BASC says don’t pay medical fee

[rodkayak]

Right then.
I have just read a article in my Basc Mag under "good news". It seems to state that the Police will not being sending out requests for information from the GP. I maybe misinterpreting the article.
I thus rang the head of S Wales polce firearm licensing to check. She said that they will be still sending the forms. To date only 10 % of GPs have replied in her catchment area.
I asked what happens to those applications where there is no GP letter. She said that they are referred to the assisant chief constable. She could not give an answer to say if this dalayed the proceedure.
She said that the situation of; no GP letter , no FAC could not arise at present in Wales or England unless there was a law change. I did get the impression that she would not mind if there was a law change.
When my renewal comes round I wil send a cheque for £30 to the practice and ring the practice manager. I think that is fair to the GP and I do not want my licence delayed.
No GP should discriminate against shooters under GMC rules. They maybe too busy but refusing (on the grounds of not ethically approving of shooting) would be like refusing to refer for a abortion or religous circumcision on religious grounds.
What you choose to do is up to you but I think that we need to all make this work in case the Police push for a law change and to help prevent any atrocity that will ban stalking rifles other than in the hands of foresty rangers or licensed pest controllers. Bashing BASC and or GPs will not help.

 

[mealiejimmy]

You are misinterpreting the article.
The new medical rules mean that the police will send a letter to your GP to:
a. Confirm that you have been truthful in your application when you have said that you don't suffer from any of the medical conditions listed on the application form.
b. Put a marker on your medical file showing that you are the holder of an FAC and or SGC so that, if you develop any of the medical conditions listed on the application form, your GP can contact the Police telling them about your medical condition.

The situation in England and Wales seems to be that, in accordance with the Home Office Guidance, if the Police do not get a reply to their letter to the GP, they will assume you are telling the truth and continue to process your application.
In Scotland, Police Scotland disregard the Home Office Guidance and have a policy of "no response to the GP letter = no certificate"
The BMA have now issued guidance to GPs to say that, effectively, they are legally required to respond to the letter, but may charge for doing so - despite the Home Office Guidance saying that there is "no expectation" that a fee would be charged for the GP response to the Police letter.
As usual, this situation is unclear, with shooters stuck in the middle between the Police and the GP.

Cheers

Bruce

 

[Whitebeard]

Its very simple the way i see it, If GPs want paying for any work involved from the letter sent to them by the police, then the police should pay, any further medical report required for which the applicant will be asked by the police to request from his GP then the applicant should pay

Ian.

 

[Miki]

Right then <snip>
When my renewal comes round I wil send a cheque for £30 to the practice and ring the practice manager. I think that is fair to the GP and I do not want my licence delayed.
Bashing BASC and or GPs will not help.

I would seroiusly doubt if anyone here would argue with you nor would they flinch at sending £30 (a reasonable fee) to their Doctors, if the practise had asked for £100 (or is some cases £200) would that have altered things for you ?

 

[Miki]

When the Crime and Policing bill becomes law It will be a legal requirement for all licensing authorities in England and Wales to abide by the Home office guidance, will this this also be the case in Scotland?

Ian.

Directly take from the guidance to which you refer ...

[FONT=&quot] 11.39
This guidance on medical evidence applies in England and Wales. As processes in Scotland may differ separate guidance is being issued regarding medical information in Scotland. [/FONT]


We are still waiting for the Scottish guidance to be issued...

 

[Dalua]

Its very simple the way i see it, If GPs want paying for any work involved from the letter sent to them by the police, then the police should pay, any further medical report required for which the applicant will be asked by the police to request from his GP then the applicant should pay

Ian.

The original idea put forward by the BMA was that GPs wouldn't charge either to respond to the initial reply to the police or to put the marker on the medical record.

It was also decided (and this decision welcomed by BASC, of course) that applicants for whom any further medical opinion was wanted would be liable for unspecified costs associated with whatever medical reports the police saw fit to request.

Quite apart from this being discriminatory against folk unfortunate enough to suffer from whatever conditions might worry the police, this made it clear that GPs would be able to charge for some of the work associated with application.
It is hardly surprising that they extrapolated, not unreasonably, that if some of this work was chargable then it should all be so. After all, it is all work. Add to that their (I must say, unreasonable) fear that they'd be putting their heads in a noose that would be pulled tight if their applicant committed some crime with the firearm/s, it's hardly surprising that they're looking for a bob or two for their trouble.

The big mistake, then, seems to have been to allow the idea that applicants should be paying for any part of the application procedure beyond the statutory fee.
FAC and SGC are not for the benefit of the applicant, but (ostensibly, at least) for the benefit of the General Public. We don't pay extra for the time taken to come round to look at cabinets, or land; so why anyone would welcome the idea of putting applicants with relevant medical history at risk of additional charges is a mystery to me.

