Another person responds…

A couple of points that should be noted:

1. Pharmacy Guild represents the owners of
pharmacy’s not the pharmacists. Only pharmacy owners can be full members or for
that matter nominal members. Therefore the Guild can not and does not represent
the interests of all pharmacists, only those who own pharmacy’s. Its a common
mistake. Most pollies and journos assume that the Guild represents us because of
the big building the Guild owns in Canberra. In all my years as a pharmacist (9
yrs) never ever been asked by the guild if I support the Guild’s views.

2. The owners (and therefore Guild)
don’t care about self-employment: they are the boss, the owners, the review
panel (they set the wages for pharmacists who work in their stores and the
assistants as well).

3. The average
community pharmacist is overworked and under-resourced. The service they provide
is generally of as good a standard as other healthcare practitioners (or
superior, considering there is no fee for counselling). It is a highly specious
argument for Mr Lake to say he didn’t receive proper advice and thus giving a
good reason to allow ownership by supermarkets for the following reasons.

a) Nurofen is one of the highest turnover
products in a community pharmacy

b) In
normal, healthy young men and women, it has a generally good adverse effects
profile (hence its move from heavily restricted, prescription only to available
in supermarkets albeit with increased warning statements on the label) and

c) to individually counsel all customers
who request the product would mean delaying many much more important issues,
such as prescriptions or pharmacist only medicines.

Its just not practical. But is that an argument to sell
it off? If anything, the demand in supermarkets on the pharmacist will be
higher, because the flow of prescriptions will be even higher. This will allow
even less time for critical issues such as counselling. No North Melbourne
Pharmacist anymore Mr Lake.

There
may be good reasons to allow ownership by supermarkets, but the quality of
advice is not one of them. Selling them off to Messers Corbett and co does not
answer your dream for better counselling, Mr Lake. Messers Corbett and co will
more than likely find a way to charge you for what advice you do receive (no
free lunches).

Additionally, Mr Lake
should read the labels: there are required advisory statements on medicine
labels, nurofen is one of the most tightly regulated and if he wasn’t playing
silly buggers, he’d read the label and be aware that the product isn’t to be
used if he had a stomach ulcer.

Eric writes:

More uninformed ignorant opinion.

>

> The price the public pays is
dictated by government, via the PBS

> subsidies.

>

> Most
everything else is a retail item which Woolies can sell now.

>

> The
biggest losers in Pharmacy are the employed ones. You can’t just set

> up,
you have

to buy an existing licence. And the price keeps going
up.

> If Woolies comes in, service will drop, generics will dominate,
“we only

> stock this brand”.

>

> The public won’t be better
off and likely will be worse, as smaller

> community stores
fold.

>

> In the last few years I’ve watched Woolies wipe out local
booze shops,

> Bunnings kill local hardware etc,.

>

> When the
retail price is subsidised and set by government I fail to see

> how
anybody can suggest the public could be winners.

>

> I haven’t
noticed Woolies offering cheap retail products in their petrol

> stations.
Nor using their muscle to lower meat and fresh food prices,

>
they’re

> the dearest of the lot in my experience.

>

> I know
hairspray, panadol, and general pharmacy retail lines can be bought

> at
the supermarket and often these items are cheaper on special in a Terry

>
White.

>

> The change that is needed is to let any pharmacist set up
where ever.

> Restrict pharamacists to majority ownership of one store and
require that

> they meet professional competency, eg,. If they are not up
to speed lose

> their license. Too many owners haven’t dispensed for
years.

Consumers/the public certainly do not have the amount of choice in
retail
pharmacy that I think they are entitled to have. Choice should be not
only
related to price but to the quality of professional service provided.
Consumers
are presently able to have free choice in both aspects when
choosing between
all(?)other health professionals- why not pharmacists and
pharmacy services.

One of the solutions proposed is to have pharmacies
situated in supermarkets.
Supermarkets argue this will benefit consumers in
regard to cost and in reply
some pharmacists (mainly those who own
pharmacies) say quality of service/care
will suffer. Pharmacists base this
argument on the proposition that a non
pharmacist owner will not understand
profession responsibility/ and or
influence employee pharmacists to act
unprofessionally. This argument ignores
the fact that we already have TWO
HUGE examples of quality pharmaceutical
service provided by non-pharmacist
owners providing an excellent service using
employee pharmacists- public
hospital pharmacy departments and retail
pharmacies owned by Friendly
Societies.

There is another way to increase competition- allow
pharmacists to open
pharmacies whereever they desire. Let the
public/consumers then decide where
they want to shop based on criteria
important to them. This is the case that
existed since pharmacies first
started in Australia and continued up until 15
years ago. This level of
competition exists between all other health
professionals. The existing
position of restricted numbers of pharmacies is
actively protected by
existing owners because of the IMMENSE dollar values
attached to the goodwill
value of the businesses and hence sale prices. The
cost of purchasing a
pharmacy makes it extremely difficult for enterprising new
graduates to
purchase a business. The restriction of pharmacy numbers means
those young
pharmacists cannot choose to open in opposition to an existing
pharmacy where
they think they can provide a superior service.

The argument thet
pharmacy is not a monopoly cannot be based on the existing
number of retail
pharmacies. It is a monopoly situation because potential
pharmacies are
prevented from entering the market.

Money paid to pharmacy by Government
via the National Health Scheme, public
money, should not be able to assist in
the maintenance of a monopolistic
situation where the public does not
effectively have a choice of where their
money is spent.

Jenny
Callaghan