| · IPF
· GHP (2)
· BPC
· Medicines use reviews
· Drug classification
· Alternative therapies
· Controlled drugs
· North East London LPC (3)
· The Society
· Pharmacists in the media
Letters to the Editor
|
Independent Pharmacy Federation
Feeling left out
From Mr D. R. Kent, MRPharmS
The launch of the Independent Pharmacy Federation (IPF) is a welcome
development. However, it is overshadowed by the lack of any commitment
to consider the interests of those lower dispensing volume contractors
(LDVPs) whose livelihood will be severely prejudiced when the period
of payment protection ends in April 2008. The launch of the IPF grew
out of the wholesaler Mawdsleys’ concern that their customer base
is shrinking and likely to do so at an increasing rate in the near future.
I lead a group of LDVP contractors, with the active support of Harry
Gitter of Macey Chemists and others, who are attempting to obtain a fair
deal for those contractors. We have been covered by significant media,
both broadcast and print, have recruited high profile MPs and even had
a meeting with Rosie Winterton MP before her move away from pharmacy
affairs.
In conversation, with both Noel Baumber and John Davies of Mawdsleys,
before the formation of the IPF, I was assured that while the future
of independent pharmacy as a whole would be the prime concern of the
then proposed and then unnamed alliance, the interests of the 8 per cent
of UK pharmacies, mostly independent, whose livelihood is threatened
by the iniquitous new contractual framework, would also be an issue.
During my first conversation with John Davies I informed him that I was
looking into setting up such an alliance with the concerns of the LDVPs
as its prime concern and we even discussed the possibility of Mawdsleys
providing “seed” money to progress the concept. It would
appear that that “seed” money went elsewhere.
Imagine my surprise at reading that the IPF had been set up and that
Noel Baumber in his letter to the PJ (15 October, p479), does not mention
the part taken by Mawdsleys and, knowing of my interest, had neither
invited me to the first small steering group meeting or the much larger
inaugural meeting subsequently held.
LDVPs are getting a raw deal from the Pharmaceutical Services Negotiating
Committee who continue to take their levies after actively negotiating
against their interests. The National Pharmacy Association has now taken
multiple pharmacies into membership and thus destroyed its credibility
as the champion of independent pharmacy. It would now appear the IPF
may also be sidelining the only people actively speaking out on behalf
of their disadvantaged colleagues.
I have, to date, had nothing other than three conversations with leading
lights of the IPF and sincerely hope that I am wrong in believing that
its interest in LDVPs is little or none and that the IPF should possibly
be called the “Federation of Larger Independent Pharmacies”.
I sincerely hope I am wrong, that the IPF has inadvertently neglected
to invite me or another representative of the LDVPs to its meetings.
Significantly, the aims of the IPF as set out in Noel Baumber’s
letter to the PJ, neglect to mention any commitment to obtaining a fair
deal for all independent pharmacies. Those I represent do not ask for
special treatment; only for a level playing field.
The letter from Graham
Phillips (PJ, 15 October, p479), a member of the
Royal Pharmaceutical Society’s Council, also does not inspire confidence
that anyone with any authority in this profession has any empathy with
their weaker colleagues. I do not share Mr Phillips’s confidence
in the opportunities offered by the new contractual framework. All I
see is more paperwork, more control, more expense and possibly illusory
increases in remuneration which, even if they prove to be real, are outweighed
by the disadvantages. Our negotiators have failed miserably: in ancient
times they would have taken the honourable route and fallen on their
swords.
What sort of a profession are we to allow a grossly unfair new contractual
framework to be imposed on the weakest of our colleagues and then sit
back while their businesses fail? No doubt the benefit of picking up
a few more prescriptions removes any sympathetic thoughts from the minds
of the stronger.
David Kent
London
| |
NOEL BAUMBER responds:
David Kent emphasises the difficulty that
the Independent Pharmacy Federation will have liaising with 4,500
independent pharmacists in the UK, in order to ensure a two-way flow
of information
and to make their voices heard. There are no ready-made lists of potential
members or their problems. They have to declare their existence and
support for what we are doing for them. For this purpose we have already
set up an email address at info@irxf.co.uk to act as a contact point
for everyone in the independent sector.
The IPF intends to be inclusive and not a single-issue organisation,
but we are well aware that there are many low dispensing-volume pharmacies
in the
London area. I have particularly mentioned, in the many letters and articles
I have written since last October, of the potential detriment not just to
the 9.6 per cent of contractors with the lowest dispensing volume,
but also to
the bottom 40 per cent, if we do not begin to address the problems of public
access to professional pharmaceutical services and the continual need to
revisit our funding mechanisms.
A long time ago, the Department of Health took a discriminatory approach
to low volume dispensing, which it regards as an unacceptably high cost per
prescription,
when annual increases to the global sum were effectively capped at two per
cent per annum. Yes, there are fairer ways to share out the global sum, but
it will take a lot of persuasion in high places to effect a change and to
adopt a different model.
I repeat that our mission is about “sustaining health care delivery through
independent community pharmacy”. This embraces those contractors with
low dispensing volumes although it does not specifically mention them. Following
on from the four initial aims of the IPF, there are seven objectives which
have been discussed so far:
· To create a dynamic blueprint of the optimum independent pharmacy
NHS contract
· To carry out an ongoing review of the health care market to identify
new service opportunities which specifically add value and build upon the strengths
of the independent pharmacy sector
· To ensure that there is representation of independent community pharmacy
on, and to, organisations that have a major influence upon the financial and
professional well being of the sector
· To ensure, whenever necessary, that direct representation is made to
the highest levels of the Department of Health in the consideration of the
health and well being of the independent sector
· To promote strategic alliances with patient and professional organisations,
engaging in joint endeavours and patient-focused service development
· To collect data on the independent sector and analyse information that
will contribute to a better understanding of its needs and help in the decision-making
process
· To lobby for political change where it is deemed appropriate and beneficial
to the independent pharmacy sector
We hope to revisit these at our next meeting on 24 November and continue
working towards a constitution. |
|
The
Pharmaceutical Journal