Independents believe Pfizer's single wholesaler distribution model puts them at a disadvantage
David Wood, IPF executive director |
Some two thirds of independent contractors surveyed by the Independent Pharmacy Federation believe there has been deterioration in the service level received for Pfizer products following the launch of Pfizer's direct-to-pharmacy (DTP) scheme on 5 March 2007.
David Wood, IPF executive director, said at the annual conference of
the British Association of Pharmaceutical Wholesalers last week that
15 per cent of the 330 respondents had replied “yes” to the
question: “Has Pfizer tried to restrict the amount of any of their
products that you can order?” He elaborated: “My understanding
was these were everyday, regular community pharmacies which, somehow,
got an abnormal ordering pattern that didn’t fit Pfizer’s
view of their ordering pattern, and therefore they had product stopped.”
At the conference, Mr Wood said he knew of at least one case where patients
had not received supplies of medicines because of restrictions placed
by Pfizer (see Panel below).
Pfizer restrictions leave patients waiting for their supplies
Allen Tweedie, one of the directors of Healthcare
Plus Pharmacies Ltd (a regional independent pharmacy group in
the north of England)
and Independent Pharmacy Federation board member, told The
Journal that Pfizer had refused to supply Lipitor 10mg and 20mg tablets
on three separate dates, and without prior warning. The invoice
from UniChem read “no right to buy”, he said.
He maintained that, when contacted, Pfizer said they had calculated
that the pharmacy had exceeded its quota and the manufacturer would
not discuss the matter further.
Dr Tweedie said that the chief executive of Healthcare Plus Pharmacies
was subsequently able to resolve the problem. However, he said
that the problem was not sorted out within 24 hours, which meant
that
the pharmacy had broken its terms of service and five patients
were involved in waiting for the Pfizer medicine.
“A letter of complaint was sent to the Secretary of State for Health,
Patricia Hewitt, early in May, asking for an investigation,” he
said.
Dr Tweedie insisted that the issue of pharmacists
selling product to other pharmacies or overseas “does not apply to us at all”.
He posed the question: “What research had Pfizer done to
find out what the real demand of actual pharmacies is?”
Pfizer has been invited to respond to this case for next week’s
issue.
|
The questionnaire, Mr Wood said, was distributed though pharmaceutical
wholesalers Phoenix and Mawdsley-Brooks to independent contractors of
whom 84 per cent did not have an account with UniChem (Pfizer’s
chosen distributor) before 5 March.
Three quarters of respondents believed that the distribution changes
had an impact on their ability to provide a service to patients, and
over half believed that their ability to compete in their local area
was hindered.
Last week Pfizer told The Journal that it had restricted supply
in around 39 cases in the first three months (PJ, 9
June, p661)
and only in instances where it deemed ordering “excessive”.
The results of the IPF questionnaire formed part of the group’s
response to the Office of Fair Trading’s market study into UK medicines
distribution (PJ, 2
June, p637).
In its response the IPF argues: “The imposition by Pfizer of four
bands of discounts
[PJ, 9 December 2006,
p679] tends to approximate the variance in the
NHS deduction scale. However, for smaller contractors this represents
a 2 to 3 per cent drop on
the various discounts that they had negotiated from wholesalers under
prior arrangements, while larger contractors have not been disadvantaged.” |
The
Pharmaceutical Journal
Acrobat
Reader