PJ Online | PJ Letters: Drug tariff

Home > PJ (current issue) > Letters | Search

	The Pharmaceutical Journal Vol 271 No 7257 p47 12 July 2003	This page Reprint Photocopy
		PDF* 85K

Letters

  Modernisation
  English testing
  Drug tariff
  Zinamide
  Omeprazole
  Cardiac disease
  Penicillin
  CPD
  Boots pharmacists
  Onlooker

Letters to the Editor

Drug tariff

Do we have to dispense a prescription item at a loss?

From Mr C. E. H. Thimbleby, MRPharmS

Milan Amin (PJ, 28 June, p888) says that I am under no contractual or indeed any obligation to dispense a prescription item at a loss. The NHS (Pharmaceutical Services) Regulations clearly state: "Supply of pharmaceuticals, dressings and surgical items — All valid prescriptions for drugs that are presented must be supplied with reasonable promptness."

Handing back to the patient a prescription, the dispensing of which would have guaranteed a financial loss, would seem to be the sensible and easy approach. However, I would like to know what position the Royal Pharmaceutical Society holds on this issue from both the legal and ethical perspective. Similarly, if the assertion that no court of law would allow dispensing at a loss is true, why has this not been tested rigorously by the Pharmaceutical Services Negotiating Committee or the National Pharmaceutical Association?

We are professionals with clear ethical obligations. It is neither fair, nor possible, to be forced to pick and choose when medicines are to be supplied.

Christian Thimbleby
Titchfield, Hampshire

Stephen Lutener, head of pharmacy law, Royal Pharmaceutical Society, replies:

Mr Thimbleby raises an interesting legal, ethical and practical dilemma. The NHS Regulations do require a prescription for a drug (not being "scheduled drugs") or appliances (where these are normally supplied through the pharmacy) to be supplied with reasonable promptness. Under our Code of Ethics, "personal responsibilities" (see 'Medicines, ethics and practice' guide, p86), pharmacists are expected to comply with statutory provisions.

Pharmacists would probably agree that the equally important obligations arise under the "key responsibilities" (see MEP, p85) under which a pharmacist must "act in the interests of patients ... and seek to provide the best possible health care ...".

So I am afraid that the statutory and professional requirements point to a requirement to supply rather than turn the patient away. It would be difficult, if not impossible, to support the profession if a patient were forced to travel from pharmacy to pharmacy, trying to find someone to dispense a prescription.

Send your letter to The Editor

Previous Topic (English testing)
Next Topic (Zinamide)

* PDF files on PJ Online require Acrobat Reader 4 or later.