 

[kes]

The original idea put forward by the BMA was that GPs wouldn't charge either to respond to the initial reply to the police or to put the marker on the medical record.

It was also decided (and this decision welcomed by BASC, of course) that applicants for whom any further medical opinion was wanted would be liable for unspecified costs associated with whatever medical reports the police saw fit to request.

Quite apart from this being discriminatory against folk unfortunate enough to suffer from whatever conditions might worry the police, this made it clear that GPs would be able to charge for some of the work associated with application.
It is hardly surprising that they extrapolated, not unreasonably, that if some of this work was chargable then it should all be so. After all, it is all work. Add to that their (I must say, unreasonable) fear that they'd be putting their heads in a noose that would be pulled tight if their applicant committed some crime with the firearm/s, it's hardly surprising that they're looking for a bob or two for their trouble.

The big mistake, then, seems to have been to allow the idea that applicants should be paying for any part of the application procedure beyond the statutory fee.
FAC and SGC are not for the benefit of the applicant, but (ostensibly, at least) for the benefit of the General Public. We don't pay extra for the time taken to come round to look at cabinets, or land; so why anyone would welcome the idea of putting applicants with relevant medical history at risk of additional charges is a mystery to me.

I agree - so why was it 'reviewed'.
Police process review to ensure their failings can be shared with the medical profession ?
ALL the past killers have been the failings of police scrutiny process.

 

[Miki]

The "Certificate (no time element involved)" fee of £19 seems fair and reasonable. If your Doctor suggests anything other than this perhaps you could point him towards the "agreed fee scale" here https://www.bma.org.uk/advice/employment/fees/check-your-fee/fee-finder-government-agreed-fees-gps

 

[Dalua]

The "Certificate (no time element involved)" fee of £19 seems fair and reasonable. If your Doctor suggests anything other than this perhaps you could point him towards the "agreed fee scale" here https://www.bma.org.uk/advice/employment/fees/check-your-fee/fee-finder-government-agreed-fees-gps

The GPs might or might not agree that it is fair and reasonable. I suspect many would not, as they might feel they would actually have to have a look through the notes - and that would take some time.

However, what is neither fair nor reasonable is that now, under that same statute which since 1920 has mandated FACs to be granted and renewed upon a fee's being paid by the applicant to the Police, the applicant can expect to pay further unspecifed fees to medical practitioners for whatever forms/reports may be requested by the police.

It is in fact an ideal outcome for the Home Office: additional costs are passed on the the applicant, both avoiding outlay public money (despite its being resonable to spend public money on this, as it is ostensibly for the public good); and increasing cost and inconvenience for lawful users of firearms, thereby helping to reduce their number.

 

[Moray Outfitting]

£10 to charity of choice for anyone cogently able to put forward any other minority group that could be subjected to such a muggers buddle ( see what I did there ) without marches, media outcry and top 5 slot on TV news.... and a voltre face on the part of authority.

That's a bit mean as I suspect no one can - remember thecogent bit.

So let's call it £5 to Combat Stress for anyone who can name any other minority group whose response would tend to be along the lines of - well its against basic principles of law, Human Rights Act and fundamentally makes zero sense and really there is no issue at all and I cant understand the fuss - ( unless view as a simple tool to further destroy a legitimate sport ( tin foil hats on! ) ) - but we'd better comply and just fork out because the people behaving like 'nits' might hold back what we are legally entitled to or not like us as much ( certain dramatic licence I concede ).

Take a snap shot of treatment of any one of - Homosexuals, Cyclists, Ramblers, Bat fanciers, Muslems, Street Performers et al ( and I just selected at random - I am not picking upon any group in particular and am falling over myself three times over so as not to break any statute that exists to support their rights - in fact I stand in admiration of the social paradigm shift they have accomplished ) from 20 years ago and take the same picture now. There's a common theme as to how those groups protected their basic rights. And I sadly predict shooting sports people will never be in that position.

What the heck - I'll just bung the £10 over to Combat Stress now so there's at least some positive from all this

 

[gus308]

I have just been to the local health centre to hand in my form to get it filled out. On asking how much i would pay for this service i was informed it would cost £60.00 and this is the price that has been recomended by police scotland.
This with the difficulty in obtaining expaning ammo/heads is really making me think about packing it in. Very sad

 

[Miki]

The GPs might or might not agree that it is fair and reasonable.

