Statutory Committee
A pharmacist who kept over 4,000 prescriptions for low-value medicines and retained the prescription fees and who claimed fees for having had extemporaneously prepared medicines made up when he had prepared them himself has been struck from the register by order of the Statutory Committee.
At its meeting on December 8, 1999, the committee inquired into the case of Mr Samir Patel, of 41 Dudley Walk, Wolverhampton. Information had been received that on March 3, 1999, at Wolverhampton magistrates' court, Mr Patel had pleaded guilty to and had been convicted of eight counts of deception involving extemporaneously dispensed medicines. Prescriptions received for dispensing at one of three pharmacies owned by Mr Patel and which required ointments to be extemporaneously prepared had been endorsed as if they had been prepared at another pharmacy, also owned by Mr Patel.
As a result, about £1,114 had been obtained dishonestly from the Wolverhampton and Walsall health authorities. A further count to which Mr Patel had pleaded guilty had involved the theft of £13,416.68 from the Wolverhampton and Walsall health authorities. For these offences, Mr Patel had been sentenced at Wolverhampton crown court to a total of six months' imprisonment.
Mr Patel was present at the hearing and was represented by Mr G. Millar, of counsel, instructed by R. R. Sanghi & Co (solicitors).
Mr G. R. F. Hudson, of Walker Martineau (solicitors), appeared in order to place the facts of the case before the committee.
The committee heard that Mr Patel had three pharmacies, Parkfields pharmacy and Anderson chemist, at 337 and 311 Dudley Road, Wolverhampton, respectively, and Manor chemist, at 4 Harper Street, Willenhall. When presented with a prescription ordering an item that needed to be specially prepared, Mr Patel would prepare that item either at the pharmacy where it had been presented or at his home. Instead of claiming the "extemporaneously dispensed" payment, in the region of £3, he endorsed it to indicate that it had been specially made up at one of his other pharmacies and supplied to him at a total cost of £92.50.
The items involved had been ointments, except in one case, where £92.50 had been claimed for a pair of made-to-measure support stockings.
The charge relating to the theft of £13,416.84 arose from Mr Patel's failure to submit to the Prescription Pricing Authority prescription dispensed by his pharmacy for non-exempt patients, where the value of the items dispensed was significantly less than the prescription charge of £5.80. Mr Patel had profited illegally by the difference between the cost of the medicine supplied and the fee received. He had done this with over 4,000 prescriptions. The theft had occurred between January 1, 1995, and November 4, 1998. The total amount involved in all counts was £14,531,28; this had since been repaid.
A police witness said that she had visited Mr Patel at his pharmacy, following information from the Prescription Pricing Authority, in connection with the charges claimed on extemporaneous prescriptions. In the course of investigations, 4,034 prescriptions had been found, some at Anderson chemist, the remainder at Mr Patel's home. Mr Patel had admitted receiving the fees for them but not having submitted them to the PPA.
Giving the committee's decision, the chairman (Mr Gary Flather, QC) describing how the charges of obtaining money by deception had arisen, said that, for example, a prescription calling for the mixing together of liquid paraffin and soft paraffin had been charged for as having been made up specially by another pharmacy at a cost, "would you believe it", of £92.50, including claims for post, packing and VAT, when Mr Patel had himself prepared it. It might be said that the pricing authority should have noticed that the mixing of two simple substances did not merit a charge of £92.50 and that VAT was not levied on post and packing. But the PPA had many millions of prescriptions to sort out and was dealing with pharmacists - professional people whose figures should be, and were, accepted. That trust had been abused.
The second type of offence, relating to low-value prescriptions, was in many ways much more serious. It had taken place over a longer period, almost three years, and the loss was greater. It represented a downright flagrant course of dishonesty.
In Mr Patel's favour, he had pleaded guilty, had served time in prison and shown genuine remorse; he had been helpful to the police and had produced testimonials. But everything said in mitigation was not sufficient to deflect the committee from its decision that Mr Patel's name should be removed from the register.
He had three months in which to appeal.