Is postcode pharmacy such a bad thing?
Participants in the local pharmaceutical committees'
conference earlier this week were divided in their opinion of the mood
of the profession. Some believed that people still felt down-trodden and
deflated, and this was reflected in a rather dull gathering; others believed
that, with Barry Andrews and Sue Sharpe at the helm, the future looked
much brighter. Without doubt, 2002 is make-or-break year for the credibility
of the profession's negotiators.
With increasing volumes of prescriptions being generated
as a result of the implementation of the national service frameworks it
is universally accepted that the existing contract is no longer fair.
The problem is what comes next. The Government will
want to see local pharmaceutical services contracts up and running before
they turn their attention to the national pharmaceutical services contract.
The precedent for this was set by their experience with general practitioners.
A number of GPs opted to take up personal medical services contracts (and
agreed to provide medical care tailor-made for their locality) long before
GP leaders realised that the majority of the profession were missing out
and that the national contract needed to be updated as well. PMS and LPS
give the Government the chance to divide and rule, to reward initiative
and innovation and to see good practice develop at a fast pace, which
is why the Government may seem slow to talk about the introduction of
a new national contract.
Mr Andrews and Mrs Sharpe may recognise that LPS
contracts, assuming they are given structure relatively soon, could undermine
the power of the PSNC because they have both emphasised this week the
importance of developing a new national contract. If the balance between
those pharmacists working to a national contract and those in LPS is wrong
said Mr Andrews, there is a danger that the country will end up with postcode
pharmacy.
The real question is what is right for the future
of pharmacy. Innovation and initiative need to be rewarded, and rewarded
soon. But there does not seem much urgency from the Government for negotiations
on a new national contract: Hazel Blears has spoken about commitment to
negotiation but the process could easily spill into 2003–04. The danger
is that if the profession hangs around for a new national contract instead
of giving pharmacists with good ideas and energy freedom, good pharmaceutical
practice will be sacrificed to protect the established pharmacist who
wants to continue as before, with extra money for carrying out their current
responsibilities.
|
