Time for a moratorium
With regard to the dispute about the petition for a new Royal Charter for the Royal Pharmaceutical Society, The Journal has taken its coverage of events extremely seriously. Members of staff have done everything in their power to ensure that news stories and other contributions have been fair, accurate and balanced. What we have not done yet is publish any item giving reasons why, in its High Court action, the Save Our Society group has named individual members of the Society's Council. In the interests of our readers, we do so this week (p206).
We acknowledge that we are legally entitled to publish whatever we wish
about this case, and the Council of the Society, to which we are editorially
accountable, has not asked us to stop publishing comment about it. However,
the facts of the case and events leading up to the legal proceedings
are open to different interpretations. We believe that revisiting the
issues will not further illuminate members’ understanding of the
dispute because, with feelings running so high, issues that are “grey” are
being seen as “black” or “white”.
It is our view that nothing will be gained by publishing further comment
on the issues until the case is heard in the High Court, which everyone
involved must now recognise is the forum in which the dispute will be
determined. For that reason The Journal has decided to introduce a moratorium
on debate about the issue. If there are any developments before the case
is heard, The Journal will, of course, report them.
Back to Top
|
What are prescription charges for?
Once again, charges for NHS prescriptions in England and Scotland are due to rise in April, although, at 10p per single item, below the rate of inflation. Meanwhile, charges in Wales are expected to be phased out completely by 2007.
The whole system needs an overhaul, as The Journal has said on many previous
occasions. The question that remains to be answered is “What are
the charges for?”.
As an income generator for the NHS they barely scratch at the surface.
Well over half of prescriptions are exempt from charges. The result is
that people on low incomes, and others who do not have to pay, visit
their GPs for inappropriate clinical reasons. Only recently, has the
short-sightedness and the expense of this policy been recognised in government
circles and the treatment of minor ailments passed to some community
pharmacies.
For those patients who have to pay prescription charges but find the
cost a burden, other tactics are used: they only pick up the “essential” items
from their pharmacist, they miss doses or make the course run longer
than prescribed. We can only speculate on the impact that this approach
may have on these patients’ long-term health.
Of course, the prescription charge is not the only reason people do not
take medicines as prescribed: compliance is a complex issue. However,
taxpayers — who have to pay for everyone’s medicines — are
entitled to have an answer to the question posed.
Back to Top
|
The
Pharmaceutical Journal