Home > PJ (current issue) > Leading article | Search

PJ Online homeThe Pharmaceutical Journal
Vol 273 No 7323 p630
30 October 2004

This article
Reprint   Photocopy

PDF 45K, Acrobat Reader

Leading Article

Will PCTs be able to cope?

It is impossible to say definitively that the distribution of funds under the terms of the new community pharmacy contract will benefit all contractors in England. That is not because the terms, outlined in a News feature on p637, do not seem attractive and equitable (they do) but because the distribution formulae are so complicated that it will take even the most astute businessmen and women time to work out what income they can expect.

For a start, the new payment system is very different from the current system, so making direct comparisons will be hard. But, no doubt in the next few weeks, as contractors get to grips with the detail they will find where the small pots of gold lurk, and discover the areas where the money does not flow as deeply as they may wish.

Most likely, contractors will heed the advice of the Pharmaceutical Services Negotiating Committee and will back the new contract when they are balloted next month. However, the warning from Barry Andrews, PSNC chairman, that other groups will step into the breach if pharmacists reject the contract, is not, in itself, a reason to support it. GPs rejected the first version of the new general medical services contract offered to them and it does not seem to have done them much harm.

More worrying, and again there is a lesson to be learnt from general practice, is how primary care trusts will cope with implementation. Speak to any GP colleague and he or she will have some tale of woe about how hard the local primary care trust has found it to adjust to the new GMS contract. Even now, seven months after the new GMS contract went “live”, the waters are still muddy in places.

The upside of all this for pharmacy is that at least PCTs will have been able to use the implementation of the GMS contract as a dry run. Many aspects of the two contracts are similar and PCT executives will have found some of the pitfalls in the GMS contract that they will be able to avoid for pharmacists.

The downside — and it is a huge downside — is that since PCTs will have an important role to play in both implementing and monitoring the new contract (p8 and p9 in the PSNC guide to the new contract outline these responsibilities), many pharmacists who have had limited contact with their PCTs in the past will have to develop constructive relationships quickly And, when both sides are under huge pressure, this may lead to unexpected tensions.

It is incumbent upon the Department of Health to make sure that PCTs are fully supported in the next few months and thereby ensure that pharmacy becomes fully integrated into the primary care service.

Back to Top


©The Pharmaceutical Journal