The Pharmaceutical Journal
Vol 279 No 7459 p20
7 July 2007

This article
Reprint   Photocopy

PDF 60K, Acrobat Reader

• Supervision (2)
• Community pharmacy (2)
• Medication errors
• Agenda for change
• White paper
• Counterfeit medicines
• Recalls
• Pfizer (4)

Letters to the Editor

Pfizer

An unwarranted slur on our companies

From Mr R. G. Pilsbury, MRPharmS

I feel compelled to respond to the letter by David Watson, director of trade, Pfizer (PJ, 23 June, p736), which could be taken to imply improper conduct by our companies. The facts are:

• The pharmacy in question has a turnover in excess of £2m and is located in a busy health centre with nine GPs.

• On average we dispense 85 packs of Lipitor 40mg tablets each month. This volume is in no way unusual for a pharmacy of this size.

• Mr Watson states that this is 12 times his anticipated requirements for the pharmacy. To claim that just seven packs would be a sufficient monthly allocation is plainly ludicrous.

• Our ordering patterns have remained steady from month to month, subject to the inevitable ebb and flow of demand that Kenny Black (PJ, 23 June, p736) rightly states is a reality of life for community pharmacy.

• The month in question was April 2007. From 1–10 April (the week before Easter is our second busiest trading week of the year), we ordered a total of 30 packs of Lipitor 40mg. On 11, 13, 16 and 17 April we attempted to order quantities of between one and six packs. On each occasion we were not informed that supplies were being withheld; however the UniChem invoices were marked “Pfizer no right to buy”.

• Mr Watson omits to state that during the period of 11–17 April, we contacted Pfizer repeatedly with offers to provide evidence of our requirements. It consistently declined offers to view evidence of NHS turnover, copies of past invoices, atorvastatin prescriptions dispensed in the pharmacy for the month in question, as well as an offer for Pfizer to confirm the truth of our claims by a direct discussion with the prescribing GPs.

• We also requested an emergency supply to enable us to supply five patients who were in urgent need. Regrettably Pfizer refused this request.

• In being unable to dispense atorvastatin for five patients, we were forced to break our NHS terms of service.

The professional and ethical reputations of Healthcare Plus Pharmacy and HF Healthcare Ltd are second to none, and I strongly refute any implications to the contrary. I ask readers to judge whether, in refusing a direct request to supply medication for five patients, Pfizer has demonstrated a similarly professional approach.

Mr Watson believes that it is appropriate to “provide Journal readers with unbiased factual information so they are able to draw their own conclusions”. I agree, and this letter puts the facts in the public domain. The supporting evidence (eg, prescription demand, patient medication records, invoices, etc) is freely available to The Pharmaceutical Journal or any other independent third party for inspection.

Mr Watson states that the decision to withhold supply occurred “when orders reached 12 times the level anticipated and we believed it would impact general availability”. I invite Journal readers to make their own judgement on this assertion, which I believe casts a slur on our companies that is completely unwarranted and unsubstantiated.

Roger Pilsbury
Superintendent Pharmacist
Healthcare Plus Pharmacies Ltd

Declaration of interest Healthcare Plus Pharmacies Ltd is a wholly owned subsidiary of HF Healthcare Ltd. Roger Pilsbury is a director of both companies.

Sort the problems and lessen the propaganda

From Mr S. McCormick, MRPharmS

I must take issue with the points made by both David Watson, of Pfizer, and David Griffiths, of UniChem (PJ, 23 June, p736).

Since the start of UniChem deliveries to my two pharmacies in south-west Scotland I have found, contrary to Mr Griffiths’s assurances, an intolerable level of service. Deliveries are inconsistent and often arrive within 20 minutes of closing, or in some cases after closing, requiring a member of staff to stay behind.

Despite repeated complaints to UniChem we cannot offer a reliable time of delivery to customers as we appear to be squeezed on to the existing run. I was prepared to make allowances for a bedding-in period; however, since the scheme has been in place for some time now it concerns me that I can see no improvement in service.

As well as poorly timed deliveries, I have also had wrong orders, missing invoices and missing goods. Unsurprisingly, I have not been contacted by UniChem or Pfizer about my opinions on the new arrangements.

Regarding stock levels, I see no vast improvement in out-of-stock items. In one instance the response from Pfizer was simply that “our system says that UniChem have seven packets so we can see no reason why you cannot obtain them”. Perhaps Mr Watson would like to have another look at the visibility of his supply chain as it appears a bit obscured to me.

Another complaint was met with the response that the situation would have been worse under the old distribution model. I cannot believe that the only justification that Pfizer can come up with for shortages of essential goods is that “it could have been worse”. The only reason that the whole system has not fallen to its knees is that pharmacists have striven to make sure that patients do not suffer.

Mr Watson and Mr Griffiths should spend their time sorting the problems and less time spouting propaganda.

Stephen McCormick
Ayr

Unsatisfactory defence

From Mr J. A. Schofield, MRPharmS

I note the robust defence of the Pfizer distribution scheme by David Watson (PJ, 23 June, p736). In particular I note the attacks on the comments made by Allen Tweedie, of Healthcare Plus, and Kenny Black, of Rowlands Pharmacy. Both individuals, lawfully, have interests or work for companies that have interests in pharmaceutical wholesalers who have been excluded by Pfizer from its distribution network.

I believe it is too convenient for Mr Watson to dismiss criticisms of the distribution arrangements on the grounds that these individuals have interests in companies disadvantaged by his scheme. He freely admits to policing the spend of individual pharmacies of his company’s products.

I do not believe that he is entitled to make the assumption that a surge in demand is necessarily an attempt to circumvent his arrangements purely on the grounds that his customer may have wholesaling interests. More needs to be done for him to demonstrate his point, which, I freely admit, may involve his company in extra costs.

Until he satisfactorily demonstrates the point, he has unsatisfactorily defended the claim that pharmacies owned by wholesalers other than UniChem will be adversely and prejudicially treated as a consequence of his company’s policies.

For the record, I am a customer of Dr Tweedie’s wholesale company and I am unaware of Pfizer products being offered for sale through it.

J. A. Schofield
Jarrow, Tyne and Wear

Head-in-the-sand attitude

From Mr D. J. Livingstone, MRPharmS

Pfizer just does not get it (PJ, 23 June, p736).

It is congratulating itself at having achieved 100 per cent customer satisfaction, ie, UniChem is happy. Doubtless this is convenient and, in the short term, cost-effective for Pfizer, but it has done nothing to enhance its standing with pharmacists.

The contempt with which Pfizer treats pharmacy is staggering: no engagement, no negotiation and no apology. I have seen precious little correspondence in support of Pfizer despite its extensive and doubtless expensive advertising campaign. Nevertheless, Pfizer maintains its head-in-the-sand attitude regardless of the continued loss of goodwill and credibility.

I doubt that David Watson, director of trade (should that not be deflector of tirade?) at Pfizer, has the slightest interest in my viewpoint. I hope his representatives, whom I shall refuse to see forthwith, will share his indifference.

Duncan Livingstone
North Lancing, West Sussex

Send your letter to The Editor

Previous Topic (Recalls)