Julian,
> What's been clear to GPs, dispensing and non-dispensing alike, is that to a
> very significant degree pharmacies, like pharmaceutical companies, act in
> their own best interests.
To an extent I agree - we have different agendas.
> Pharmacies have destroyed dispensing practices, limited to the capacity of
> other practices to expand by challenging intentions to dispense, and where
> independent (the group for which I have most sympathy) usually ended up
> either going out of business or selling out to chains.
And your proposed solution?
(For the record - mine has for a long time been that of having the pharmacist as a partner in the GP practice which owns the
pharmacy)
> However the idea that GPs should do extra unnecessary work to help pharmacy
> businesses and their shareholders is so ludicrous as to be beggar belief.
Pauls proposal wasn't to do extra work but to do less work - it's the change that has the impact. Now go back to my
proposal - imagine that your surgery owns the pharmacy - and the pharmacist is a partner - does your view change- does the
pharmacists - ?
>We can spend more time reviewing prescriptions (we don't
>need a pharmacist to do it for us)
LOL - I've reviewed scripts in enough surgeries to realise that in many instances a significant proportion of scripts just
aren't reviewed - monitoring often doesn't occur - and when it does the results are too often ignored.
N.B. Declaration of non-interest I am not and have never been a contractor - so I am not directly affected by script numbers.
Regards
Jeff
|