| · E-commerce
· EPS
· Pfizer products (3)
· Drug misuse
· Pharmacy ownership
· Statutory Committee
· The profession
· Superdrug
· Retention fee
· Job satisfaction
Letters to the Editor
|
Pfizer products
Questions pharmacists should ask themselves
From Mr W. P. Watterson, MRPharmS
When one analyses the UniChem/Pfizer monopoly it does not add up. Is
this monopoly possibly a Trojan horse?
There will be strong objections from pharmacists. Pfizer may magnanimously
relent to this pressure by allowing more wholesalers to distribute its
goods. However, Pfizer will have what it wanted all along: the “Glaxo
model” of invoicing in place.
If Pfizer’s monopoly proposals are genuine, here are some questions
pharmacists should ask themselves:
· Is the Competition Commission aware that UniChem and Pfizer have
reached a monopoly deal?
· Is this UniChem/Pfizer monopoly legal under EU law?
· Has Pfizer done this on a pan-European basis (ie, dealing with
one wholesaler in each individual country)?
· Did UniChem use its new found power, since the merger of Alliance
(its parent company) with Boots, to broker this deal?
· It seems that Pfizer is following the Glaxo model. Will other
drug manufacturers soon follow suit?
· Is part of the deal for UniChem not to stock Pfizer parallel imports?
· Did the wholesalers that are now complaining of a UniChem monopoly
put in a tender to Pfizer?
W. P. Watterson
Port Erin, Isle of Man
A lack of thinking
From Mr A. K. Aggarwal, MRPharmS
I was amazed, like so many of your readers, at the lack of thinking
by Pfizer. How can it even begin to think that the proposed
redistribution by one wholesaler is in the interest of pharmacy or
patient care (PJ,
7 October, p413)?
We have received various letters from other wholesalers to voice our
concerns to members of Parliament, the Pharmaceutical Services Negotiating
Committee, Pfizer and others but the best solution is for all those concerned
to ask their doctors, primary care trusts and prescribing advisers to
change all patients, where it does not compromise their treatment, to
other equivalent products. Once doctors know what Pfizer is doing we
should be able to achieve our goals. If this is carried out nationally
UniChem will have few Pfizer products to distribute.
I have spoken to a Pfizer representative and told him that if Pfizer
does not withdraw this proposal by 30 November our pharmacies will start
to speak to doctors. UniChem customers who think they are not going to
be affected should think again. How will UniChem distribute to 12,500
pharmacies, up from its present 5,000 customers? There is bound to be
disruption in delivery times and in the number of deliveries per day.
I suggest that Pfizer quickly withdraws this proposal. Pharmacists’ trust,
once lost, will be irrecoverable.
Ash Aggarwal
Sunderland
A lame excuse
From Mr D. M. Grant, MRPharmS
What a lame excuse (counterfeiting) Pfizer has come up with for restricting
its product supply through one wholesaler. If this is allowed to happen
what is to stop any manufacturer purposely producing counterfeits and placing
them in the market so as to obtain the same end? These drugs could still
be counterfeited as parallel imports.
Forcing us to use UniChem as a wholesaler is a disgrace. Are we still going
to get a twice daily delivery? I have dealt with UniChem in the past and
found that it favours its own shops for deliveries. Because of this I ceased
dealing with them. If there is a shortage in supply of Pfizer medicines
can we rely on fair distribution? As much as we detest the GlaxoSmithKline
deal at least we have the opportunity to use whichever wholesaler we choose.
I am sure the Office of Fair Trading will have something to say about us
being forced to use one specific wholesaler. Pharmacists now doing medicines
use reviews who work for Alliance Boots might easily be persuaded to favour
Pfizer’s medicines over those of other manufacturers. I shall be
speaking to my local GPs and primary care trust and requesting them not
to include Pfizer’s medicines in their formularies unless there is
no suitable alternative.
David Grant
Leeds |
The
Pharmaceutical Journal