An Essex pharmacist who had endorsed prescriptions for a more expensive pack of a medicine than had actually been supplied has had his name removed from the register by order of the Statutory Committee.
At its meeting on November 17, 1999, the committee inquired into the case of Mr Perry Melnick, of 11 Highwood Gardens, Ilford, Essex. Information had been received that on February 19, 1999, at Redbridge magistrates' court, Mr Melnick had pleaded guilty to and been convicted of five offences of falsifying a prescription, claiming to have supplied 2ml ampoules of apomorphine when 5ml ampoules had been supplied, contrary to the Theft Act 1968, and causing a loss to the National Health Service.
For those offences, Mr Melnick had been sentenced at Snaresbrook crown court on April 7, 1999, to be fined a total of £5,000 or, in default, 28 days' imprisonment, and ordered to pay £100 costs. Nineteen other offences were taken into account; all 24 offences had taken place between November 8, 1996, and October 1, 1997.
Mr G. F. R. Hudson, of Walker Martineau (solicitors), appeared in order to place the facts before the committee.
Mr R. Fortson, of counsel, and Mr R. Shearman, of Offenbach & Co (solicitors), represented Mr Melnick, who was present at the hearing.
The committee heard that each of the prescriptions had ordered "apomorphine injections as directed; supply 100 ampoules". On some of the prescriptions, the wording "20mg/2ml" had been included. In each case the prescriptions had been endorsed to the effect that 100 ampoules in 20 boxes of five 20mg/2ml had been supplied. In fact, 40 ampoules of 5ml had been supplied to the patient.There was an additional cost of £157 for the 2ml ampoules and this was claimed on each prescription dispensed. In total, £3,037.95 in excess of entitlement had been claimed. This had since been repaid. Mr Melnick had now sold his pharmacy.
Giving the committee's decision, the chairman (Mr Gary Flather, QC) said that the apomorphine had originally been prescribed by a hospital and the repeat prescriptions were issued by the patient's own doctor. The prescriptions did not usually specify 2ml ampoules, only the total quantity to be supplied. The patient had taken his prescription to Mr Melnick's pharmacy and said he found 5ml ampoules more convenient to use than the 2ml prescribed. Mr Melnick supplied 5ml ampoules, but without reference to the doctor. By a mistake in ordering, Mr Melnick had initially received 40 boxes of 5ml ampoules, which cost some £2,500, instead of 40 ampoules. To use up the wrongly ordered stock, Mr Melnick continued to supply 5ml ampoules.
However, when the over-ordered stock had been used up, instead of reviewing his procedure, Mr Melnick continued to order and supply 5ml ampoules and endorse the prescriptions as if 2ml ampoules had been supplied. This occurred over a period of months. The patient was not the best judge of what he ought to have but even if the 5ml ampoules were better for him that did not excuse Mr Melnick endorsing the prescriptions that 2ml ampoules had been supplied, which gave a balance of money in his favour.
Mr Melnick had told the committee that he had not intended to be dishonest. He had taken a risk in stocking the apomorphine to be able to supply the patient when the doctor was erratic in supplying prescriptions and felt it was only fair that he should take the difference in pricing between the 2ml and the 5ml ampoules. "We do not think that was sensible or realistic," said the chairman. What had happened was dishonest.
It had been said in mitigation that Mr Melnick had given good service to pharmacy; he had produced excellent references. The patient had not suffered in any way. But, said the chairman, pharmacists were expected to resist any temptation to make money illicitly.
There had been a breach of trust between the pharmacist and the pricing authority, which relied on pharmacists to provide accurate and truthful returns. The committee had always turned its face against dishonesty, breach of trust and taking from the public purse. The precedents were that in such cases, striking off was invariably ordered.
The committee could find no reason why that precedent should not be followed, and ordered that the name of Mr Melnick should be removed from the register. He had three months in which to appeal against the decision.