New Professional leadership/representative body

[DavidS]

What billions have been taken from what balance sheet?

Category M cuts do not amount to billions (if that is what you are referring to). .............

I am not alone and there is NO CASE for the RPSGB taking a stand on remuneration.

Well, its possible I'm falling for the spin, but there is Category M Barometer - October 2007 - Chemist + Druggist which says that in 2007 alone £400,000,000 (4 billion as usually described, whatever Ian Fleming might have said) was the reduction due to Cat M. They go on to say that on average that's £2666 per pharmacy per month. If you aren't affected, spare a tear for the ones who are compensating for your good fortune!

AAH Category M for "muddle" quoted the same figure in February 2008.

Once again, whether the RPSGB should take a stand on remuneration is IMHO up for debate, but what got me was that JH didn't believe that it was affecting pharmacy services. Many contractors seem to be saying that it is, and surely that is a matter within the remit of the RPSGB.

While searching for some facts in case I had dreamed up the figures, I had a look at the PSNC website. On its page on Category M it avoids saying how much is being reclaimed. Category M Funding & Drug Tariff PSNC Why is that? Also, I recall that the DOH were themselves surprised that pharmacists didn't kick up more of a stink when these measures were announced.

What you are saying is that this money was paid to us over and above what we ought to have been paid, because the drug tariff was overpriced. Well, whether that is true or not, this measure came as a serious shock to the profession.

[Tony Schofield]

All excellent points.

PSNC negotiates on an ongoing basis. It would be dandy if the Professional Body stuck it's nose in, without a statutory remit to do so and soured relations.

I am not saying that MOCs in conversation with DOH officials should not draw attention to problems caused by funding difficulties. However, with a body democratically appointed and mandated to deal with remuneration issues there is no place for the Professional body doing so.

[SolomonQ]

[QUOTE=DavidS;16228]Well, its possible I'm falling for the spin, but there is Category M Barometer - October 2007 - Chemist + Druggist which says that in 2007 alone £400,000,000 (4 billionQUOTE]

my definition of a billion is a 1,000 million, but anyway, David does make valid points but Mr TS seems to be willings to lose this amount of money from pharmacy so that the new contract can be put in place, which I dont think is a good trade off, if the NHS expects more from the pharmacy sector they must be willing to invest in it, they will only appreciate what pharmacies do for the NHS if they invest money in them, e.g.they are willing to give £27 per MUR because its not new money so whatever the case the NHS benefits from that one MUR but pharmacy only gets the money it would normally have got for dispensing services it provides, also means although the pharmacists' workload increases the pharmacy contractor cant realistically offer them pay increase etc....

anyway, back to the point , we'll see what the new bodies offer and how much of a backbone they each have

[Tony Schofield]

I am not willing to lose a penny. I just don't see the professional body having a role other than to represent us professionally. The PSNC look after the money.

There has been a continual outcry since October 2007 when the initial savagery of the Category M cuts first was revealed. The DOH has realised after discussion with PSNC that the service cannot run at current funding levels and this week has increased the professional allowance. It can hardly be called "new money" as they have it to pay us as a result of taking it from our purchase profits. However it has been put in place along with a cost enquiry.

I am not stupid enough to believe that PSNC did this completely alone. DOH officials will have been meeting CCA and RPSGB officials at functions and been getting their ears bent. However, that is lobbying which will have improved PSNCs case in their role as negotiators.

The fact is that contractors voted for this contract and now that it is being operated the mechanism for determining purchase profits as well as ascertaining prices of drugs has become more sophisticated. A system that pays for activity as opposed to rewarding those that purchase cleverly is one that favours smaller contractors and makes it easier for young pharmacists to make a decent living from pharmacy. Many are not in a position to buy freely from whoever they like as they don't achieve the numbers required or they have their loans guaranteed by a wholesaler who expects 70% of purchases thus compromising the young pharmacist's ability to source at best price. Cuts in category M and redistribution of funding via fees is a more transparently fair method of remuneration and we seem to be moving towards it. It is happening despite RPSGB declining to take a lead role in negotiations but I am certain that they have had their say behind closed doors.