I have a sneaky feeling you are not wrong there, but as the Practice must tell you first what they propose to charge then perhaps these should be seen as the basis for negotiation ... "I want to charge you £XX" say the GP (glibly making it up as he goes along), "I say sir" retorts the indignant patient, "may I suggest you stick to a published and agreed charge as outlined in this BMA document and not some whimsical figure plucked from your imagination".

 

[Miki]

I have just been to the local health centre to hand in my form to get it filled out. On asking how much i would pay for this service i was informed it would cost £60.00 and this is the price that has been recomended by police scotland.

Where is the surgery ?
Can you get that in writing from them ?

 

[Lord V]

The "Certificate (no time element involved)" fee of £19 seems fair and reasonable. If your Doctor suggests anything other than this perhaps you could point him towards the "agreed fee scale" here https://www.bma.org.uk/advice/employment/fees/check-your-fee/fee-finder-government-agreed-fees-gps

I think that would be hopelessly optimistic for a few reasons:

1) However you swing it there is a time element.
2) It requires reviewing medical records.
3) It will be conducted during surgery time - I cant imagine a GP responding to the form on his day off or out side usual working time.
4) Its a report, not a certificate.
5) The only people that actually agree to these fees are the NIOHS! Not the police or anyone else, therefore they would only be treated as guidelines by anyone else...

Reading the scale with my consultant hat on I would put it at either:

1) An extract of records PLUS certificate (no time element) = £65.50
or
2) Report on Pro-forma = £59.50

The two interesting points on that link are that fees need to be agreed prior to work being done and reports should be completed within 10 days of the request being received.

 

[Miki]

I think that would be hopelessly optimistic for a few reasons:

Yes, most likely. But i'm trapped up here in Scotland as my FELD have enforced a 'no letter = no licence' scheme. Down in the Shires it's not really an issue (as long as the FELD are following the HO guidelines) so it becomes a 1 on 1 negotiation, a business decision/commercial conversation on our parts which as you noted must be agreed prior to you raising your pen. If you want £59.50 and I don't agree to pay, then (in England and Wales) my SGC/FAC will still be issued, in Scotland that is not the case so we must negotiate or pay up. This resentment (i would suggest) detracts from your ability to offer and perform a personally valued family, work, and community role; the ability to deal with physical, biological, psychological and social stress; a feeling of well-being; and freedom from the risk of disease and untimely death. Instead it fosters a "that f'in bas**rd ripped me off" disposition which dilutes all your past, good work.

£20 is "reasonable" anything else detracts from your wholistic care edit (in my opinion).

The Police of course are used to being treated in this way (unfairly in some instances) but Doctors aren't and i'm surprised that as a proffession you seem to be opening your arms to this hatefilled attuitude. 1% of Scotland and their friends and famillies are starting to think that you are nothing but a bunch of greedy commercially driven wasters who couldn't cure a common cold. Is that extra £40 worth it ??

 

[TOMMO.B]

Agree or not. in Scotland most rural practices are on there arse. Due to things like chemist shops opening and taking away practice dispensary s thus leaving a huge short fall in budget. its not all NHS money in these places most the doctors own the building.
so to pay a fee every 5 year is not much is it?
some folk pay more to go to a home game or the likes, every week
is it a big price to pay for your sport?
as it will come down to dont pay dont get.
I have just spent £60 on two boxes of rounds and thought nothing of it.
or is it because BASC said so.

 

[Lord V]

Yes, most likely. But i'm trapped up here in Scotland as my FELD have enforced a 'no letter = no licence' scheme. Down in the Shires it's not really an issue (as long as the FELD are following the HO guidelines) so it becomes a 1 on 1 negotiation, a business decision/commercial conversation on our parts which as you noted must be agreed prior to you raising your pen. If you want £59.50 and I don't agree to pay, then (in England and Wales) my SGC/FAC will still be issued, in Scotland that is not the case so we must negotiate or pay up. This resentment (i would suggest) detracts from your ability to offer and perform a personally valued family, work, and community role; the ability to deal with physical, biological, psychological and social stress; a feeling of well-being; and freedom from the risk of disease and untimely death. Instead it fosters a "that f'in bas**rd ripped me off" disposition which dilutes all your past, good work.

£20 is "reasonable" anything else detracts from your wholistic care edit (in my opinion).

The Police of course are used to being treated in this way (unfairly in some instances) but Doctors aren't and i'm surprised that as a proffession you seem to be opening your arms to this hatefilled attuitude. 1% of Scotland and their friends and famillies are starting to think that you are nothing but a bunch of greedy commercially driven wasters who couldn't cure a common cold. Is that extra £40 worth it ??

I'm not actually a Dr, but a consultant Engineer - I don't fart unless I'm paid for it. (we're nearly as bad as lawyers) I therefore have some sympathy with GP's being asked to perform a task beyond the scope set out in their contract. 'Some' being the operative word in that sentence... I'm just trying to see the flip side.

