Virtues of transparency...
Let us hope that the members of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society, however
grudgingly, accept the explanation put forward by the Treasurer that
has enabled the Council to decide to peg the increase in the practising
retention fee to just below 40 per cent, as opposed to the 50 per cent
increase recommended in the summer (p517, p528 and p543).
Members may not like the outcome in that the fee increase will still
be over £100 but, in The Journal’s view, the Society
and the Council have been as transparent as could be expected about their
evaluation of the financial responsibilities facing them in the next
12 months and they have done their best to minimise the effect on the
profession. There are still avenues to explore, however, which could
further mitigate the impact of future increases.
Top of the list is enabling
the retention fee to be paid in stages. The Council hopes that this can
be achieved by the end of 2008. In truth, it could have been done years
ago when Society members first requested the option, but the then Council
lacked the political will to investigate it. And, although The Journal welcomes the fact that non-practising pharmacists will only have to pay
a modest increase, we are disappointed that there are no plans to introduce
a fee for practising pharmacists on low incomes. These people often work
for only a few hours a week or voluntarily and, were they to retire in
January, the provision of pharmacy services in the UK and through charitable
organisations overseas would be likely to suffer.
Back to Top
|
... and the shortcomings of obfuscation
While on the subject of transparency, The Journal wishes that
it could highlight that a similar openness was being exercised by the
pharmaceutical
industry. As correspondents have argued (p528), some of the explanation
offered by Sanofi-Aventis and Bristol-Myers Squibb for why Plavix is
being repackaged in packs of 30 as opposed to 28 (PJ, 27 October, p467)
rings pretty hollow
The NHS is the largest market for medicines in the world, and highly valued by
pharmaceutical companies. The Government could, theoretically, simply say to
manufacturers that the NHS will no longer purchase any products unless they are
packaged in units of 28 (except in certain therapeutic situations).
It does not
go down that route because manufacturers would make the NHS pay for not being
in line with the rest of the world. Alternatively, the Government could say that — whatever
a doctor prescribes — the pharmacist can dispense the nearest original
pack size and be reimbursed fully. But it does not, again because of the cost.
Yet, the current system wastes medicines, takes time, belittles pharmacists and
appears unprofessional to patients. Whose side is the Government on?
Back to Top
|
The
Pharmaceutical Journal