I am a contractor Solly. I have to pay for everything. I couldn't do it if I was prepared to sacrifice funding in the name of a new contract. However I do believe that a better future will come out of the current turmoil. I suggest you learn about how the NHS contract works before posting such rubbish based on how you think it might work and what would motivate someone like me to have faith in PSNC but little faith in the RPSGB.

[Jeff]

I just don't see the professional body having a role other than to represent us professionally.

Which "us" is that?

Contractors aren't necessarily pharmacists.

So why on earth should a professional body represent contractors.

Where there is a tension between contractors and pharmacists surely it could be argued that a pharmacists professional body should be representing pharmacists?

The reading of this and other forums must have convinced you that such a tension does exist.

What role, if any, do you expect either the old or new professional body to take?

It could be argued that the single wholesaler model puts patients medicine supplies at risk - is this an issue for a professional body to address?

As both a contractor and a pharmacist what do you want a professional body to do?

Jeff

[Tony Schofield]

Which "us" is that?

Contractors aren't necessarily pharmacists.

So why on earth should a professional body represent contractors.

Where there is a tension between contractors and pharmacists surely it could be argued that a pharmacists professional body should be representing pharmacists?

The reading of this and other forums must have convinced you that such a tension does exist.

What role, if any, do you expect either the old or new professional body to take?

It could be argued that the single wholesaler model puts patients medicine supplies at risk - is this an issue for a professional body to address?

As both a contractor and a pharmacist what do you want a professional body to do?

Jeff

"Us" is pharmacists. (That feels bad grammatically!). The body would not be involved in negotiations between DOH and Contractors any more than it would be involved in setting locum rates or sticking it's nose into individual pharmacists contracts of employment.

It would promote the profession of pharmacy to the world and provide good quality support through CPD, accreditation and professional development etc etc. It would have a view on important issues like the responsible pharmacist, remote supervision etc.but not from the perspective of clinging to the past to preserve pharmacy jobs, the stance should be based on public safety and the pharmacist role in preserving it.

I do not think the professional body as envisaged will work. Only 4500 voted on who should be allowed to join! That I submit is the maximum number the body can expect as fee paying members unless of course the multiples fund employees membership. In that scenario I don't want to be a member.

Please don't expect a passionate defence of the PB by me. I have more on my mind than what I fear could be an irrelevance at best and a toothless nuisance at worst.

Whatever it manifests itself as there are other bodies available to get involved in the money.

[Jeff]

Tony,
Lots I agree with, but you've avoided the difficult.

Back to my previous examples

The single wholesaler model for community pharmacy. I have argued that it places patients continuity of supply of medicines at greater risk.

Is there a body that should address the question?

Staffing levels in pharmacy - is that a contractual issue or a patient safety issue?

Which body should be addressing these type of issues?

Jeff

[SolomonQ]

I suggest you learn about how the NHS contract works before posting such rubbish based on how you think it might work and what would motivate someone like me to have faith in PSNC but little faith in the RPSGB.

I dont think anything i posted contradicted they way the "new" contract works, and if you look back I never said the RPSGB had any role in negotiating anything to do with pharmacy payments.

to link with Jeff's post above, I have seen alot of pharmacy working so far and it has been to my surprise how many are actually under-staffed, and in the retail oriented multiples, for some reason this understaffing is only in the dispensary, and not on the "shop floor". now considering all the distraction in a pharmacy, e.g. addicts, P sales, advice to patients, staff enquiries, phone orders (prescrition collection services), people ringing up to see if their Rx is ready etc... etc...I find it ludacris that these pharmacies can run like that, but not more ridiculous than the fact they can get away with it. Someone out there isnt doing their job properly, we just need to find them and lynch them

[DavidS]

Please don't expect a passionate defence of the PB by me. I have more on my mind than what I fear could be an irrelevance at best and a toothless nuisance at worst.

Nor me. It would have been really nice to hear JH say, in answer:
C+D: Surely the disastrous impact of category M is something the professional body or RPSGB could provide leadership on?
ANIDEALJH:"Of course we are not mandated to involve ourselves directly with the question of remuneration, that being the remit of the PSNC who were elected by the contractors themselves to deal with just this; but I must say that the council have heard the concerns voiced by our members who work in community pharmacy, and are wondering what effect ......." (etc etc.)

[Tony Schofield]

I'll buy that!