Ahmad wrote:
> Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 14:26:44 GMT
> Subject: Re: Prescription Fraud
>
> On 01/15/98 12:06:25, "Mike Wells" <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
> > Perfectly possible. The problem then is that the patient MUST go to
> > that specific pharmacy. In 99% of cases that is not a problem of
> > course; but there will always be the patient who for some reason
> > after leaving the surgery decides to go some other pharmacist, and
> > who then strops up because he (it would usually be he, women are far
> > too sensible) cannot do so. In theory the newly selected pharmacist
> > could, of course, collect the script from the one to hwom it had been
> > sent in the first place. But then the patient would probably have
> > forgotten who that was.
>
> The patient won't have to remember who the original intended recipient
> was, the card or the e-script will do that :-)
>
> In the same way, going to a different chemist shouldn't be a problem,
> it's only a question of routing ;-)
Sorry, I may not have made myself clear. I meant that the patient
would have forgotten which PHARMACIST the e-script went to, not the
name of the patient for whom the prescription was intended.
If the patient is carrying a written version of the script (see a
later posting of mine) that will not nominate a specific pharmacist.
If the 'un-nominated' pharmacist can raise a query to locate the
e-script, then I think we may be back in the realm of a 'clearing
house' approach, with all the problems of confidentiality that this
raises.
>
> > I am not being facetious; I am trying to pont out that as in all of
> > these things, the devil is in the detail.
>
> Carry on, this is getting more fun :-)
Mike Wells
***************************************************
* M. Wells *
* 9 Hall Close *
* Bramhope *
* Leeds LS16 9JQ *
***************************************************
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|