PJ Letters: Community pharmacy

Home > PJ > Letters

The Pharmaceutical Journal Vol 267 No 7164 p321-324
8 September 2001

This page
Reprint
Photocopy

Letters

  Medication errors
  Statins
  The Society
  The Journal
  The Council
  Infant soy formula
  Community pharmacy

Letters to the Editor

Community pharmacy (3 letters)

The plight of the independent

From “Two Pharmacists”

There has been a great deal of correspondence regarding pharmacy working conditions, locum pay, etc. While we sympathise with our locum pharmacists who have to work under pressure because of minimal support staff and long working hours, we would like to draw attention to the plight of the independent pharmacy contractor today. We find ourselves trapped into working long hours, including not being able to take lunch breaks, because even a minor loss of prescriptions or over-the-counter business can have dire financial consequences for our viability.

To illustrate this point, we have produced an income and expenditure account for the operation of our well-managed and accessible pharmacy service. All expenses have been apportioned to time spent on National Health Service services. Income and expenditure incurred on the OTC portion of the business has been exluded.

Table: Income and expenditure for the pharmacy’s NHS business

Income	£	£
Gross profit @ 13.8% on NHS turnover of £421,000 (average 3,700 items/month for 12 months @ £9.50/item)		58,098
Expenditure
Proprietor’s salary (apportioned assuming that 90% of time is spent on NHS work) — 40 hrs/wk @ £20/hr	37,440
Regular locum — 14 hrs/wk @ £17.50/hr	12,740
Full-time dispensing assistant — 40hr/wk @ £6.50/hr	13,520
Locum cover for proprietor’s holiday — (4wk/yr)	2,800
National Insurance and social security payments for proprietor and dispensing assistant	5,000
Counter staff salaries apportioned to handling NHS prescriptions	3,000
Rates and rent apportioned to NHS services	4,000
General expenses (repairs, insurance renewals, professional registration fees, accountancy fees, etc) apportioned to NHS services	5,000
Patient medication record system maintenance and upgrades	1,000
Collection and delivery of prescriptions	3,000
Bank charges and loan interest apportioned to NHS services	15,000
Projected loss from switching of exempt prescriptions to paid	1,000
Loss from out-of-date and dead stock	1,000
Staff cover for holidays (apportioned)	350
Total expenses		104,850
Net loss, excluding depreciation		(46,752)

With the loss of resale price maintenance and possible changes to the generics market, our viability and existence is seriously threatened. It needs to be recognised that most proprietors tend to work long hours with minimal support staff in order to remain operational.

As it stands, our current viability is maintained by our OTC buiness and our attempts to marginally overtake the discount clawback. It’s a very fine line.

“Two Pharmacists”
(297/22)

PSNC should speak out

From Mr A. Korsner, MRPharmS

As a party interested in pharmacy remuneration for many years, I well remember, on many occasions, being told by Pharmaceutical Services Negotiating Committee negotiators that there is little hope of any substantial increase in our fees. “The Government works on the principle of RRM, that is, recruitment, retention and motivation”, said the PSNC, “and as long as the schools of pharmacy are over-subscribed, pharmacists remain working in their jobs and stay motivated, our pay will stay low”.

That was then! In the PJ of 25 August (p251), I read of a “crisis” in pharmacy education, of schools reducing their thresholds for entry and the possibility of a lowering of educational standards as a result, and still there are places going unclaimed.

Apart from the “fallow year”, there are still shortages of pharmacists. I consider a significant part of this is due to an exodus from pharmacy into more lucrative professions and work and to the sale of their businesses and early retirement of proprietor pharmacists, no longer enjoying what they do. It is hard to find pharmacists happy with their lot and the vast majority of those quizzed are very unmotivated.

On a letters page in the same PJ (p261), under the title “Disgraceful rates for locum pharmacists”, Ajay Patel writes of low pay for locums. At a time when there is a shortage of staff, wages would have been expected to rise on a supply and demand basis but in our case the money is just not there to pay. On the same page Brian Harrop explains locum shortages with reference to the very different rates made available to GPs and pharmacists.

With problematical recruitment, decreasing retention and little motivation, I have yet to hear the PSNC speaking out and turning the Government’s own words back on it

On a recruitment note, it is all very well for Alan Nathan to consider targeting fourth and fifth year students but how fair is it to pull the wool over the eyes of innocent children? As a pharmaceutical careers adviser chairing a meeting a while ago, I found it hard to say anything when a colleague addressed the group of fourth and fifth formers considering medical futures thus; “For any of those of you thinking of doing pharmacy, I have only one piece of advice .. . do law!”

Adrian Korsner
London N3

Why is Nuffield gathering dust?

From Mr J. Patel MRPharmS

Ewan Black (PJ, 1 September, p294) and many others in the past have commented on the contract. In January 1986, under the chairmanship of Sir Kenneth Clucas, the Nuffield report was published. This report contained positive proposals to change the current system of remuneration. Why is this recommendation gathering dust? I can understand the Department of Health is not willing to consider the proposals, but what has the profession done to get them implemented?

Jayanti Patel
Leicester

Previous Topic (Infant soy formula)
Send your letter to The Editor