| · Drug donations
· CAM
· Pharmacy in Scotland
· Community pharmacy
· Prescribing
· Prosecution
· New contract (2)
· CPD
· Registration exam (2)
· Barcodes
· Retention fee (2)
· New Year's resolutions
· The Society
· The Journal (2)
Letters to the Editor
|
New contract
Heads over hearts
From Mr D. Thomas
It is clear, from Bharat
Nathwani’s views on the perceived public
silence of the National Pharmaceutical Association on its response to
the new contract (PJ, 6 November 2004, p682), that he is oblivious to
the fact that the multiples own over 50 per cent of all community pharmacies,
which dispense over 60 per cent of the nation’s prescriptions.
After deducting the 11 per cent that rural doctors supply, this leaves
less than a third for independent contractors.
Without the strength of the NPA, which has over 90 per cent of community
pharmacies as voluntary members, this ever dwindling minority of independent
contractors will become a lone voice in the pharmaceutical wilderness,
with rhetoric as its only witness.
Our hearts are with them as, in my opinion, they give the only true local
pharmaceutical service, but our financial heads have to be the realities
of the modern world.
David Thomas
Patshull, Shropshire
LPS: a false promise
From Mr D. D. B. Chandegra, MRPharmS
The Tower Hamlets Forum committee, representing contractors in the area,
is deeply concerned about the new contract proposals that were balloted
in November. We could not fully analyse the situation and have a meaningful
discussion about the contract framework and the monies due to the tight
timetable that the Pharmaceutical Services Negotiating Committee imposed
on us all.
The contract is a volume-based contract that will damage the network
of pharmacies nationally and certainly in our area. All contractors,
we believe, are losing out but, in addition, there is some discussion
about above average (5,800 items a month) contractors benefiting at the
expense of the other 50 per cent. This means that in our area only 19
per cent (8/42) of the contractors will benefit relative to their peers.
This is manifestly unjust.
The PSNC and the Department of Health are claiming that the contractors
would be able to apply to their primary care trust to provide services
under a new Standard Form LPS. This would enable a low volume pharmacy
providing valuable services to its patients, during the first three years
of the new contract when the protected payments will be available, to
make arrangements for the continued provision of services. A Standard
Form LPS, it is said, will specify services to be provided by a contractor
to receive increased payment levels, to raise income for low volume contractors.
That is the theory. The total number of contracts dispensing below 2,000
items a month in Tower Hamlets is seven out of 42 contractors. How much
money will be needed to support each LPS pharmacy and what are the criteria
going to be? Why go along this route when there is a simpler route of
uplifting all the current remuneration figures for each band of monthly
prescription items by an equal percentage?
Bearing in mind what is being suggested in Noel
Baumber’s letter
(PJ, 20 November 2004, p743) it seems that below average pharmacies are
being squeezed to make “the deal” sweeter for the larger
pharmacies. This is cannibalism and should not be allowed to happen.
The smaller pharmacies will not close immediately but are being strangled
slowly as a sword hangs precariously above their heads.
This is not down to the Government but to pharmacists at the PSNC hiding
behind the curtain of anonymity — how each PSNC member voted should
be revealed to contractors.
The PSNC should guarantee existing small contractors LPS monies now so
that they enjoy the same level of security as others, or stop creating
expectations that are not going to be realised.
Devshi D. Chandegra
Chairman
Tower Hamlets Forum
|
The
Pharmaceutical Journal