| · Eprex
· The Journal
· Council meeting
Letters to the Editor
|
Eprex
Unfair reimbursement
From Mr P. Melnick, MRPharmS
Some months ago Janssen-Cilag recalled certain batches of Eprex
prefilled syringes, throughout their range of strengths.
My understanding is that only full packs have been either credited or
replaced. I have never met a community pharmacist who bought Eprex other
than to fulfil an immediate prescription, but I have met many who had
split packs in their refrigerators.
The sums involved are not insubstantial. A single syringe costs £8.38
at the lowest level. And increases by that amount through each strength
to a maximum £83.80 each.
The company’s attitude appears to be that a split pack will already
have been paid for because the contractor can claim for the balance.
But the rules are far more complex than that. The balance cannot be claimed
if more than one prescription is received in the same month and more
than two-thirds of the pack is used. Further, some pharmacists who correctly
claim for the balance of a split pack will not be reimbursed when they
subsequently dispense prescriptions for the same strength item. They
then lose out because the remainder of the recalled batch is not dispensed.
Finally, if my understanding of the rules is correct, when there is no
further dispensing of that product strength six months after a balance
is claimed, the ownership of the split pack effectively reverts from
the Department of Health to the contractor.
The point is that irrespective of whether the recalled Eprex belongs
to either the contractor or the DoH, the fact is that it manifestly does
not belong to the Janssen-Cilag Group of companies or their insurers.
I wonder why they have been allowed to treat it as though it does.
Perry Melnick
Ilford, Essex
| |
MIKE BURGESS, senior manager business support, Janssen-Cilag Ltd,
replies:
Thank you for giving us the opportunity to respond to the
above letter.
In a batch recall situation our first priority is for patients’ safety
and therefore the main objective is to ensure that the affected batches
are removed from the marketplace as quickly as possible. During the course
of any recall it is never the company’s intention to financially
disadvantage its customers, contractors or the Department of Health.
We believe that the majority of the customers who returned stock to
us have
been fairly recompensed (either because they received replacement
or credit from us or because they have been reimbursed for broken
bulk).
However,
we would be happy to have dialogue with those customers who feel that
they have an outstanding issue in this respect. |
|
The
Pharmaceutical Journal