Component 2 of the HPCT "Referral Review Scheme"

Dear Hampshire PCT

I would like to make a request under the FOI Act.

For the purposes of the Act, the date of your receipt of this
request will be 12th February

In October 2008, the PCT introduced a "referral review scheme"
whereby practices who signed up were paid a payment of £200 per
week for 12 weeks "to support the clinical review of referrals made
within the practice" - component 1 of this scheme.

(The scheme is here:
http://www.neilb.demon.co.uk/download/hp...
)

The second component of this scheme - an "Additional Referral
Payment" - would reward practices who limited referrals to
secondary care, as per the table detailed in the scheme.

As you know, my practice - The Oaklands Practice - stated to the
PCT that whilst we were happy to sign up to component 1 of this
scheme, we believed that component 2 was not ethical and we did not
share the PCT/SHA view that it was. Accordingly, we did not sign up
to component 2.

In January 2009, the GPC produced its own guidance on GP referral
incentive schemes:
http://www.bma.org.uk/images/gpreferrals...

• Please could you let me know how many practices (of the 144 in
Hampshire PCT) signed up to component 1 of this scheme.

• Please could you let me know how many practices (as of 12th
February) have NOT signed up to component 2 of this scheme,
including those who have subsequently withdrawn from this
component.

• Please could you list the names of those practices (as of 12th
February) who are continuing with component 2 of this scheme.

As per Section 4a of Part 1 of the FOI Act
(
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/ukp...
) I would like the information in question held at the time when my
request is received (draft or otherwise), except that account may
be taken of any amendment or deletion made between now and the
latest time by which the information is to be communicated to me,
being an amendment or deletion that would have been made regardless
of the receipt of my request.

I would be grateful if you would be kind enough to send me the
requested information promptly and in any event not later than the
twentieth working day following the date of receipt of my request -
that is by then end of the working day of 12th March.

If my request is denied in whole or in part, or specific items
within the responses are withheld from disclosure, then you must
justify all deletions by reference to specific exemptions of the
act, as per Section 17 of the Act
(
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/ukp...
). Where you rely on a qualified exemption to withhold disclosure,
you are obliged to consider the public interest in your decision
and the refusal notice must explain not only which exemption
applies and why, but also the public interest arguments addressed
in reaching the decision.

I wish to receive the information by email; I believe such a
request would be reasonable in these circumstances. As per Section
11 of Part 1 of the FOI Act (
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/ukp...
) I would be grateful if you would "so far as reasonably
practicable give effect to that preference"; if you determine that
it is not reasonably practicable to comply with this preference
then you are required by law to notify me of the reasons for your
determination.

The “return address” (to which the information that I have
requested be should be sent ) is the email address that this
particular request originates from.

I would be grateful if you would kindly acknowledge receipt of this
request as recommended by the ICO (“It would be good practice to
acknowledge receipt of requests and to refer to the 20 working day
time limit, so that applicants know their request is being dealt
with”).

Thank you once again.

Yours sincerely,

Dr Neil Bhatia

Dear Debbie,

No, and it is utterly unacceptable that you should ask for this as
a prerequisite to releasing information.

The identity of an applicant under the Act is irrelevant unless you
believe that the applicant is using a fictitious name (which I am
not) or that a repeated or vexatious request is being made (which
is not).

Applications under the Act are motive blind. As for this request,
the identity of the requester - whether myself or anyone else - is
irrelevant to the information being sought.

I look forward to the receiving information within the statutory 20
days.

Kind regards,

Dr Neil Bhatia

Dear Debbie,

I have now made a formal complaint to the ICO about your "request".

Neither the identity of the requester, nor the reason for the
request, nor the use the requester may make of the information, can
influence the processing of a FOI request. All requests have to be
handled as applicant-blind.

Surely you know this?

Up until now, Hampshire PCT have always dealt with FOI requests in
a professional manner.

I suggest you listen less to "suggestions" from the LMC and focus
instead on your obligations under the Act and its procedural
guidance.

I look forward to the information in due course.

Yours sincerely,

Dr Neil Bhatia

Dear Debbie,

Thank you for the response.

Dr Neil Bhatia

Dear Debbie,

Thank you for your apology, however your actions didn't cause me
any distress.

My request, my identity and your responses (including the
information requested) are publicly available on the WDTK website,
and always have been ever since I made it and you responded.

There was, and never is a need to identify a requester in such
circumstances. Many would see that as an attempt to intimidate a
requester into withdrawing their request.

And that was never going to happen.

Yours sincerely,

Dr Neil Bhatia