| • Retention fees
• Contracts
• Prescription charges
• Responsible pharmacist
• Community pharmacy (4)
• Emergency contraception (2)
• The Society (2)
• Drug addiction
Letters to the Editor
|
Contracts
Reply from
Sue Sharpe, chief executive officer, PSNC
|
PSNC totally inadequate
From Mr H. Patel, MRPharmS
I applaud Andrew
Lansley, the shadow health secretary, for highlighting
the fact that the Pharmaceutical Services Negotiating Committee is totally
inadequate for negotiation with the Department of Health (PJ,
9 February 2008, p139).
I am an independent contractor who has suffered
like all of my
colleagues over the past few months with the drastic reduction in category
M prices. The PSNC hastily sold us a new contract that is far worse than
the one the GPs managed to negotiate.
On a regular basis the payment
structure is altered and imposed to suit the DoH. Take, for example,
the removal of “zero” discounted products from the Drug Tariff
and applying a global discount. There is no way for me to check whether
I lose money every time I dispense expensive items for which I do not
receive a discount from the wholesalers.
Another example is the huge reduction in discounts that the big pharmaceutical
companies like Pfizer and AstraZeneca are imposing on us. What is the
PSNC doing about that? Let me guess — it is carrying out a detailed
audit and analysis using sophisticated statistical techniques and is
in constant negotiations with the DoH. It is always the same answers
and platitudes from the PSNC. In the meantime we are losing money right
now. Is the PSNC going to be able to negotiate a backdated settlement?
I doubt it.
I challenge anyone who is not connected with the PSNC to say anything
in support of it.
It is about time the hierarchy at the PSNC started achieving real results
rather than cosying up to the DoH just to get on the Queen’s honours
list. Hitesh Patel
Pinner, Middlesex
| |
SUE SHARPE, chief executive officer, PSNC, replies:
Mr
Patel identifies a number of problems with varying aspects of funding,
including not just
the control of purchase profit income and the impact of Category M
price changes, but also actions by proprietary manufacturers that have
led
to large numbers of items being dispensed at a loss.
Despite all these examples we believe that the funding delivered to
contractors in the course of the financial year 2007–08 will
be on target. We monitor the income from fees and allowances, and also
the overall purchase prices being
paid by independent contractors.
The invoice inquiries examine purchases of
branded medicines as well as generics, so the cost of items dispensed
at a loss is included
in the calculations that ensure delivery of the target £500m purchase
profit income.
The financial pain contractors are suffering at present results from levels
of purchase profit income in the first half of the year (April to September)
being
well in excess of the target of £250m.
Remedial action to prevent substantial
overpayment has meant not just reductions in Category M prices to bring
purchase profit levels to deliver £250m from October to April, but also reductions
in fees to recover the excess earned in the first half.
Our work must be based on evidence and not on rhetoric, hectoring or abuse.
That is why we will continue to analyse and gather evidence to support
our negotiations.
If, when the analysis is complete for this year, there has been an under-delivery
in the financial year, then we will negotiate an adjustment.
Meanwhile
we are working to identify improvements to remove the risk of unacceptable
volatility
in income for the future. |
|
The
Pharmaceutical Journal