New Pharmacist Contracts - Will cost jobs and hurt the weak

[pjb07]

I have just read a statement from an independant pharmacy protesting the new contracts so I decided to look into this issue -

If this contract goes through :

1-My DPS will be under threat - ie I now pay 90 euro a month for my meds but i could have to pay as much as 500 (which my would be a huge financial strain)

2-Over 400 independant pharmacies have told the pharmaceutical society of Ireland they would go out of buisness

3- My pharmacist technician sister would be one of hundreds left unemplyed.

4-Effectively chains like boots would be given a monoply.

Who would agree to these terms -
-They would recieve a sum deemed appropriate by the HSE for each item regardless of what they paid ie Medicine costs 100 HSE might only give 50 and so the pharmacist would be forced to cover the other expense (and through him the taxpayer) in a system where we pay taxes so our medicines are covered by the DPS.
-All claims must meet a set of unspecified conditions
-Licenses will be revoked if they dont sign the new contract
-Contracts are non negotiable and can be terminated with only 3 months notice


This is just insane bullying. Also only the poorest, weakest and sickest will suffer. How can anyone support a government who condones this kind of cost cutting measure?

[kepa]

Yes, this contract truly is a piece of work. Pharmacists are expected to sign up to the following :
1. You will be paid what we think is an appropriate cost price for medicines regardless of what you have paid for them.
2. You will not be paid if your claims do not meet our (unspecifed) terms.
3. You contract can be terminated with 3 months notice.
4. We can change what we pay you unilaterally and if you do not like the new arrangements your contract can be terminated.
5. You have no right to any negotiations and your agreement is not required for any changs to the contract.
What ARE those pesky pharmacists complaining about!!??

[pjb07]

if my DPS goes i am well and truly f***ed I really dont have the money to control my condition

[michael1965]

Who would agree to these terms -
-They would recieve a sum deemed appropriate by the HSE for each item regardless of what they paid ie Medicine costs 100 HSE might only give 50 and so the pharmacist would be forced to cover the other expense (and through him the taxpayer) in a system where we pay taxes so our medicines are covered by the DPS.

Presumably pharmacists can't be forced to sell at a loss. What you're really hinting at is that some pharmacies (the big multiples?) are prepared to take a lower profit margin. If that's the case, I don't see what the problem is?

[R Paul]

The profit margin for pharmacists is apparently something like 35%+. If so, it is no wonder the HSE is trying to reduce costs and that the pharmacists are complaining like hell. That said, I heard one pharmacist claim that if a doctor perscribes drug X, the HSE doesn't allow them to dispense an identical generic drug as a replacement. If this is true, the HSE are basically using consumers/tax-payers money to provide a subsidy to the drug manufacturers.

[essexboy]

Why not tackle SIPTU and /or IMPACT whose members with their"Spanish practices" are costing the health servives a fortune?

[kepa]

Presumably pharmacists can't be forced to sell at a loss.

From the 1st of March pharmacies will be expected to provide certain medicines at a loss, for example, Insulin to Medical Card holders. Fact.

What you're really hinting at is that some pharmacies (the big multiples?) are prepared to take a lower profit margin. If that's the case, I don't see what the problem is?

The problem is that these measures will close around 300 pharmacies for good. There are currently 1400 pharmacies in Ireland. These pharmacies will be in rural and urban marginalised areas. Pharmacists have opened up their accounts to their public representatives to prove this. A rational distribution of pharmacies throughout the country is vital to providing this essential service. The HSE say these measures will save €100 million, but they will cost the state much more than that.

[FutureTaoiseach]

Blatent propaganda from the pharmacies who never tire of ripping-off the hardpressed Irish consumer with prices 500% higher than their Spanish counterparts for example. They buy cheaper generic drugs then demand the full price courtesy of the taxpayer. I'm having none of it, unlike the slavish FF backbenchers of the Galway Tent fame. The IPU were very clever in attaching "Union" to their title. What better way to convert Labour into supporters of this most exploitative form of capitalism.

[michael1965]

Presumably pharmacists can't be forced to sell at a loss.

From the 1st of March pharmacies will be expected to provide certain medicines at a loss, for example, Insulin to Medical Card holders. Fact.

Well maybe pharmacies should be able to add a charge to cover their costs.

What you're really hinting at is that some pharmacies (the big multiples?) are prepared to take a lower profit margin. If that's the case, I don't see what the problem is?

The problem is that these measures will close around 300 pharmacies for good. There are currently 1400 pharmacies in Ireland. These pharmacies will be in rural and urban marginalised areas. Pharmacists have opened up their accounts to their public representatives to prove this. A rational distribution of pharmacies throughout the country is vital to providing this essential service. The HSE say these measures will save €100 million, but they will cost the state much more than that.

Maybe they should deal with that problem when (if) it arises. Like I said above, if pharamacies can add a charge if their costs aren't covered, then they can compete with each other, just like every other sector of the economy does.

Yes, this contract truly is a piece of work. Pharmacists are expected to sign up to the following :
1. You will be paid what we think is an appropriate cost price for medicines regardless of what you have paid for them.
2. You will not be paid if your claims do not meet our (unspecifed) terms.
3. You contract can be terminated with 3 months notice.
4. We can change what we pay you unilaterally and if you do not like the new arrangements your contract can be terminated.
5. You have no right to any negotiations and your agreement is not required for any changs to the contract.
What ARE those pesky pharmacists complaining about!!??

1. Fair enough provided any such decision is reasonable, open to review and subject to arbitration or an independent expert's decision. Otherwise pharmaceutical companies and pharmacists may collude. Ordinary pharmacy employees already get loads of free stuff from drugs reps and it is not hard to figure out why. The culture of inducements is already there and staff are trained in from day one.

2. Terms must be open to review and the Government must control the terms to implement government policy. Again any actions should be fair and reasonable and subject to arbitration/independent expert. The Government should be allowed flexibility though and only be prevented from acting oppressively or grossly unfairly.

3. This is absolutely fair. It is also a pretty generous period in a purchaser/supplier contract.

4. Again, this is fair. If you won't sell us goods at the price we are willing to pay then the agreement can be brought to an end.

5. This is over the top. Nobody has a right to negotiate anyway. However, there should be a conciliation process if there is a dispute. It should be enough for the government to rely on the fact that they can terminate individual contracts if people refuse to renegotiate. Reserving the right of unilateral change to terms other than price is too much.