On the generics roller-coaster
Keep SGMs special

On the generics roller-coaster

Generic medicines, a core part of any pharmacy business, have been on a roller-coaster ride since we last looked in depth at this subject in 1997. As Andrew Kay describes in this issue (pp788–91), prices for generics rose sharply in 1999, partly as a result of the forced withdrawal of Regent Laboratories from the market, and were forced down again by the Government setting maximum prices last year. At the same time there has been consolidation in the industry and a slow move to the use of patient packs.

Margins on generics are notoriously slim and competition is fierce, particularly in the aftermath of a major patent expiry, several more of which are due in the next two years. The market will no doubt remain volatile but pharmacists can take some comfort that a degree of normality appears to have returned to the supply of generics. Manufacturers have found the marketplace difficult too, as our special feature describes, and reforms may take place at both a national and European level in the near future. Pharmacists who want to be forewarned about these changes can read more this week.

Back to Top

Keep SGMs special

How can special general meetings remain special? There is no doubt that the people who attended the meeting on June 3 (pp775–77) hold strong and heartfelt opinions. The problem was that only 56 members of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society attended to hear those opinions expressed. And, among those attending, only three were signatories to the original requisitions for the special general meeting and a significant proportion were members of the Society’s Council or staff. This figure compares with the hundreds who attended the SGM at the National Theatre in 1989 and the thousands who turned up at the Royal Albert Hall in 1965.

There clearly needs to be a change in the way SGMs can be called. With communication so much easier, a minimum of 100 signatures might be a starting point for a request for an SGM with the tacit acceptance that if a signatory is unable to attend the meeting on the day, that a personal representative is appointed who is able to attend in person. But, there also needs to be a mechanism, whereby members can express views on significant issues, that is more representative than the correspondence columns of The Journal, but which is speedy and does not depend on a wait until the next branch representatives’ meeting for the issue to be aired. Maybe we can offer a snapshot of members’ opinions by printing questionnaires and carrying out surveys through our website PJ Online. These views might not be always be acted upon by the Council, but they would certainly add a new dimension to debates and help keep SGMs special.

Back to Top