Pharmacists: Mary Harney vs Maurice Neligan

Rebelheart

Anybody hear Neligan on Newstalk this evening? He went on for ages. God, he hates what Mary Harney stands for, her policies and, well, it seems everything about her. I agree with him about so much, such as the entire issue of Harney's promotion of private hospitals with state funding. That is offensive from beginning to end.

However, he didn't seem to have much balance on the issue. Any time the issue of money being saved in the system was brought up by the Newstalk presenter he shirked detailing how that could be done and proceeded into yet another attack (rant?) against Harney. He seemed to have nothing constructive to say, and many people do want something constructive. He sounded more like a defender of the vested interests in the medical community (which includes pharmacists). I was left very unimpressed.

I'm listening to Harney now with Donagh Diamond on Prime Time and she is well able to defend herself. I detest her ideology, she is little but an Irish Margaret Thatcher. On the other hand, I do believe that she is honest and sincere (as politicians go).

Does anybody know the truth of what is actually happening in the pharmacy trade; is Harney essentially correct about the profits they are making?

Het-Field

There is huge money being made. However, pharmacists are seeking to defend their own diminished lot. I have been told by those in the pharmaceutical trade that it was the first areas to feel recession in late 2006. It has subsequently got worse and worse.

However, Harney needs to stand her ground, particularly against the likes of Neligan who is anxious to preserve his own vested interests. Its in the same vein as John Crown who is anxious not to have his salary cut.

Harney has been strong and honest, and her plan IS working. However, this current dispute is a reflection of the situation this country finds itself in.

Joey the lips

Rebelheart wrote: »

I'm listening to Harney now with Donagh Diamond on Prime Time and she is well able to defend herself. I detest her ideology, she is little but an Irish Margaret Thatcher. On the other hand, I do believe that she is honest and sincere (as politicians go).

Does anybody know the truth of what is actually happening in the pharmacy trade; is Harney essentially correct about the profits they are making?

I have spent a lot of time writing to politicians and dealing with my local pharmacy. Its just a back and forth arguement. The pharmacies are argueing that a 3rd party needs to mediate so they can raise there concerns, I agree with this but TBH after primetime tonight I am starting to wonder. The pharmacies make good points that 1 in 4 medicines pays for the other 3 and yes a rebalance is in order but I always felt that our medicines were way to dear and I always felt we should be using generic medicines but look at what the consumer agency said and I usually like what they have to say.

I never liked mary harney because I hate privatisation in most cases but so far after tonight she has the upper hand imo.

irish_bob

people should put aside thier disdain for harney and focus on the main point in hand , her facing down of the greedy ( creaming it for years ) pharmacists

most irish people will say anything to defend thier pay packets , no different with the chemists

irish_bob

Joey the lips wrote: »

I have spent a lot of time writing to politicians and dealing with my local pharmacy. Its just a back and forth arguement. The pharmacies are argueing that a 3rd party needs to mediate so they can raise there concerns, I agree with this but TBH after primetime tonight I am starting to wonder. The pharmacies make good points that 1 in 4 medicines pays for the other 3 and yes a rebalance is in order but I always felt that our medicines were way to dear and I always felt we should be using generic medicines but look at what the consumer agency said and I usually like what they have to say.

I never liked mary harney because I hate privatisation in most cases but so far after tonight she has the upper hand imo.

why do you hate privitisation

locum-motion

Het-Field wrote: »

particularly against the likes of Neligan who is anxious to preserve his own vested interests.

Vested interests? He's a retired surgeon who writes a column in the paper. What vested interests has he?

bleg

Hi guys. This has been discussed at length over in the Biology/Medicine forum. I don't agree with most of the comments on here but I hope that if you read through some of the thread to get some sort of idea what pharmacy in this country is facing. I'd know, I'm just graduated. Any comments or observations most welcome, I'll try my best to answer any questions you have too.

Edit: Link to thread http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055608548

Nelligan's interview was also placed on youtube. Definitely worth a listen.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CaoqAJkViYE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddqueDEX3q8

Joey the lips

irish_bob wrote: »

why do you hate privitisation

With the greatest respect I am well educated in the causes and effects of privatisation but i am also very socialist in my beliefs. This thread is not going down that road. Privatisation does not work in state services as the state ends up spending a MASSIVE amount of money subsidising an industry it has no real control over. Proof of this is in Nama!

