[Tony Schofield]

Don't worry Solomon (I thought Solomon was supposed to be wise?), when the "responsible pharmacist" becomes reality you may be paid as an ACT for dispensing and get a percentage of the advanced and enhanced services you actually perform. Is that what you want?

I suspect not!

I think it a real laugh when pharmacists talk about being accredited to do various functions such as EHC, minor ailments, supervised methadone and now MURs as if any of it is rocket science. The qualification now requires a masters degree, do you expect employers to pay more for a young pharmacist with a master's degree than they do for an established pharmacist who has a bachelor's degree?

Of course not.

The accreditations are paper exercises for commissioners of services. Tick box exercises. No pharmacist , who keeps up to date, should need significant effort to acquire these accreditations so stop bleating about them as if they are PhD level!

Some contractors actually appreciate that which is done for them by their pharmacists. They remunerate them well and incentivise them. However greed is a huge turn off. A pharmacist working for me purely for the money wouldn't last long. I pay at the top end of the salaries quoted on this site and bonuses if appropriate.

I wouldn't expect a locum to do a MUR. Unless they were long term. I do expect my pharmacists to do MURs and no pharmacy I am involved in does less than 10,000 prescriptions per month. They have significant back up staff trained to the highest levels we can train them and pharmacists are expected to delegate to find time to perform MURs etc.

One final point. MURs are medication USE reviews, not medication reviews. They do NOT require huge clinical input as you imply.