Devil in the detail
Although the announcement earlier this week that some controls on entry will stay (p245) — with modifications and exemptions — and that the community pharmacy network is, therefore, more secure than the profession originally feared, the devil may still emerge in the detail.
Anxiety was first raised when the Office of Fair Trading announced — nearly
three years ago in October 2001 — that it was going to look into
control of entry into pharmacy contracts, partly prompted by the supermarket
chains, which were eager to open pharmacies in more of their stores.
Although the Department of Trade and Industry advocated a free-for-all
(when the OFT report was published in January 2003), common sense prevailed
in the Department of Health. The “balanced package of measures”,
first tabled nearly a year ago (September 2003), will underpin new regulations
covering the opening of new pharmacies in England. The vast majority
of community pharmacies will not be threatened, supermarkets will be
able to open some — but by no means all — of the pharmacies
they want and patients should have greater choice in where they obtain
their prescription medicines.
Members of the profession should take credit for this outcome because,
without the concerted campaign from individual pharmacists and groups
writing to their members of Parliament and ministers, the result could
have been rather different.
Nevertheless, as Howard Stoate, chairman of the All-Party Pharmacy Group,
has pointed out: “We are aware that these regulations are extremely
complex and changes could produce anomalies or unintended consequences.
So we are keen to listen to the views of pharmacists as the details of
these changes are unveiled and once the changes are implemented.”
One of the unintended consequences might be the impact on the pool of
pharmacists in a particular area if a couple of out-of-town supermarkets
open pharmacies. This week also sees the first advertisement for a new
pharmacy post in the managed sector under the aegis of “Agenda
for change” (p249 and pA20). Ironically, one of the expected consequences
of its implementation is that there will be greater demands on pharmacy
departments as they juggle with staff on 37.5-hour per week contracts.
In large hospitals this is likely to result in extra posts being created.
So mix the unintended consequences of the new control of entry regulations
with the intended consequences of “Agenda for change” and
it could be a double whammy if a large hospital is looking to recruit
extra pharmacy staff at the same time and in the same area as a supermarket
is opening a pharmacy. This might be good for pharmacists looking for
work but will it necessarily be good for pharmacy services provision
and for patients?
Back to Top
|
The
Pharmaceutical Journal