The Pharmaceutical Journal
Vol 270 No 7231 p49
11 January 2003
PDF* 75K
|
|
The Pharmaceutical Journal |
|
|
PDF* 75K |
|
Period-of-treatment fee
|
Period-of-treatment feeFee was a small compensationFrom Mr G. S. Phillips, MRPharmS Philip Walton describes the Pharmaceutical Services Negotiating Committee as "Robin Hood in reverse" for its handling of the period of treatment fee issue — I could not agree more. In her response to Mr Walton's letter (PJ, 21/28 December 2002, p885) Sue Sharpe, asks: "If any other contractors can establish significant reductions in their fees, it would be helpful if they could send relevant information to Godfrey Horridge at the PSNC, because this will assist the committee in considering the issue for future years." I own a village pharmacy, the sole pharmacy serving a population of 6,000 to 8,000 (depending how wide you cast the population net). Based on the population size, and indeed the value of the drugs we dispense, we should be dispensing around 6,000 items per month. However, the local general practitioners prescribe three to six months supply as their norm. As a direct result, we dispense only 3,000 items per month, our net ingredients cost (average value of the drugs excluding fees) is 50 per cent above the national average, and our gross profit margin is 25 per cent below the national average. The period-of-treatment fees go some small way to offsetting this inequity, and our "negotiators" — the PSNC — have chosen to remove from my remuneration this small compensation. What I find even more incredible is that Sue Sharpe is asking for evidence now, when the deal (if one can call it that) has been done. What responsible organisation makes a decision like this, and then conducts the impact assessment retrospectively when the damage has been done? Mrs Sharpe may claim that the fee is not "abolished" merely "suspended" — only time will tell if that assertion is justified. Meanwhile I wish to express my support for Imran Khan's campaign to challenge the PSNC's decision (PJ, 21/28 December 2002, p877). Graham Phillips Why has PSNC not learnt from previous fiascos?From Mr B. D. Morrison, MRPharmS Yet again the Department of Health has proposed, and the Pharmaceutical Services Negotiating Committee has accepted, a fee adjustment that unfairly attacks a section of pharmacy contractors. This is a triple whammy: • Those pharmacies that receive benefit from the period-of-treatment fee do so because their prescriptions are largely for 56 days or more. The fee for 56 days is 1 x 94.6p + 40p (which is to be removed). • They therefore forgo the full dispensing fee that would benefit their colleagues whose prescriptions are largely 28-day ones, who would receive 2 x 94.6p for a 56-day period. • Pharmacists who work on a 56-day supply are forced to have a higher stockholding to service the prescriptions thus incurring higher costs. We must ask why we have been singled out to repay the overpayment caused by the increase in prescription numbers, when it is clear that the bulk of the increased numbers went to those on 28-day supply in the first place. I hope that when the three-month clawback is over, the first call on new money is to double the period-of-treatment fee to 80p (or even the full 94.6p). This would create a fairer distribution of the total sum and go some way to redress this grossly unfair fee removal. A fee reduction caused by increased prescription numbers should fall on all prescriptions. The PSNC should have learnt from previous fiascos — it clearly has not. Perhaps now is the time to merge the National Pharmaceutical Association and the PSNC to create a more unified and representative body. Brian Morrison What if fee suspension becomes norm?From Mr H. Argomandkhah, MRPharmS I have read your column inches in relation to the recent decision to stop period-of-treatment payment to pharmacy contractors. This is to recover an overpayment of £4m from contributors during 2001–02. The alternative, we were told, was to reduce dispensing fees across the board. The Pharmaceutical Services Negotiating Committee led us to believe that this was following their negotiation with the Department. However, PSNC News paints a different picture — the Department of Health offered this avenue to recover the overpayment as opposed to a reduction in the dispensing fee, presumably because this would go down better with pharmacists and contractors after last year's fiasco, and the PSNC — with a narrow majority — accepted this offer. The question I would like to raise is, where is the negotiated settlement? It seems that if any negotiation takes place it appears to be between PSNC members rather than the PSNC and the Department of Health. What happens if the suspension of the period-of-treatment fee between now and 1 April 2003 does not recoup the overpayment of £4m and another clawback action is triggered? The other problem with these sorts of arrangements is that what seems like an exceptional measure or a one-off suddenly becomes the norm and a chunk of contractors and pharmacists are disadvantaged for good. One only needs to look at the dispensing fee in the past 10 years to realise that what goes down never comes up again. Finally, I would like to support Imran Khan (PJ, 21/28 December 2002, p877) in his campaign to challenge the PSNC on this decision. I would therefore appreciate it if readers who support a challenge to the PSNC write to me stating that they are unhappy at the decision making process of the PSNC. With the local pharmaceutical committee conference around the corner there may not be a need for special meetings. However, the PSNC and the Department must realise that they cannot continue to disenfranchise contractors and pharmacists bit by bit. Eventually we will reach a point when one of them will add the straw that breaks the camel's back. Where will pharmacy, patients, the PSNC and the Department be then? Hassan Argomandkhah |
||||
|
Send your letter to The Editor |
Next Topic (PI insurance) |
Home | Journals | News | Notice-board | Search | Jobs Classifieds | Site
Map | Contact us
©The Pharmaceutical Journal