+ for the lay man who is not interested in my education. Since privatisation of electrical networks in europe spending on the network has reduced. Now your first indication is to say "Brilliant" well you would be wrong cause demand has increased and it cannot cope long term. Coal powered stations are not used cause countrys dont care about the greenhouse gases they are being used cause demand cannot cope.

I can go on..... I still will hate privatisation but suggest you start a thread where i will contribute.

locum-motion

Re: Harney on Prime Time.

Of course she came across well; she was given a pre-recorded segment when she was allowed god knows how many takes to get it right, no opportunity for Liz Hoctor of the IPU to put anything to her, and that smarmy git licking the chocolate off her starfish the whole time. Contrast that with the aggressive way he treated Ms Hoctor, who handled herself in a very calm and dignified manner in the face of the hostility considering she's not a pro at that sort of thing, only allowing herself to get mildly flustered a little in the middle.

And Nelligan was brilliant on Newstalk; exposed the HSE/Government spin to be exactly that, especially the Competition Authority crap. And, by the way, to the poster who said s/he liked what the consumer guy said; there was no consumer guy on. There was a guy from the competition authority on. Not the same thing at all (at least not yet, a merger is supposed to be coming down the line). Competition Authority is there to promote competition, and nothing else. They freely admit that.
See here: http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61484677&postcount=469 for my reasoning as to why it's none of the Competition Authority's business.

In the interests of disclosure, I'm a pharmacist.

Joey the lips

locum-motion wrote: »

Re: Harney on Prime Time.

Of course she came across well; she was given a pre-recorded segment when she was allowed god knows how many takes to get it right, no opportunity for Liz Hoctor of the IPU to put anything to her, and that smarmy git licking the chocolate off her starfish the whole time. Contrast that with the aggressive way he treated Ms Hoctor, who handled herself in a very calm and dignified manner in the face of the hostility considering she's not a pro at that sort of thing, only allowing herself to get mildly flustered a little in the middle.

And Nelligan was brilliant on Newstalk; exposed the HSE/Government spin to be exactly that, especially the Competition Authority crap. And, by the way, to the poster who said s/he liked what the consumer guy said; there was no consumer guy on. There was a guy from the competition authority on. Not the same thing at all (at least not yet, a merger is supposed to be coming down the line). Competition Authority is there to promote competition, and nothing else. They freely admit that.
See here: http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61484677&postcount=469 for my reasoning as to why it's none of the Competition Authority's business.

In the interests of disclosure, I'm a pharmacist.

I will look at it all later have to head off am knackered. would you mind if i came back with questions its interesting your a pharmacist. I will be the first one to write on your behalf if i understood it all

Red Sleeping Beauty

irish_bob wrote: »

why do you hate privitisation

I hate privatisation of health care for the usual reasons.
Creates a two tier system of for the halfs and half-nots so the people with money can afford whatever treatment no matter how big or small while everyone else is saddled with massives bills, longer waiting lists, worse quality of life etc. etc.
Ye know, the usual.

bmaxi

irish_bob wrote: »

people should put aside thier disdain for harney and focus on the main point in hand , her facing down of the greedy ( creaming it for years ) politicians

When I see her doing this maybe it will mitigate the utter contempt I feel for this Tory b*tch.

irish_bob

bmaxi wrote: »

When I see her doing this maybe it will mitigate the utter contempt I feel for this Tory b*tch.

hate her by all means but appreciate that she needs to win this one

jimmycrackcorm

Alan Rouge wrote: »

I hate privatisation of health care for the usual reasons.
Creates a two tier system of for the halfs and half-nots so the people with money can afford whatever treatment no matter how big or small while everyone else is saddled with massives bills, longer waiting lists, worse quality of life etc. etc.
Ye know, the usual.

don't we already have a two-tier system i.e. VHI/ Quinn/ etc Vs. public health provision. If you pay for private health insurance then you get a better service. So shouldn't more people give up paying for ciggies and alchol and put the money towards health insurance instead?

lostexpectation

so have the pharmacies served with an injunction reopened

Joey the lips

I have read all the links attached in detail. I even understood foxys arguement with you loco cause I felt exactly the same but I have to say I am at a loss.

