From Mr A. C. Gush MRPharmS
SIR,—I have read with grave concern your recent news item on the services
of Pharmacy Partners (PJ, August 5, p189),
which purports to solve financial uncertainty resulting from National Health
Service reimbursement. I believe the item may be misleading, especially for
less financially aware contractors. It is important to consider all factors
within such a scheme, not simply the benefits.
The real cost when compared on a like-for-like situation is of the utmost importance.
Pharmacy Partners appear to dislike the word “interest” and prefer
to say “charge a fee of 2 per cent of the payments made”. I estimate
that the annual charge, or interest, is between 14 and 15 per cent. This compares
with an overdraft rate of slightly more than 7 per cent and loans of even less.
A charge at this level appears excessive and I would have expected you to highlight
such a cost. It has always been my understanding that finance for equipment
or long term assets should be with lower-cost, long-term funding. You quoted
the chairman of Pharmacy Partners as saying that this high price funding could
be used for “refurbishing premises” or “investing in their business”.
This really is bad advice.
Pharmacy Partners claims to release the cash caught up in the payment cycle.
It does not, however, emphasise the amount that individual contractors would
have to borrow to meet the shortfall in funds from the NHS, were they to dispense
with the service.
My concerns are not simply founded on the negative impact on the individual
contractor. With the number of pharmacies being targeted by Pharmacy Partners,
I am deeply concerned about the impact if this process were to be successful.
When the Prescription Pricing Authority starts to pay contractors from live
data, a successful Pharmacy Partners scheme may set a dangerous precedent which
will affect all contractors. The success of such a scheme will allow the Government
to question whether the current level of reimbursement is not, in fact, too
generous and presents the perfect opportunity for all payments to be reduced
by 2 per cent.
I feel that it is important all contractors are made aware of these potentially
negative effects upon their businesses. The focus should be upon promoting beneficial
services that will support and develop the profession over the long term and
not lead potentially to a further erosion of our profit margins.
Andrew Gush
Bridgend,
Mid Glamorgan