Striking-off for wrong prescription endorsements
An Essex pharmacist whose incorrect endorsement of prescriptions led
to an overpayment of several thousand pounds by the Prescription Pricing
Authority has had his name removed from the Register of Pharmaceutical
Chemists on the order of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society’s Disciplinary
Committee.
At a hearing on 11 October 2007, the committee inquired into the case
of Arunkumar Manibhai Patel (registration number 68424), of Ilford. Mr
Patel was majority shareholder, director and superintendent pharmacist
of Kashipharm Ltd, which was also party to the case. The company owned
a pharmacy trading as Connock Chemists in London E15.
A complaint had been received from the Council of the Society alleging
that Mr Patel had endorsed prescriptions with small pack sizes although
he had supplied large packs. The wrongly endorsed prescriptions had been
sent for pricing, resulting in overpayment by the PPA. Following an investigation
by the NHS Counter Fraud Service, Mr Patel had agreed in February 2006
to repay £7,866.84 wrongly paid to his company and costs of £1,500.
The wrongful endorsements included claims for five 100ml bottles of Gaviscon
when a 500ml pack had been supplied, four 125g packs of E45 cream instead
of one 500g tub, four 125g tubes of Epaderm instead of one 500g tub,
two 240ml packs of Alpha Keri bath oil instead of one 480ml pack, 10
50g packs of Diprobase cream instead of one 500g pack and two 250ml packs
of E45 emollient bath oil instead of one 500ml container.
The notice of inquiry accepted that the transactions, although erroneous,
were not necessarily dishonest. However, it was recorded that when Mr
Patel inadvertently learnt about the investigation, he changed his endorsing
practice to show the packs actually supplied but did not notify the PPA
that he had been endorsing incorrectly or offer to repay the sums overpaid.
Giving the committee’s determination, the chairman, John Burrow,
said that the committee had concluded, on the balance of probabilities,
that the Gaviscon and E45 cream transactions were carried out dishonestly
and that Mr Patel had known that he was being dishonest. In respect of
the Epaderm, Alpha Keri bath oil, Diprobase and E45 emollient bath oil,
the committee noted that the Council alleged error but not dishonesty.
On the balance of probabilities, the committee found that there had been
erroneous dispensing but did not find dishonesty.
The chairman said that, in determining the appropriate sanction, the
committee noted that aggravating features included the serious nature
of the dishonesty. By persisting in making claims to which he was not
entitled, Mr Patel was appropriating public funds that should have been
available to be deployed elsewhere in the NHS. Dishonest abuse of public
funds would always be treated as a serious matter.
The committee found that Mr Patel had shown only limited insight and
remorse. He had denied dishonesty in respect of the E45 cream, although
the committee had found dishonesty proved. His admissions in interview
had come only after persistent questioning and being confronted with
the evidence of his actions. His admissions were often partial at first
and only became more embracing because of the strength of the evidence.
Mitigating factors included the absence of any direct harm to patients,
the delay in bringing the case before the committee (which was not the
fault of the Society) and the fact that the endorsement errors took place
in the context of a busy pharmacy.
After careful consideration, said the chairman, the committee had concluded
that the matters were so serious that to allow Mr Patel to remain on
the Register would undermine confidence in the profession. Removal was
the proportionate and appropriate sanction, and the committee so ordered.
The committee would take no action in respect of the company.
Mr Patel was advised that he had three months in which to exercise his
right of appeal. His name was removed from the Register on 11 January 2008.
Back to Top
|
The
Pharmaceutical Journal