In Views

Follow this topic

Bookmark

Record learning outcomes

Emotions are running high among pharmacists who continue to feel the searing injustice of having to subsidise the NHS by dispensing medicines at a loss.

I say ‘having to’ for good reason. Current legislation says they must, as Labour bluntly reminded us recently. Dispensing at a loss is “not a valid reason for refusing to dispense”, it said, referring to secondary legislation known as the National Health Service (Pharmaceutical and Local Pharmaceutical Services) Regulations 2013 which sets out the circumstances when pharmacists can legally refuse to dispense.

Look through it and you will see it does not include dispensing at a loss. This despite the obvious correlation between increasing prices of medicines and insufficient reimbursement, resulting pressure on pharmacies and likelihood of closures, leading to patient harm.

I’m no lawyer but that might be the basis of a legal challenge to Labour, who would probably respond with the crass counter argument that pharmacists would be jeopardising patient safety if they refused to dispense loss-making medicines. Labour needs to see the bigger picture.

Anger on social media has been palpable. Pharmacist Jon Campbell said the government was engaging in “fraudulent activity” by “forcing” pharmacies to dispense at a loss. Daryl Holder, a company secretary at PharmLand Ltd, said it showed “how little” Labour “values and respects pharmacy” and proved they “are happy for closures to continue and patient access to get worse”. Many more scathing critiques inhabit the social sphere.

Legislation is key. As the National Pharmacy Association and Independent Pharmacies Association work out if pharmacies would be breaching their terms of service or risk losing their NHS contracts if they refused to dispense, pharmacy has two options.

It can start a petition to force Labour to respond in parliament. Or - and this seems more compelling - get an MP to introduce a Private Members’ Bill in an attempt to change legislation. Even if the Bill doesn’t succeed, it could generate huge publicity and still affect the legislation indirectly.

What we need, then, is an MP who passionately supports and understands community pharmacy to put a Bill forward. Ideally, a pharmacist and an MP. What do you say, Sadik Al-Hassan?

Neil Trainis is the editor of Independent Community Pharmacist.