My understanding is riseing but I have a couple of issues.

Why is generic medicines only been discussed now. I have been following politics for years and I know of many parties calling for generic medicines a long time.

On the fees I unlike many have ran and managed business and i understand the differences in mark up's margins loss makers and know value items. I notice when anyone tries to ask the pharmacys the reasoning behind the losses they are told " What you want to know all out products"

I understand that if the HSE have there way that we will be traveling miles for our perscriptions but thats because pharmacies have pulled out. imo.

I am still at a loss as to why I should side with the pharmacies. By that I mean if someone says to me in the morning. Who do you support! If i say the pharmacies, and they say why? all i have to go on is my gut feeling.

Mary harney has introduced a new policy and not set down properly with the pharmacies this is fine. But in her words desperate actions call for desperate measures.

I am still at a loss to explain it tbh I still see it the same way as foxy. We are pawns and as such we are suffering because of pharmacies.

But i believe once of the two following things will happen Either pharmacies will win or pharmacies will loose

If they win this will involve a backdown by mary harney. This is highly unlikely and we are a long way off from an election. If they win we on long term illness will finally get out medicines again

If pharmacies loose. Many will go out of business. The older ones will survive. The newer ones who are mortaged up to the hilt will go. A bit like all us home owners who are loosing our homes. However some will survive!

Pharmacists are loosing money now so time will decide I am just hopeing its sorted soon because its us suffering.


If my attitude is not clear in this post I will make it clear. I have alot of respect and fondness for my local pharmacy. I dont want to see them suffer or loose staff.

bmaxi

irish_bob wrote: »

hate her by all means but appreciate that she needs to win this one

True, the issue needs to be decided in favour of the HSE. I just despise the woman and her general two faced, double standard attitude.

irish_bob

Alan Rouge wrote: »

I hate privatisation of health care for the usual reasons.
Creates a two tier system of for the halfs and half-nots so the people with money can afford whatever treatment no matter how big or small while everyone else is saddled with massives bills, longer waiting lists, worse quality of life etc. etc.
Ye know, the usual.

i believe in privitisation of our health service , you cant rely on the state to do anything efficently , due to their union dominance , state services ( in this country ) primarily exist for the benefit of those who work in them and also politicians who allow surplus to requirements remain in the likes of the HSE so as to gain electorally , with the level of wellfare we have in this country , everyone should be able to afford health insurance , for single people , decent plans start at around 500 quid , for a family of four , less than two grand , thats around 40 quid a week , many smokers who are parents often spend 50 quid a week on ciggarettes so its not as if they dont have the cash

im not an idealogue but as far as im concerned you cannot trust the state when it comes to most things and i include providing health care , if i thought it could , i would be prepared to pay more tax if i thought it wasnt going to john surplus to requirments ( fianna fail voter ) pen pushers salary but it always will be , therefore i would perfer see it run as a business where people get what they pay for and their is no politics and union intrangence to deal with and pay for too

dan_d

I believe - correct me if I'm wrong - that there's more at stake here than meets the eye. I was told by a GP over the weekend, that GPs are watching this situation very closely, as if Mary Harney wins, then it spells something similar up ahead for GPs.
I don't know who I agree with here - I certainly know I don't agree with Mary Harney cutting what are essentially front line services, while the administration stays bloated and consuming money, and also the 2-tier system she is creating (unintentionally or not) - but I also know that pharmacists make huge amounts of money, far more than their European counterparts. If Mary Harney wins, what happens? Will pharmacists not just raise their prices so the customer pays the difference they've lost??
Can someone please explain one basic point to me aswell. Why do we pay such large amounts of money for drugs, when in Europe they cost a fraction of the price (excuse my ignorance)??

irish_bob

dan_d wrote: »

I believe - correct me if I'm wrong - that there's more at stake here than meets the eye. I was told by a GP over the weekend, that GPs are watching this situation very closely, as if Mary Harney wins, then it spells something similar up ahead for GPs.
I don't know who I agree with here - I certainly know I don't agree with Mary Harney cutting what are essentially front line services, while the administration stays bloated and consuming money, and also the 2-tier system she is creating (unintentionally or not) - but I also know that pharmacists make huge amounts of money, far more than their European counterparts. If Mary Harney wins, what happens? Will pharmacists not just raise their prices so the customer pays the difference they've lost??
Can someone please explain one basic point to me aswell. Why do we pay such large amounts of money for drugs, when in Europe they cost a fraction of the price (excuse my ignorance)??

