How to Lose Business

[johnep]

Remember the time when a locum on his first day was arrested and charged with fraud. Mediphase had been endorsing Gaviscon with 5 x 100ml.
Was taken to local police station, fingerprinted and DNA recorded (probably still on file). After two years was finally cleared and the proprietor charged.
Under RP regs, of course, the locum would be fully responsible and probably get a prison sentence.
Full story in PJ and in archives of private-rx.
You have been warned.
johnep

[Fleegle]

Maybe the indepenent had a locum in who didn't know about keeping customers

There is an extremely thin line drawn between 'keeping customers' and exposing oneself to possible prosecution in return for a single day's pay. We both know that.

[pharmer7]

So apart from bringing in the issue of money - what explanation would you guys give to bulls**t your way out of this kind of situation? Customers just get angry if you bring in the idea of something being too expensive.

[mrmeds]

They've all "" paid their stamp"". Sometomes you 've got to loose a few quid to gain a customers loyalty

[Pharmanaut]

They've all "" paid their stamp"". Sometomes you 've got to loose a few quid to gain a customers loyalty

We will soon see about customer loyalty when the EPSR2 "Nomination Wars" start.
You think you do enough running around after prescriptions now just to keep your business...
(I meant the rhetorical you as in we, not personally)

[bobbin]

Have been wondering that myself.
Time was when you could use smaller packs and endorse them if you supplied them.
Some of the PMR systems were 'set to automatically endorse the smallest pack', which of course resulted in people making an appearance in the back pages of the PJ.
But that's clearly not the case here.

Where's the Bobbin character when you need him, the other drug tariff afficianado.

Hi,

Yes, that is correct. You would be paid for 3 x 30ml if that is what you endorse, regardless of whether the script stated 90ml or 1 x 90ml. The PPA considers that choice of pack size from which to dispense is up to the pharmacy, and will pay according to the endorsement. It is one of the few things that we get to choose! In the absense of an endorsement, payment would be for 1 x 90ml.

This rule applies to creams, ointments, tablets and capsules. For example, all of the major pharmacy chains dispense paracetamol out of packs of 32. They do this because it is more profitable due to the higher DT price for the 32-pack. Clearly, the DoH expects that pharmacies will do this because it is a means of maintaining buying profit at a reasonable level in the era of Category M. Any pharmacy which does not take advantage of using more profitable pack sizes is foolish!

Bobbin

[bobbin]

I think you could claim for 3 x 30 but if you did it a lot you might have to explain yourslef to the NHS BSA or your PCT.

That's not likely. I've had requests to dispense 3 x 30ml myself due to the five week expiry. If the patient is only applying to a small area, 30ml could easily last five weeks. Also, Zineryt is easy for patients to make up at home.

[Batfink]

Am I right in thinking you could also claim for three dispensing fees (as it has to be made up) if the patient came back each time rather than taking all three bottles at once?

[Pharmanaut]

Hi, Any pharmacy which does not take advantage of using more profitable pack sizes is foolish!

Bobbin

Thanks for the response, I had that at the back of my mind.
However, I would only endorse for whatever has actually been handed to the patient.
Otherwise, you have to watch out for 'new' patients who look like ex-Detective Sergeants; ie the ones that do the investigations for the counter-fraud unit

Also don't forget the the GPhC inspectors can enter any premises, commercial and domestic at any time without a warrant.
"Get your white coat on, your knicked." To paraphrase the sweeney.

There have been reported cases of the 'gaviscon shuffle' being prosecuted.

The Disciplinary Committee will meet at the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain, 1 Lambeth High Street, London SE1, 2008 at 9.30am to hear the following matters:

1. The Statutory Committee inquiry into a complaint by the Council of the Society against <name replaced by Mr X> which alleges that: during the period between January 1997 and July 2002 Mr X endorsed NHS prescriptions for Gaviscon Liquid, Oilatum Emollient, E45 Cream and Diprobase Cream to indicate that small pack sizes had been dispensed, when in fact large pack sizes had been dispensed; Mr X caused or permitted the wrongly endorsed prescriptions to be submitted to the prescription pricing authority (PPA) for payment; as a result of the submission of wrongly endorsed prescriptions to the PPA, the pharmacies received and retained overpayments; following an investigation for false small pack endorsements, the NHS Counter Fraud Security and Management Service claimed from Mr X a repayment of £10,000 in respect of overpayments referred to above; Mr X’s conduct was (a) dishonest; and/or (b) improper; and/or (c) (since July 2000) contrary to Key Responsibility 3 of the Code; and/or (d) (since July 2001) contrary to Part 2 A.2(a) of the Code, and that the particulars of misconduct alleged above individually or cumulatively may render Mr X unfit to have his name on the Register of Pharmaceutical Chemists.

[johnep]

Methadone scripts are the only ones on instalments at present that you will be paid for. Eg Dr prescribes 28 tabs which you dispense weekly in an MDS. You will only be paid for 1 x 28.
johnep