The Pharmaceutical Journal
Vol 270 No 7255 p879
28 June 2003

This article
Reprint
Photocopy

News summary

Related websites
Pharmaceutical Services Negotiating Committee (www.psnc.org.uk)

Pharmacy contract negotiations raise concerns as GPs accept their contract

Pharmacists are waiting to hear how negotiations for a new community pharmacy contract are progressing now that general practitioners have accepted theirs. A series of roadshows (see Panel) starts next week at which the Pharmaceutical Services Negotiating Committee will set out what it has achieved so far.

GPs eventually accepted a new contract for providing medical services last week. Negotiations started in September 2001, with GP leaders having to overcome much opposition on the way. The GP contract is to be implemented in April 2004.

The conduct of the two sets of negotiations is markedly different and some PSNC members are concerned about the process being used for pharmacists. Pharmacy negotiations started early this spring with no known implementation date.

A key difference lies in the involvement of elected representatives. Pharmacy negotiations involve a three member team, only one of whom — the PSNC's chairman of contract planning Steve Williams — is an elected member. The other negotiators are the PSNC's chief executive Sue Sharpe and head of NHS services Alastair Buxton. The doctors' negotiating team comprised eight elected members, backed by BMA negotiators and key staff.

Criticism of the PSNC process has come from members who say that the negotiations have been behind closed doors. One said: "PSNC members have not been fully informed about what has been going on. Negotiations are far more advanced than we expected and have been without our involvement."

It has also been claimed that the committee is divided over whether the final outcome should be put to a vote of contractors or of local pharmaceutical committees. It has been suggested that a contractors' vote would accept a contract that an LPC vote would reject because of the block votes of pharmacy multiples. It has also been claimed that the Government wants to see a regional roll-out of the new contract.

Another PSNC member, who is less concerned about the alleged lack of involvement of committee members, is concerned about the proposed new contract timetable. "It's a very tight timescale," he said. "April 2004 is still on the table. There is nothing to worry about yet, but it is reasonable to ask 'why so fast'."

He added that the time pressure was not coming from the PSNC and that there were no signs of any internal split, although there was some internal questioning.

Mrs Sharpe said that a full report on progress is given to every meeting of the PSNC and every PSNC member is involved in working groups looking at aspects of the possible contract. She said that the most important thing is to get a clear steer from the committee. "The PSNC has a chairman of contract planning in whom they have faith and we are only negotiating principles at this stage," she said.

On the April 2004 target she said: "I believe the service framework should be achievable by then. It is too early to say how funding negotiations will go. We will not be rushed over any agreement on funding. Even when funding is agreed it may take the Government some time to find it. It is very optimistic to assume that all the funding will be agreed with mechanisms in place for full implementation by April 2004."

Mrs Sharpe denied that there were any signs of plans for regional roll-outs of new services, but she predicted phased implementation.

Addressing concerns that the new contract might lead to an independent-multiple division, Mrs Sharpe said: "We must be absolutely clear that there is no sectoral bias. We have fought the Office of Fair Trading over small pharmacies and it would be absurd to sell them down the river over the new contract. Our benchmark is that there should be fair funding for small, efficient, independent pharmacies."