| · The profession
· Messaging service
· Prescribing of statins
· NHS
· The Society
· Pfizer products (5)
· Statutory Committee (2)
Letters to the Editor
|
Pfizer products
What happened to goodwill?
From Mr P. J. Reeder, MRPharmS
The proposals from Pfizer to limit distribution to one wholesaler seem
to be misguided and wholly inappropriate. I see no reason at all why
other wholesalers should not have systems for ensuring supplies of Pfizer
products come only from the correct source and, in fact, they already
have that obligation. The move will distort discounts and will be an
unfair restriction on trade for UniChem’s competitors.
Why is this being proposed without proper consultation with the profession?
I think that Pfizer would be well advised to reconsider this proposal.
A business has to be built on goodwill between a supplier and its customers.
Pfizer seems to have forgotten this.
Philip Reeder
Welbourn,
Lincolnshire
An unfair monopoly?
From Mr E. A. Goran, MRPharmS
There are so many questions that arise from the distribution agreement
between Pfizer and UniChem. How are non-UniChem customers going to obtain
Pfizer products? Will they be forced to set up an account with UniChem
and will that account be subject to a surcharge if it does not reach
a minimum level, as is currently the case? How will loss of substantial
product value affect the discount from other wholesalers? Will other
manufacturers consider similar distribution models? Above all, could
UniChem choose to distribute these products only to Alliance Boots stores?
The stated reason of Pfizer for this move is to reduce the potential
for fake drugs to enter the distribution system. How does this achieve
that objective? Surely the first reaction of many businesses will be
to obtain more product as parallel imports, making Pfizer’s job
of keeping track of product much harder. Provided Pfizer only distributes
its UK product to reputable national and regional wholesalers, why is
a narrowing of this distribution going to decrease the likelihood of
fake product being distributed? The comment by the UniChem chief executive
officer that this move will allay pharmacists’ fears about fake
product entering the supply chain is facile.
Make no mistake — in terms of its potential to distort the retail
pharmacy market, this is enormous. There must be a united front in opposing
this change. I would suggest that we should start by using as much parallel-imported
Pfizer product as possible and that we use all possible contacts with
GPs, be it through medicines use review reports, meetings or personal
friendships, to encourage switching of patients away from Pfizer products
to other acceptable alternatives. Make the Government aware of the situation
through your local members of Parliament. Write to the Office of Fair
Trading and to Pfizer direct to make them aware of the depth of feeling
against this change. Above all, do not just accept it.
Elliot Goran
York
This anticompetitive move stinks
From Mr R. H. Ferguson, MRPharmS
I have received a letter from Pfizer indicating that from March 2007,
its entire range of prescription medicines will only be available through
one wholesaler — UniChem. Despite claims that this is the company’s
way of securing the supply chain and reducing the risk of counterfeit
medicines, improving visibility in the supply chain, and improving supply
chain management, this anti-competitive move simply stinks.
Surely this type of monopoly situation over an entire portfolio of medicines
cannot be good for the market, especially independent pharmacies.
Although the merger of Boots and Alliance UniChem has been greeted as
good news for pharmacy, this latest move has surely undermined that dubious
theory. No sooner has the ink dried on the deal, it appears the new company
has conspired with Pfizer to form a cosy relationship excluding all others.
All pharmacies now will be forced to open an account with UniChem — what
happened to choice?
I do have an account with UniChem, but I choose what I buy from it. I
resent the fact that my choice has now been removed. It would be interesting
to know the cost implications for the excluded wholesalers.
Is there now going to be a feeding frenzy as rival wholesalers try to
sign up their chosen manufacturers?
Ross Ferguson
Glasgow
Wait and see
From Mr J. M. Goldie, FRPharmS
The profession appears to be about to be shafted. The independent sector
of community pharmacy and possible some multiple pharmacies are reeling.
As from March 2007 Pfizer will make its prescription products available
only from UniChem.
This means that unless a specific monthly spend is achieved then no discount
will be forthcoming from the wholesaler but the Prescription Pricing
Division of the NHS Business Services Authority will still discount a
pharmacy’s reimbursement. Now I cannot believe that all the other
wholesalers are prepared to lose most of their customers to UniChem,
so one must ask what will be their retaliatory action. Perhaps they might
seek an injunction preventing Pfizer from following this course of action.
Perhaps they might seek a similar agreement with a different manufacturer
and really stir the pot. Does Pfizer’s proposed action contravene
competition legislation? Does it, in effect, produce a monopoly?
What of community pharmacy? Will it stand idly by watching its financial
neck being wrung or will it take some sort of action itself? Will community
pharmacists seek to persuade doctors that Pfizer’s product ought
not to be prescribed? Will community pharmacists explain to customers
that they can no longer obtain certain preparations and recommend alternatives?
One thing is certain: if an external force is applied to a closed system
then that system will act in a manner to negate the force. We must wait
and see what will happen, but my sympathies lie with the community pharmacist.
J. Malcolm Goldie
Newcastle upon Tyne
How will the new arrangements benefit me?
From Mr J. R. Ahmed, MRPharmS
I have just received a letter from Pfizer regarding a change in the distribution
of its products. I have two major concerns. First, I am not a UniChem customer
and have no wish to support it. Secondly, I expect that I will not be receiving
my normal wholesaler discount, and any averaging adjustments to my discount
claw back will not cover the financial losses I will incur.
In what way is this a benefit to me and is there anyone who is strong enough
to oppose these types of unilateral initiatives on the part of major pharmaceutical
companies (I am already financially less well off as a result of GlaxoSmithKline’s
scheme).
Concerns about counterfeiting and managing the supply chain better are
totally bogus arguments in my view. All pharmaceutical companies are in
the same boat so what are the others going to do?
Jawaid Ahmed
Birmingham |
The
Pharmaceutical Journal