GP,s in ireland are another bunch of money grubbers who have been creaming it at the expense of the rest of us for years now , time this clique of all cliques got a bring down

bmaxi

As far as I'm concerned all this talk of a doomsday situation with rural pharmacies falling like ninepins is just so much hot air. I live close to Gorey in Co. Wexford and while it has a fairly populous hinterland , it is not exactly a metropolis. This small town has at least eight pharmacies, four of which opened in the last five years. If these businesses can't operate without a subvention, for that's what it is, from the state, then so be it. That's the way it works for most other businesses, why should pharmacies be any different?

irish_bob

bmaxi wrote: »

As far as I'm concerned all this talk of a doomsday situation with rural pharmacies falling like ninepins is just so much hot air. I live close to Gorey in Co. Wexford and while it has a fairly populous hinterland , it is not exactly a metropolis. This small town has at least eight pharmacies, four of which opened in the last five years. If these businesses can't operate without a subvention, for that's what it is, from the state, then so be it. That's the way it works for most other businesses, why should pharmacies be any different?

most irish people will say just about anything to defend thier pay levels , its no different with the pharmacists and thier using of thier patients as politcal pawns

Morgans

Dont have an awful lot of time for Harney, mainly because I dont really see the reform of the health service that she had been supposedly working on for the past decade. However, if she manages to breaks the cosiness of the Pharmacies and the GPs in the country, she can look back with pride on something achieved for the good of the country.

Of course the pharmacists who need to be more competitive and the GPs who drop their fees will feel pain (and Im sure plenty of them are nice people), but unfortunately like a lot of people they will have to adapt.

Joey the lips

irish_bob wrote: »

i believe in privitisation of our health service

So does mary harney.... Enough said. Is this now a thread about privatisation

grenache

Harney is a joke, she has overseen the setting up of the HSE which is basically an over-staffed organisation full of red tape and middle men that do nothing but get paid a lot for it. Now she wants us to go down the route of privatisation :rolleyes:

I'm currently on medication, and haven't been able to get it for the last 4 days all because Harney wont get off her ass and talk with the pharmacy union leaders.

lostexpectation

http://www.newstalk.ie/newstalk/news-details.jsp?id_news=22120
look aine brady td said the cuts were too servere ...oooh

bmaxi

I was listening to a guy on the radio today who paid almost €900 a year for his medication. What he has been doing for the last few years is taking a holiday in Spain, buying his medication there and he still gets change from his €900.
I know it has probably been aired before but it really speaks volumes about the situation here. Gov. blames pharmacies, pharmacies blame doctors, doctors blame drug companies, drug companies blame Gov, and so it goes. At the end of the day all of these are sitting pretty and Joe Public is footing the bill.

bleg

Pharmacists have offered savings of 83 million to the HSE (nearly 20% of what is paid to pharmacists). These savings would have minimal impact on patient service. That's their starting point for talks, 83million. This includes an 8% cut in the fees paid to pharmacists (same as other professionals) along with other saving measures such as generic substitution (which could be brought in according to a ministerial directive). The HSE/Minister has said no, it's our way or the highway. They have ignored the findings of two reports commissioned in this area (another waste of taxpayers money by the HSE). The latest one, The Indecon report, advised that due to the complicated nature of the fees structure in pharmacy that any change should be introduced should be introduced slowly and certainly not using as blunt an instrument as Emergency Legislation.

