.

 

[gixer1]

You’d be all over them?! With what exactly? I don’t think you have a grasp of the situation at all.

They have no obligation whatsoever to provide the report, you have no comeback on them, zero, zilch.
As for saying you were stamping your feet, not name calling, I was implying you were behaving like a child who couldn’t have what they want, obviously a bit too subtle.

I think that is one of the issues shooting faces - we seem to accept being treated as lepers. Remember that an NHS GP does have an obligation to assist you. I’m not saying you can be rude or pushy but as long as you are polite and clear in what you need they have no right to refuse without good reason - by all means if they say you are a nut-nut then they have done their job if there is evidence to show this.

I have always hated the fact that firearms and gun ownership is described as a privilege. As long as you are safe, and qualify it should be a right.

too many times the firearms service make up rules on this that are not in line with the home office and it’s a crock - things like the “.243 is the max caliber for a beginner”….absolute nonsense. And the explanation of ammunition limits, storing bolts separately etc - I’m sure we all know the usual ones.

remember as long as you are safe, do not have a record and can show good reason there is no reason they should prevent you acquiring a firearm.

stop allowing ourselves to be treated as sin-standard because our hobby is not popular with ignorant Joe public!

regards,
Gixer

 

[25 Sharps]

I think that is one of the issues shooting faces - we seem to accept being treated as lepers. Remember that an NHS GP does have an obligation to assist you. I’m not saying you can be rude or pushy but as long as you are polite and clear in what you need they have no right to refuse without good reason - by all means if they say you are a nut-nut then they have done their job if there is evidence to show this.

I have always hated the fact that firearms and gun ownership is described as a privilege. As long as you are safe, and qualify it should be a right.

too many times the firearms service make up rules on this that are not in line with the home office and it’s a crock - things like the “.243 is the max caliber for a beginner”….absolute nonsense. And the explanation of ammunition limits, storing bolts separately etc - I’m sure we all know the usual ones.

remember as long as you are safe, do not have a record and can show good reason there is no reason they should prevent you acquiring a firearm.

stop allowing ourselves to be treated as sin-standard because our hobby is not popular with ignorant Joe public!

regards,
Gixer

You are wrong, they are well within their rights to refuse.

No one is saying we should treat ourselves as lepers but if your GP is being awkward simply step over to one of the alternative sources for these reports. We don’t help ourselves sometimes being obstinate when there is a straight forward alternative available.

 

[Apthorpe]

You are wrong, they are well within their rights to refuse.

No one is saying we should treat ourselves as lepers but if your GP is being awkward simply step over to one of the alternative sources for these reports. We don’t help ourselves sometimes being obstinate when there is a straight forward alternative available.

I disagree. They may be within their rights to refuse to help a patient, but they are not well within their rights to refuse to co-operate with the police, and impede the working of a police scheme which exists ostensibly to improve public safety.

 

[Whitefront]

No GP has to help us with an application. This is non-NHS work, and they are free to refuse - particularly at a time when they are rather busy with their NHS work. Why should the taxpayer subsidise private GP work for our hobby? They don't do it for diving medicals, or even work-related ones, such as for HGV drivers, who have to pay very hefty fees for their medicals.

They don't have to help the police if it isn't in their NHS contract.

And I wouldn't bang on about public safety - the obvious answer there is simply to ban the ownership of firearms for recreational purposes.

 

[Apthorpe]

Quite so: no GP has to help us with an application. This is non-NHS work, and they are free to refuse - particularly at a time when they are rather busy with their NHS work. Why should the taxpayer subsidise private GP work for a our hobby? They don't do it for diving medicals, or even work-related ones, such as for HGV drivers, who have to pay very hefty fees for their medicals.

They don't have to help[ the police if it isn't in their NHS contract.

Ands I wouldn't bang on about public safety - the obvious answer there is simply to ban the ownership of firearms for recreational purposes.

Do many GPS refuse to perform diving medicals, work-related or HGV medicals? No.

The majority of GPs only work part time anyway, and much of their work is failure demand, and public sector generated bureaucracy. Nobody else works only within the bounds of their contract. An arse being an arse is an arse.

 

[Whitefront]

I don't know. All I know is that they don't have to undertake any private work at all.

But you are right that most GPs are part time these days. And their trade union, the BMA, are awful jobsworths. They lobbied against home visits for vulnerable people, FFS.

 

[Whitefront]

Some examples of GP fees for non-NHS work, as listed on a surgery website (The Willows, Bradford, West Yorkshire):

Taxi/HGV and for elderly drivers: £110
Child minder health form: £91
Holiday insurance cancellation form: £50
Medical report without examination, pro forma: £89.50
Diabetes fitness certificate: £110
Insurance forms: £104

 

[Apthorpe]

Some examples of GP fees for non-NHS work, as listed on a surgery website (The Willows, Bradford, West Yorkshire):

Taxi/HGV and for elderly drivers: £110
Child minder health form: £91
Holiday insurance cancellation form: £50
Medical report without examination, pro forma: £89.50
Diabetes fitness certificate: £110
Insurance forms: £104

Right. And good luck finding a widespread pattern of GPs refusing to do any of those types of work.

 

[User00025]

You are wrong, they are well within their rights to refuse.

No one is saying we should treat ourselves as lepers but if your GP is being awkward simply step over to one of the alternative sources for these reports. We don’t help ourselves sometimes being obstinate when there is a straight forward alternative available.

If we had been more obstinate years ago before shotgun certs etc, we would not be in this state now. It's the "Don't rock the boat folk" that have let more and more restrictions be piled on. My old Colonel always said "Just take it don't annoy them", when he was not far off snuffing it, he told me he had been totally wrong and we should have fought every change.