The Pharmaceutical Journal
Vol 270 No 7236 p224-225
15 February 2003
PDF* 90K
|
|
The Pharmaceutical Journal |
|
|
PDF* 90K |
|
OFT report
|
OFT reportOnly winners will be general practitionersFrom R. A. Parekh, MRPharmS After reading parts of the Office of Fair Trading report, I cannot help thinking that John Vickers, Director General of Fair Trading, made up his mind right from the beginning that control of entry must go. Instead of looking at things objectively, he spent the past 18 months building up a case to present to the Government in order to justify his decision. However, before our supermarket colleagues start celebrating, they need to give some thought to the long-term effect that deregulation would have on their own pharmacies. The biggest threat to a properly regulated and funded pharmaceutical service would come from doctors, not from other pharmacists or supermarkets. What will happen when doctors start opening pharmacies within their own surgeries? By my calculations any GP practice with three or more partners would find it profitable to open an in-surgery pharmacy. Taking into account the costs of employing a pharmacist and perhaps a dispensary technician, most doctors would still enjoy a substantial additional income to their practices. I estimate that almost 70 per cent of the prescriptions generated in the surgery would be dispensed by a pharmacy on site. That would leave about 30 per cent of the prescriptions to be dispensed elsewhere. I wonder how many of these would eventually reach an out-of-town supermarket? I expect that it would be very few. As for young pharmacists, whose cause Asda seems to be championing (PJ, 25 January, p110), there would be no suitable site for them to open a new pharmacy because they would eventually be "leapfrogged" by their local GPs. So it seems that if the Government accepts the OFT recommendation there would be no winners; not supermarkets, not young pharmacists and certainly not patients. The only winners that would emerge out of this would be doctors. R. A. Parekh Politicians and economists need educatingFrom Mr J. C. McClellan, MRPharmS I am not that surprised at the Office of Fair Trading report proposing deregulation of control of entry. Once again, it reveals politicians' and civil servants' ignorance and low opinion of pharmacists. This attitude goes back to Margaret Thatcher's era. She instigated today's climate by instilling in the minds of the public that profit is the be-all and end-all of progress, to the exclusion of skilled dedication in any occupation, be it as butcher, baker or candlestick-maker. It is the rejection of the tenet "to each his or her trade or profession", and the implication that anyone can do anyone else's job. This is exemplified on the high street: building societies providing banking services, petrol-stations selling food and over-the-counter medicines, and so on. But worst of all are the supermarkets, which have grasped nearly all the products of other businesses and the associated profits. The public now has no real choice or personal service. In the area where I have lived for 49 years most small shops have closed, including two pharmacies. A shopping mall has opened about a mile away, which is owned by Asda; it has resulted in the closure of three businesses and pushed the sole pharmacy into smaller premises. Now, the OFT implies that pharmacy is a monopoly. It is time these politicians and economists were educated. J. McClellan A welcome from potential proprietorsFrom Mr G. J. Weeks, MRPharmS Once again the noise of the vested interests in our profession are rendering inaudible the voices of those who would benefit from deregulation of community pharmacy. Pharmacists who aspire to move from employee status to that of proprietor seem to have been totally ignored. They will welcome the removal of a restraint on freedom. Then there is Joe Public, who has not been well served by the restriction. Take Greenford, for example, where it has resulted in the loss of a local pharmacy, where the people are. The contract was bought by a multiple in the new shopping centre, where the people are not. It all goes to illustrate the adage that the professions are a conspiracy against the laity. However, it remains to be seen if this Government will act in the public interest. Perhaps Tony Blair could, in this, prove to favour market forces more than Margaret Thatcher did. Graham Weeks How did the Society react?From Mr I. M. Caldwell, FRPharmS Being idle and retired gives one the freedom to read the papers. I read three newspapers on Saturday 18 January and two on Sunday 19 January, both tabloid and broadsheet. All reported with varying degrees of accuracy on the proposals of the Office of Fair Trading regarding deregulation of the National Health Service contract. Nowhere was there comment from our Society although I understand that there was comment from the President in one broadsheet. Since the report has been expected since last May, were there no scenario-based outline responses on the stocks ready for instant release? Do we still have staff who have a public relations function? The National Pharmaceutical Association, Scottish Pharmaceutical Federation and the Scottish Pharmaceutical General Council were widely and extensively quoted in the press and on television. Was the Society's press release ignored by the media and, if so, have representations been made to the Press Complaints Commission and the Broadcasting Standards Authority about the omissions as instances of failure in balanced reporting? If the recommendation in the OFT report is eventually implemented it will impact on the professional lives of the majority of pharmacists, be they proprietors, managers, employees or locums, community or hospital. Our Society is obliged to represent the interests of its members. Did I miss a lot during my media browsing or do we appear not to have done so on this occasion? I. M. Caldwell
Limitations of Society's proposed responseFrom Mr A. Matalia, MRPharmS I fully support the Office of Fair Trading report on pharmacy and contract limitation. A free market economy is the fairest way forward. Under the old system there was no free market. This was unfair because the OFT did not impose minimum salaries for pharmacists, which enabled employers to exploit pharmacists and pay them as little as possible. These pharmacists either had to work for low salaries or leave pharmacy since most could not afford the high goodwill values of chemist shops. Further, when contract limitation was introduced there was never a vote of the membership of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society. The Society continues to support contract limitation even though it disadvantages the majority of its members. The Department of Trade and Industry should prevent the Society supporting contract limitation without a vote of its membership. A. Matalia
The more letters to the national press the betterFrom Mr B. Zatland, MRPharmS I was delighted to see published in The Times (5 February) a clutch of letters from pharmacists and others concerning the recent report of the Office of Fair Trading. The more letters that are sent to the national press on these matters, alerting the public to the implications of government decisions, the better. Ben Zatland Let us have a day of actionFrom Mr C. J. McKendrick, MRPharmS Following the Office of Fair Trading report, there is a 90-day consultation period during which all vested interests will make their representations to Ministers. I believe that actions speak louder than words and would call on the National Pharmaceutical Association to organise a "day of action" in London a week or so before Ministers pronounce on their deliberations. My customers have already started offering their support, and I would suggest that any motivated community pharmacist should hire a bus and recruit 20 or 30 customers to make the trip to London to voice their support to save the country's community pharmacy network. Total deregulation will lead to pharmacy closures in the most vulnerable communities, leaving thousands of people without easy access to a local community pharmacy. Compared with this, all he other pharmacy issues put together do not amount to a row of beans. If local community pharmacists do not make a stand here they can kiss goodbye to it all. So come on NPA, let us have a little bit of direct action, and come on pharmacists, e-mail the NPA (npa@npa.co.uk) and offer your support. Chris McKendrick |
|||||||||||||
|
Send your letter to The Editor |
Next Topic (Supermarket pharmacy) |
Home | Journals | News | Notice-board | Search | Jobs Classifieds | Site Map | Contact us
