| · Prescribing (2)
· Compliance (2)
· Residential care
· Metered dosage systems
· Reciprocity
· Proton pump inhibitors
· Registration examination
· The Society (3)
· New pharmacy contract
Letters to the Editor
|
New pharmacy contract
Not welcome, not fair
From Mr I. Abrahams, MRPharmS
Full marks to Noel
Baumber (PJ, 3 September p284) for his analysis of
the views of independent pharmacists. I sent in my ballot paper with “abstain” written
on it. This was after pleading for more time to consider the matter, both
at the South Mimms roadshow, where many (mainly independents) were locked
out by Sue Sharpe, and in the letters column of the PJ.
It was obvious that there was much “filling” still to be added
to the contract and some pharmacists, after attending one of the roadshows,
were given less than two weeks to make up their minds.
The Pharmaceutical Services Negotiating Committee refused this reasonable
request, citing the possibility that an election might be held in February
and there would not be enough time for necessary legislation to be passed,
if voting was delayed.
I say “so what?” It was obvious that Labour would be returned
to power and, in any event, we had waited so long for this new contract
that a few months’ delay in order to get things right was more than
justified.
In the event much, but not all, of the “filling” has been revealed
and we are all now aware of the tremendous amount of extra work that is
now involved. Much of this work is expected to be “out of hours”.
Are pharmacists not allowed to have a life outside pharmacy?” I have
just been invited by our primary care trust to an evening meeting about
its “clinical governance resource pack”. I resent this intrusion
into my private time. It is not contractors who have asked for this deluge
of “New Labour” pen-pushing activities, which are of no patient
benefit whatsoever. If the Government wants us to do its bidding, then
the least it can do is to fund the payment of locums so that pharmacists
can learn about these new activities during working hours.
We now also have the dubious benefit of three months’ figures to
shed some light on how we are affected financially. Although admittedly,
these can only give a rough guide, my conversations with colleagues seem
always to conclude that we may be just about “breaking even” under
the new system if we are lucky. When one considers all the extra work involved,
it becomes clear that independents, who do not have the resources to employ
an office full of pen pushers, have been sold down the river by the PSNC.
Before we hear from the PSNC once more, that “purchase profits” were
previously not really ours, let me remind them that it was well known that
without these the pharmacy service would have collapsed without a corresponding
increase in fees.
I therefore echo Mr. Baumber’s call for the PSNC to respond vigorously
to the plight of independent contractors. Indeed, if it is not swiftly
forthcoming, we should campaign for the resignation of the chief executive
of the PSNC, failing which a “union” of independent contractors
should be formed in order to renegotiate the contract into which we were
bullied and from which many cannot escape without financial ruin.
Ian Abrahams
Pinner,
Middlesex |
The
Pharmaceutical Journal