As the judge found in the Hickey case Competition Law doesn't prevent the Minister from negotiating. Even the EU commissioner in this area has stated this. The IPU have called for an independent 3rd party to act as an arbitrator in the dispute which would definitely mean any negotiations aren't subject to competition law. Lock the two sides in a room for a week (with the 3rd party without any preconditions (from either side) and sort it out. Make pharmacists stakeholders in the provision of their services instead of dragging them kicking and screaming according to a diktat.

bmaxi

bmaxi wrote: »

As far as I'm concerned all this talk of a doomsday situation with rural pharmacies falling like ninepins is just so much hot air. I live close to Gorey in Co. Wexford and while it has a fairly populous hinterland , it is not exactly a metropolis. This small town has at least eight pharmacies, four of which opened in the last five years. If these businesses can't operate without a subvention, for that's what it is, from the state, then so be it. That's the way it works for most other businesses, why should pharmacies be any different?

To be put bluntly, because if a pharmacist makes a mistake, then the patient could die. If the majority of people in Ireland think that Pharmacists are glorified shop keepers. Then, would you let your local mace shop assistant give your mothers/fathers their prescriptions with no training. Pharmacy is a highly skilled profession for a reason.

bmaxi

Deleted User wrote: »

To be put bluntly, because if a pharmacist makes a mistake, then the patient could die. If the majority of people in Ireland think that Pharmacists are glorified shop keepers. Then, would you let your local mace shop assistant give your mothers/fathers their prescriptions with no training. Pharmacy is a highly skilled profession for a reason.

No more than I'd like a pharmacist piloting a plane I was on.
Spurious argument.

slimjimmc

bmaxi wrote: »

No more than I'd like a pharmacist piloting a plane I was on.
Spurious argument.

or an electrician, mechanic, driver, etc.
Spurious indeed.

This pharmacies can't survive claim sounds uncanningly similar to the killing pubs claim when the smoking ban came in. Many pubs have indeed closed since but that was more due to a pre-existing downturn in trade rather than the lack of fag smoke inside.

dvpower

Deleted User wrote: »

To be put bluntly, because if a pharmacist makes a mistake, then the patient could die. If the majority of people in Ireland think that Pharmacists are glorified shop keepers. Then, would you let your local mace shop assistant give your mothers/fathers their prescriptions with no training. Pharmacy is a highly skilled profession for a reason.

In my experience of what pharmacists do, it is just glorified shopkeeping for the most part. Read a prescription, get the drugs off the shelf, measure them and hand them over. A machine could do that.

I'm sure they also provide valuable advise to their patients customers, but I do see them going the same way as the opticians; a smaller number of larger companies providing a good, reasonably priced service.

bleg

slimjimmc wrote: »

or an electrician, mechanic, driver, etc.
Spurious indeed.

This pharmacies can't survive claim sounds uncanningly similar to the killing pubs claim when the smoking ban came in. Many pubs have indeed closed since but that was more due to a pre-existing downturn in trade rather than the lack of fag smoke inside.

I honestly don't see how this even relates to be honest. The pubs knew for months if not years in advance that the smoking ban was coming. It wasn't a forced cut of 34% take it or leave it with no notice.

I am 100% positive that if the HSE/Minister sat down with the IPU, wholesalers and the manufacturers that hundreds of millions could be saved in a sustainable, with minimal impact on patient care. Get them all around a table, start from scratch and sort it out.

bmaxi

bleg wrote: »

I honestly don't see how this even relates to be honest. The pubs knew for months if not years in advance that the smoking ban was coming. It wasn't a forced cut of 34% take it or leave it with no notice.

I am 100% positive that if the HSE/Minister sat down with the IPU, wholesalers and the manufacturers that hundreds of millions could be saved in a sustainable, with minimal impact on patient care. Get them all around a table, start from scratch and sort it out.

I'm pretty sure this has been flagged for months if not years, only the implementation was an unknown. As regards the comparison with pubs, imo they were in a worse position as the effect on their business was an unknown quantity, it could have been 50%, 60%, they just had to suck it and see.
Why aren't, Boots, Unicare, Mc Cauleys etc. withdrawing from the scheme, surely they have to take the same cuts?
The truth, as I see it, is that the administration of the GMS has been a cosy cartel for many years, the Government has been forced to take action although they themselves have been complicit.

bleg

Sam McCauley's (and all Irish chains) are out they don't have the deep pockets the other chains do. The reason Boots (English) and Unicare (German) aren't is because they are huge, multi million euro multi nationals that can afford the cuts in the short term, just so long as the cuts result in independent pharmacies closing down and their competition being eradicated. If you think there is a cartel now (if we do please refer to the Competition Authority), wait until it's foreign multi nationals who are in control of the provision of pharmacy services to the Irish people who export their profits abroad.

