From: ce11son@yahoo.ca   
      
   On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 23:23:50 +0100, Jenny M Benson   
    wrote:   
      
   >On 14-Jun-18 10:37 PM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:   
   >>   
   >> Were original NHS numbers also based on the letters at the top left of   
   >> the register pages? Even for those born later? I was born in 1960, but   
   >> can remember mine - "POCH; 12" (sometimes the semicolon was included,   
   >> sometimes it wasn't). [I cant remember my new-format one! I never   
   >> understood why they had to change them!]   
   >   
   >Mine was LICP3.  Goodness knows what it is now!   
   >>   
   The original formats were not uniformly structured, being of variable   
   length and tied to a country that you might no longer be living in.   
   They probably also were limited by an eventual brick wall if there was   
   to be no repetition before the entire original set of people had died.   
   The current numbers are of consistent length and also indicate (by   
   number block) which health system you are registered in; the tenth   
   digit is a check digit.   
      
   >> (I also don't understand why we had - have - to have an NHS number _and_   
   >> an NI one; surely a common one would have been better. The only reason I   
   >> can _think_ of is some "I am not a number, I am a free man" thinking,   
   >> which would be silly: I'd much rather be one number than several!)   
   >   
   >I have been asking for years why we couldn't be assigned a single number   
   >at birth which went with us for life and served for every purpose where   
   >an "ID number" is required.   
   >   
   For practical purposes that is your NHS/CHI number. If you move   
   country you don't lose it, it is put on hold and you get it back if   
   you return. You could have up to three numbers (ENG+WLS+MAN, SCT, NIR)   
   but only one should be active at a time.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)