| · New contract
· Medicines management
· Registration examination
· Levothyroxine
· Hiccups
· Prescription pricing
· IT
· Personal control
· Control of entry
· Supermarket pharmacies
· Retention fees
· The Society
· The Journal
Letters to the Editor
|
New contract
Ballot date should be put back
From Mr I. Abrahams, MRPharmS
Pharmacy contractors are each about to make their most important professional
or business decision since they decided to become pharmacists; indeed
this is probably an even more important moment than when they decided
to buy a community pharmacy. Why then has the Pharmaceutical Services
Negotiating Committee given such a short time in which we must decide
on how to vote? For those contractors whose local “roadshow” is
not until 14 November, they will have less than a week to make up their
minds and not even have a chance to read how the debate is going in the
following weekend’s press.
Considering the time taken to produce the final version of the offer,
bearing in mind that this is a busy trading period, do we not deserve
at least until the end of the year to vote? Is it because the PSNC is
trying to pressure us into voting “Yes” before we have taken
on board all the drawbacks? Is it because it does not want to answer
the searching questions which will no doubt be asked? Or is it the Government
that wants to get started on 1 April?
If it is Government pressure, tell them hard luck — we will not
be pressured. If it is not the Government then please put back the voting
date so all can be discussed. I am saying this as a contractor who wants
to vote “Yes” but needs a bit more convincing.
If the PSNC does not agree, I hope that we have the courage to say “No”.
After all, that is what negotiation is all about.
Ian Abrahams
Pinner, Middlesex
Two points to consider for independent contractors
From Mr J. A. Patel, MRPharmS
While we are discussing the new contract two points need to be addressed,
especially for independent contractors in London. First, inclusion of
a “London weighting allowance” in the payments, and secondly,
some element to favour independent contractors since the multiples have
far greater buying power with Drug Tariff discounts.
A contractor, like myself, with a rates bill of £10,000 per annum
in London is paid the same as a contractor in the North of England providing
a similar service. No account is made for the extra living costs in London,
as it is in other professions.
Similarly no distinctions exist between multiples and independents, which
have a much smaller buying power. The proposed new contract, by removing
Drug Tariff price difference, in effect takes more away from independents
in order to pay for the extra services. As the number of independents
shrink they will bear a proportionately greater cost.
I think all independent London contractors should raise these two points
with their local representatives on the local pharmaceutical committee
and the Pharmaceutical Services Negotiating Committee.
Jayesh A. Patel
West Wimbledon, London
Put in the disposable category
From Mr S. S. Kalsi, MRPharmS
When the new contract was being promoted everyone was on a high. We
would be true clinicians and lose that “tablet counting shopkeeper” label.
But the finished article does not live up to expectation.
The majority basis is still on prescription numbers and the pharmacies
at the bottom have been put into the disposable category. Yet these are
the very people who have brought success to primary care trusts with
stop smoking, minor ailments and prescription intervention schemes, to
name but a few.
The real slap in the face is the one year exit payment. Is this the true
worth of people who have invested their lives’ work in community
care in its truest form, and who were practising it even before it was
a twinkle in the Government’s eye?
Surinder Singh Kalsi
Ilford,
Essex
Will new services be properly funded?
From Mr J. R. Ahmed, MRPharmS
At a recent Birmingham Local Pharmaceutical Committee meeting, a question
was asked whether, under the new contract, the average contractor would
be better or worse off than at present. The reply from the LPC chairman
was that the negotiations were held under the premise that no contractor
would be worse off.
I was under the impression that the Pharmaceutical Services Negotiating
Committee was negotiating on the basis of new money for new services.
If I am to receive the same remuneration for more work then this new
contract will be a non-starter as far as I am concerned. Being remunerated
for new services with no increase in overall funding means my dispensing
fee will have to be reduced, perhaps to as little as 65p an item. I would
have to employ extra staff to dispense prescriptions while I lock myself
in my new consultation room. As an independent contractor, my expenses
will dramatically rise, which I cannot afford unless my income goes up,
which looks like not occurring under the new contract. One may argue
that dispensers cost less than a pharmacist so dispensing fees can go
down but overall my expenses will rise. I find dispensing rewarding and
I am happy with the prospect of undertaking the new essential services,
but only if I can afford to do so.
Would the PSNC tell all contractors what the new contract is going to
do for us in terms of a professional service funded in a professional
manner?
J. Ahmed
Birmingham
| |
MIKE DENT, head of finance, Pharmaceutical Services Negotiating
Committee, replies:
Mr Ahmed should by now have received his copy
of the PSNC book ‘The new contract for community pharmacy 2004’.
He will see that fears of a reduction in item fee to 65p are unfounded
and that there is new money available. The PSNC is currently running
an extensive programme
of roadshows on the new contract before the ballot, and would encourage contractors
to attend one of these. Information is also available on the PSNC website. |
Support new contract
From Mr M. H. Smith, MRPharmS
I have recently returned from the UniChem Convention and I am pleased
to say with a degree of optimism for the future of our profession. The
presentations clearly demonstrated that the new NHS contract represents
not only a fair deal for pharmacy but also an outstanding opportunity for
the profession in the future.
I believe that the sound evidence-based approach of the Pharmaceutical
Services Negotiating Committee contributed much to the satisfactory outcome
of these long and protracted negotiations. I would urge all contractors
to support the new contract.
At the convention, the message from Howard Stoate, chairman of the All
Party Pharmacy Group, was clear: “The DoH has done all that it can
for pharmacists — now it is up to you.”
Mike Smith
Chairman, UniChem Ltd |
The
Pharmaceutical Journal