Routine inspection of no value, say pharmacy bodies
Routine visits to pharmacy premises by the Royal Pharmaceutical Society’s
inspectors are no longer of value and should be discontinued, according
to the national bodies that represent community pharmacy owners.
This is one of the issues raised in a joint response to the Department
of Health on the Society’s proposal to increase pharmacy premises
fees by 56 per cent (PJ, 11 August, p162). The Pharmaceutical Services
Negotiating Committee, the Association of Independent Multiple Pharmacies,
the National Pharmacy Association and the Company Chemists’ Association
firmly reject the proposed increase.
Their response says that the Society has indicated that a significant
proportion of the premises fee is to support the work of the inspectorate
and to allow the Society to discharge its enforcement obligations.
The pharmacy bodies argue that costs associated with enforcement of the
Poisons Act 1972, which they say is of little more than historical interest,
and the Pharmacists and Pharmacy Technicians Order 2007 should not form
any part of the fees due from pharmacy owners.
In addition, the pharmacy bodies do not believe that enforcement of certain
provisions under the Medicines Act 1968, including the sale of pharmacy
medicines, the supply of prescription-only medicines and the use of restricted
titles, can be carried out effectively through routine visits. They agree
that the inspectors should be funded for enforcement in this area but
suggest that this should be restricted to non-routine visits.
For enforcement responsibilities under the Act relating to dispensing
and labelling errors, a statutory duty rests with ministers to make adequate
financial arrangements to support these, says the response. In addition,
it highlights that registration and maintenance of the Register of pharmacy
premises is carried out by the Society on behalf of the Secretary of
State, and, excluding the inspectorate and enforcement costs, amounts
to no more than the administrative costs of collecting the annual retention
fee.
The pharmacy bodies also argue that the Society’s analysis of an
imbalance between pharmacists’ retention fees and premises fees
is fundamentally flawed, they reject the Society’s suggestion that
the increase will be of no real consequence to pharmacy owners and highlight
that the proposal would be a double blow to small pharmacy owners who
will also be subject to a 50 per cent increase in personal retention
fees.
The pharmacy bodies conclude that they might be willing to accept an
increase in premises fees of no more than the rate of inflation but only
if the Society can provide satisfactory evidence to support such a rise.
Bernard Kelly, the Society’s director of finance and resources,
commented: “In 2007 the full recovery costs of the premises fee
per pharmacy should be £234. The actual fee recovered by the Society
has been £156 per pharmacy premises meaning a shortfall of £78.
At present this shortfall is being met by the Society’s membership
equating to an annual subsidy of approximately £21 per member.”
|
The
Pharmaceutical Journal
Acrobat
Reader