I agree its complete shambles - essentially in Scotland it could be your GP that decides your renewal/grant rather than the police, which is most certainly not the point of the guidance or law (I believe.) That decision rests with the police and they should not be trying to divest that responsibility.

If I were a Dr and the patient was well known to me then I would agree that £20 is pretty reasonable given that its two or three tick boxes and a quick refresh read of the notes. If I barely know the person (which would be unfortunate for those not ill often, including myself - seen the Dr about 6 times in my entire life! or recently moved) then it may take me longer and I may contact the patient to make an appointment to discuss. If the patient makes the appointment then I'm sure this would be encompassed by the NHS and no charge levied, like being called in to discuss test results. Again, I think £20- £50 is pretty reasonable as a punter, but I realise that based on that price list it could be a lot more than we want...

In either case I would be tempted not tick the first (or last box, I cant remember which) that states that in my opinion the person is safe to hold a shotgun/firearm and return with a note that its the polices responsibility to determine not mine. That whole question gets my liability/litigation senses tingling... The other two questions are factual - Does the patient suffer from one of the notifiable conditions, have you placed a marker on their records. Easy and pretty safe.

 

[gus308]

Don`t need to get it in writing, just off the phone with police scotland and , yep the lass confirmed that was indeed correct they are recomending a fee of £60.0. According to her this is quite reasonable as some doc`s were charging up to £130. TBH it really wasn`t going to be long before some practices saw this as an earner, its the same in all walks of life, some people will take advantage.

 

[CharlieT]

The original idea put forward by the BMA was that GPs wouldn't charge either to respond to the initial reply to the police or to put the marker on the medical record.

It was also decided (and this decision welcomed by BASC, of course) that applicants for whom any further medical opinion was wanted would be liable for unspecified costs associated with whatever medical reports the police saw fit to request.

Quite apart from this being discriminatory against folk unfortunate enough to suffer from whatever conditions might worry the police, this made it clear that GPs would be able to charge for some of the work associated with application.
It is hardly surprising that they extrapolated, not unreasonably, that if some of this work was chargable then it should all be so. After all, it is all work. Add to that their (I must say, unreasonable) fear that they'd be putting their heads in a noose that would be pulled tight if their applicant committed some crime with the firearm/s, it's hardly surprising that they're looking for a bob or two for their trouble.

The big mistake, then, seems to have been to allow the idea that applicants should be paying for any part of the application procedure beyond the statutory fee.

FAC and SGC are not for the benefit of the applicant, but (ostensibly, at least) for the benefit of the General Public. We don't pay extra for the time taken to come round to look at cabinets, or land; so why anyone would welcome the idea of putting applicants with relevant medical history at risk of additional charges is a mystery to me.

It seems that this is likely to be addressed, see http://shootingshed.co.uk/wp/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/FELWG-NPCC-minutes-September-2016.pdf, particularly the sentence "In order to achieve this quickly then the only option to get compliance was toincorporate this into statute"

 

[Orion]

The big mistake, then, seems to have been to allow the idea that applicants should be paying for any part of the application procedure beyond the statutory fee.

It seems that this is likely to be addressed, see http://shootingshed.co.uk/wp/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/FELWG-NPCC-minutes-September-2016.pdf, particularly the sentence "In order to achieve this quickly then the only option to get compliance was toincorporate this into statute"

There's another indication of where this is going contained in those FELWG minutes:

"In light of the recommendations made by the HMIC, it was not for this group to withdraw from the set process based on significant public safety issues, and based on Police actions to support Public safety if we were to withdraw from the process then it would be difficult to recover this in the future."

The recommendation to the Home Office in the HMIC report referred to above is probably this:

Recommendation 11
Immediately, and with a view to implementation within 18 months, the Home Office should ensure that the current proposals for the sharing of medical information between medical professionals and the police for the purpose of firearms licensing, allow the police effectively to discharge their duty to assess the medical suitability of an applicant for a section 1 firearms or shotgun certificate. This should have due regard to ensuring the system:
1. does not allow licensing to take place without a current medical report from the applicant’s GP, obtained and paid for by the applicant in advance of an application for the granting or renewal of a certificate, and which meets requirements prescribed by law; and
2. is supported by a process whereby GPs are required, during the currency of a certificate, to notify the police of any changes to the medical circumstances (including mental health) of the certificate holder which are relevant to the police assessment of suitability for such a certificate, and within which the certificate holder is statutorily required to notify the police of any such changes.

https://www.justiceinspectorates.go...ads/firearms-licensing-targeting-the-risk.pdf