It’s Groundhog Day!
There is a strong theme underpinning many of the stories and articles that The Journal is carrying this week and, unfortunately, it is a theme that has been written about many times before. It is hard to see the end of these Groundhog Days — at least for community pharmacy in England — unless there is the real political will to intervene.
Our News
feature examines “Is the treatment working?” — the
joint report from the Audit Commission and the Healthcare Commission
into NHS reform. Although it does not specifically highlight pharmacy,
the fact that local commissioning of services, and practice-based commissioning
in particular, has failed to deliver the improvements in services that
were expected, prompted many of the leading pharmacy bodies to comment
(p744).
In addition, the Company Chemists’ Association has put
a critique of the implications of poor commissioning together, which
makes for a rather gloomy Agenda
piece (p751). And we are also carrying
a Broad spectrum that
wonders — less than idly — whether
the pharmacy White Paper will itself deliver what the profession wants
(p746).
Then there is the issue of polyclinics (PDF 190K).
Will they or will they not damage the GP network and consequently the
pharmacy network?
Are they
or are
they not wanted by patients (p737)? The issue of polyclinics has strained
the relationship between the British Medical Association and the Government
and there is a sense that the latter is less willing than usual to accommodate
doctors’ whining.
Most pharmacists and other healthcare professionals
would assume that GPs have never had it so good, so why are they pushing
their luck? Despite the historical desire to keep doctors onside because
they are perceived to influence public opinion, ministers may be unwilling
to make further concessions.
This brings us back to commissioning of care, and the failure of GPs
to engage fully in practice-based commissioning. Not surprisingly, it
seems that GPs have paid more attention to providing lucrative services
themselves than commissioning them from others (with the potential loss
of income that entails). Part of the problem, too, is that primary care
trusts have traditionally lacked the skills and teeth to deal with GPs.
It would be relatively easy to strengthen the hand of PCTs, and to make
sure the resources go to services with known benefits to patient care
and that some of that money finds its way into pharmacies.
And it can be done: just look
over the border to Scotland (p752) to find
out where pharmacy has a real voice. Perhaps the next two years will
see a change in pharmacy’s influence in England such that the profession
will be able to deliver the services that it hopes to deliver. Then we
may not have to wake up to another Groundhog Day again. Back to Top
|
The
Pharmaceutical Journal