|
The Pharmaceutical Journal |
||
|
PDF* 70K |
|
The Profession
|
FP10 switchingCan we have assurances from the PPA please?From Mr J . S. Urwin, MRPharmS Several years ago the design of the exemption declaration on the reverse of form FP10 was amended to incorporate spaces in which those claiming exemption while, for example, on income support could print their name, date of birth and national insurance number. As a result of this, a number of patients, perhaps elderly or partially sighted, would inadvertently sign the form in this area rather than in the correct place in Part 3. Since there is no requirement for many patients to fill in the extra details, I took the view that the patient had signed the form to claim exemption in good faith and simply drew an arrow to redirect the signature to the correct part of the form. Several months later the Prescription Pricing Authority started informing contractors how many prescriptions had been switched from "exempt" to "paid" bundles. Contractors are effectively fined the prescription charge for each item switched. On querying the number of forms that had been switched, I learnt that unless the signature was within the boundaries of Part 3, the form was treated as unsigned and switched to the "paid" bundle. The latest version of form FP10 has the space for the patient's signature in Part 3 enclosed in a bold box. Can the PPA assure us that a signature outside the box (but still within Part 3) will not be used as another excuse for switching prescriptions, thus generating savings at the expense of community pharmacists? John S. Urwin
|
|||
|
Previous Topic (Community
pharmacy) |
Home | Journals | News | Notice-board | Search | Jobs Classifieds | Site
Map | Contact us
©The Pharmaceutical Journal