The Pharmaceutical Journal
Vol 273 No 7325 p713-714
13 November 2004

This article
Reprint   Photocopy

PDF 66K, Acrobat Reader

· New contract
· Boots the Chemists
· Dispensing
· MedicinesComplete
· The Society
· The Journal

Letters to the Editor

MedicinesComplete

Brave new world?

From Mr A. J. Rogers, FRPharmS

Your recent editorial (PJ, 9 October, p504) reminded us that “the ability of pharmacists to do their new job properly is predicated on one main development — electronic communication between all sectors of the NHS”. With a new contract now almost within our grasp, it is vital that community pharmacists embrace new opportunities in information technology and I was therefore delighted to see that the Pharmaceutical Press had put together its MedicinesComplete package. I eagerly telephoned the office to get a quote for a licence.

I was asked how many pharmacists would be using it. I did not know; I wanted a licence for one computer in each of my five pharmacies. However, all that was available was a concurrent licence that allows up to 50 staff access or a seat licence that allows five specific people to access the system.
The price of a seat licence for five users was quoted as £2,430 +VAT per annum for Martindale, Stockley and the BNF, increasing by 5 per cent in the second year. Pricing for year three would be based on a comparison of the percentage growth in user statistics between years one and two but not less than year two pricing plus 5 per cent. I was offered a 10 per cent discount on the first year. I think that means that the more we use it, the more expensive it will become. And they are not continuously updated. Martindale and Stockley are updated quarterly, and the BNF twice a year, I was told.

Now perhaps I am being naive, but I had expected some advantages from an electronic version. I currently get a complimentary paper copy of the BNF and can access it online free of charge. Five paper editions of Stockley and Martindale would cost £1,675 during the offer period, so I would pay a premium of at least £8,555 over four years for the privilege of online access with quarterly updates and a saving of six inches of shelf space at each pharmacy. This ludicrous pricing structure might be acceptable to multinational companies, or to an NHS awash with money, but it is guaranteed to lock out the average community pharmacy struggling to cope with the rapidly changing world of health care. With so much information of varying quality available to our patients on the internet, surely the least we should expect from our professional body is a reliable source of information at a reasonable price.

The Council was elected with a mandate to ensure that the interests of the members remained a principle within our Charter. So far, its actions have not matched the rhetoric. It has continued to allow a bloated body of administrators to set the policy agenda. First, the steep increase in fees for part-time pharmacists was nodded through, an action that may provoke a significant departure from the Register. Now, in an effort to generate income to sustain its infrastructure, an opportunity has been missed to enable community pharmacists to reassert themselves as an information source in the internet environment.


J. Rogers
Epsom, Surrey

Send your letter to The Editor

Next Topic (The Society)
Previous Topic (Dispensing)