Claims for payment for prescriptions not dispensed, over a period of two years, and attempts to cover up his action, resulted in the Statutory Committee ordering that a Barry pharmacist should be removed from the register.
At its meeting on August 10, 1999, the committee inquired into the case of Mr Robert Lewis Jones, formerly of R. L. Jones Ltd, 9 Vere Street, Barry, Glamorgan. Information had been received that on January 11, 1999, Mr Jones had pleaded guilty to and had been convicted of two offences of false accounting, of obtaining a money transfer by deception, of supplying a medicinal product other than by prescription, and on doing an act tending and intended to pervert the course of justice. For those offences, he had been convicted and sentenced to a total of 18 months' imprisonment.
Mr G. R. F. Hudson, of Walker Martineau (solicitors), appeared in order to place the facts of the case before the committee.
Mr Jones was not present and was not represented.
The committee heard that the offences arose from claims for payment for prescriptions for Genotropin which had not been dispensed. The total amount involved was £98,820. The matter had come to light when the doctor issuing the prescriptions had been concerned over his practice costs, had made inquiries and brought the matter to the attention of the local health authority.
Mr Jones had written to the Royal Pharmaceutical Society expressing his regret over his actions.
Giving the committee's decision, the chairman (Mr Gary Flather, QC) said that the Genotropin had originally been prescribed by a specialist for Mr Jones's daughter in 1992. Repeat prescriptions had then been issued through her own doctor. In December, 1995, the specialist had decided to discontinue the treatment but repeat prescriptions continued to be issued. Mr Jones continued to deal with the prescriptions, which ordered other medication as well as Genotropin, but Mr Jones knew that it had been decided that his daughter no longer needed it.
He purported to dispense Genotropin, endorsing the prescriptions accordingly. He did not query with the prescriber whether a mistake had been made on the prescription. He had got himself into financial difficulties and saw an opportunity to rectify his troubles, hoping to pay back the money gained by this deceit. He went on endorsing the prescriptions and not telling the doctor for almost two years.
Enormous figures were involved, continued the chairman. Each injection of the growth hormone cost £274 and on each repeat prescription, which he had not dispensed, Mr Jones was making £5,490. Over the two-year period he had dishonestly obtained £98,820.
Eventually, the doctor whose practice issued the prescriptions asked to see Mr Jones's wife (from whom he was then separated) and daughter. The doctor was unaware of whether the daughter, his patient, was still receiving the medication; through a failure in communication, he had not heard from the consultant. Mr Jones had primed his wife and daughter before the visit of the need to tell the false story that the daughter was still taking Genotropin. They had gone along with that story.
Mr Jones had arranged for a supply of Genotropin to the value of £17,099 to be held to create the illusion that the daughter was still taking the growth hormone. The doctor asked what pharmacy was supplying the medication, and was given a false list of suppliers. After further investigation, he had reported the matter to the health authority.
When interviewed by the police, Mr Jones had admitted what he had done. The money had subsequently been repaid by deduction by the pricing authority from payments to Mr Jones's pharmacy.
Concluding, the chairman said Mr Jones had been on the register for 16 years and had no previous convictions. He had had to face the disgrace of what he had done and the fact that he had involved his ex-wife and, particularly, his daughter in the "wretched affair that he weaved around himself".
But large sums of money had been involved. There had been theft from the public purse and deceit. There had been abuse of his position as a pharmacist, asking the pricing authority to accept his word and his endorsement. "Many times we have said that that the pricing authority cannot work at all if it has to check out everything a pharmacist says. It does rely - and dishonest pharmacists like Mr Jones know it relies - on the word of professional men and women. Finally, we add to this list the prolonged nature of this dishonest scheme."
What Mr Jones had done was totally incompatible with the ethics of a professional man and had brought disgrace upon the profession. The committee directed that Mr Jones's name should be removed from the register.
Mr Jones had three months in which to appeal against the committee's decision.