Home > PJ (current issue) > Letters | Search

PJ Online homeThe Pharmaceutical Journal
Vol 274 No 7341 p335
19 March 2005

This article
Reprint   Photocopy

PDF 90K, Acrobat Reader

Letters

· Public liability insurance
· Community pharmacy
· New contract
· Council election
· Prescription charges
· Repeat dispensing
· ETP
· Complementary medicine
· The Society (4)
· The Journal (2)


Letters to the Editor

New contract

Contract 2005

Investment in enhanced service needed

From Mr M. Bennett, FRPharmS

May I add my voice to that of Paul Rodwell (PJ, 5 March, p269) about the volume-based funding of “support for people with disabilities” under the new contract? Given that “Pharmacy in the future” told us the new system would be designed “to promote and reward high quality services, not just volume of prescriptions” and that “pharmacies which provide the best services, should gain at the expense of those who are prepared only to provide the minimum”, I assumed that clear guidance and a fee per disabled patient would be forthcoming. Instead we have 5.5p per item dispensed across the board.

Based on the current, far from generous, pay rates for monitored dosage systems in my area this will allow for around one disabled patient per 400 items dispensed each month. There will now be a built-in financial incentive to avoid providing MDS and I imagine that it will be left to the likes of Mr Rodwell to fill in the gaps at a loss — exactly the opposite of the picture painted in “Pharmacy in the future”. Notwithstanding contractors’ obligations under the Disability Discrimination Act, there will be a number who, despite dispensing high volumes of prescriptions, do not have the space available to dispense into MDS in a safe manner.

Clearly, primary care trusts must not be allowed to think that 5.5p takes care of the problem. It does not. Weekly prescriptions will still be needed for some patients who cannot manage with more medicines in their homes and this should be seen as the prescriber’s duty to make “reasonable adjustment” under the Disability Discrimination Act.

In the long term, investment in an enhanced service will be needed if this service is to be provided in a safe and efficient manner.

Martin Bennett
Managing Director
Associated Chemists (Wicker) Ltd

Send your letter to The Editor

Previous Topic (Community pharmacy)
Next Topic (Council election)

Back to Top


©The Pharmaceutical Journal