The Pharmaceutical Journal Vol 266 No 7154 p888-891
June 30, 2001

  Medicines promotions
  Primary care pharmacy
  Diabetes
  Veterinary medicines
  Mutual recognition
  Code of Ethics
  Checking technicians
  Disillusioned youth
  Martindale

Medicines promotions

At odds with pack size limitation

From Dr B. Wells, MRPharmS

I read with interest the views of John Savage and Brijesh Patel (PJ, June 23, p852) about the ethical situation regarding the “three for two” Nurofen sales promotion by Boots. I also noted the response from Helen Darracott, the Royal Pharmaceutical Society’s head of ethics, which seemed to me to offer little obvious support for the correspondents except, perhaps, for the observation that pharmacists and superintendent pharmacists must be satisfied that promotions are professionally acceptable.

Since the abolition of resale price maintenance nobody can argue against price reductions on individual packs of medicines in any retail outlet. These offer a cash saving for the consumer who can receive a manufacturer’s original pack sufficient for the purpose of satisfying his or her immediate needs. However, “three for two” promotions offer no cash saving, but supply more medicine for the same price. This has traditionally been regarded as undesirable in pharmacy (and certainly unprofessional under the old Code of Ethics).

It is noteworthy that the total quantity of product supplied on each occasion would be classified as a P medicine if enclosed within one container instead of three.

It would be interesting to know if Boots treats these sales as general sales or pharmacy sales. Either way the sale of multiple packs of GSL medicines sends an interesting message to both supermarkets and legislators about the view taken of medicines by a major pharmaceutical company. Such promotions are at odds with the rationale behind pack size limitation. Indeed, the benefit, in terms of reduced deaths, of smaller OTC analgesic packs (and, therefore, limitation of quantity supplied) was reported in The Journal of May 26 (p701). Ironically, this is the same issue that reported the Boots promotions, which will probably increase the quantity of analgesics in bathroom cabinets.

I noted that, when discussing the effect of the Competition Act on the new Code of Ethics, Bill Darling was reported (PJ, May 26, p710) as saying that “the promotion of medicines by price could not be prohibited. What the profession could do on grounds of public safety was to prevent promotional methods that encouraged an individual to purchase a medicine that was not wanted or a medicine in a quantity that was professionally unacceptable.”

In the light of these observations and the concerns about “three for two” promotions raised by the National Pharmaceutical Association (PJ, June 2, p736), I believe that the views of Mr Savage and Mr Patel are valid. I also agree with their conclusions that the superintendent pharmacist of Boots should be called to account for these promotions.

Brian Wells
Aldbrough, East Yorkshire

Back to Top

Next Topic (Primary care pharmacy)
Send your letter to The Editor