Some sort of adjustment has been flagged for years but the Minister has ignored Pharmacists, the IPU and 2 reports she commissioned in this area (at great expense to the taxpayer). By implementing the cuts in the way she has done, none of the recommendations of ANY of these have been taken into account. The reason a Minister commissions reports is to better understand a sector she has no experience in. She is not a healthcare professional. The emergency legislation came into effect in February (I think) the cuts to pharmacists were announced on the 18th of June.

Do you think she spent this time consulting with pharmacists to see how sustainable savings could be made and how inefficiencies could be cut out? No.

Cuddlesworth

dvpower wrote: »

In my experience of what pharmacists do, it is just glorified shopkeeping for the most part. Read a prescription, get the drugs off the shelf, measure them and hand them over. A machine could do that.

I'm sure they also provide valuable advise to their patients customers, but I do see them going the same way as the opticians; a smaller number of larger companies providing a good, reasonably priced service.

Most of them could easily be doctors. They have the same knowledge but are much much better at the uses and chemistry of the drugs they administer. They need to be, if a doctor prescribes something that can kill(which from what I have heard they do quite often due to a lack on constant re-education on their part) its the pharmacist who is supposed to pick it up.

dvpower

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

Most of them could easily be doctors. They have the same knowledge but are much much better at the uses and chemistry of the drugs they administer. They need to be, if a doctor prescribes something that can kill(which from what I have heard they do quite often due to a lack on constant re-education on their part) its the pharmacist who is supposed to pick it up.

I don't see the need for such a high level of qualification when the vast bulk of their job is simply dispensing medicine.

I understand their role in sanity checking doctor's prescriptions (e.g. to check the dosage, check that the drug prescribed matches the condition), but I would have thought that in this day and age we could come up with a better system to do this rather than a whole separate layer of professionals.

irish_bob

dvpower wrote: »

I don't see the need for such a high level of qualification when the vast bulk of their job is simply dispensing medicine.

I understand their role in sanity checking doctor's prescriptions (e.g. to check the dosage, check that the drug prescribed matches the condition), but I would have thought that in this day and age we could come up with a better system to do this rather than a whole separate layer of professionals.

many professions are over qualified in this country , nurses to name one

dvpower

irish_bob wrote: »

many professions are over qualified in this country , nurses to name one

Yeah, but they were nice to my granny when she was sick. And sure don't they know more than the doctors anyway etc etc etc...

Alan Rouge

Alan Rouge wrote: »

I hate privatisation of health care for the usual reasons.
Creates a two tier system of for the halfs and half-nots so the people with money can afford whatever treatment no matter how big or small while everyone else is saddled with massives bills, longer waiting lists, worse quality of life etc. etc.
Ye know, the usual.

In principle I agree with you.
There are a number of things that shouldn't need private services.

The public health service should be so effecient and good and available all to free that the private sector wouldn't see an avenue there at all.

But for that to happen,you'd have to get a lot of lobotomies done on the disgracefull stupid , self interested people that are causing the public health service to be the bloated wastefull, ineffecient,vested interest heavy sham that it is.

As for the pharmacies.. they should be able to work on the margin that the government is giving them.
If some can and some can't,then the latter should close up shop end of...rather than pretend that their money grabbing attitude is justified.

Red_Marauder

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

They need to be, if a doctor prescribes something that can kill(which from what I have heard they do quite often due to a lack on constant re-education on their part)

I'm not sure what you've heard, but most drugs can kill or bring about very serious health problems unless properly prescribed and administered.

I would be very reluctant to believe that doctors are prescribing drugs to a fatal level "quite often", however. Given the nature of general practice or any situation where one is prescribing to a pharmacy, the nature of the prescription would tend to be somewhat routine and difficult to screw up for someone in a professional capacity as a recurring event.

On topic, Maurice Nelligan was a great cardiothoracic surgeon and is an entertaining columnist (minister for trollies, lol) but he would ruin the health services in this country if he got his way.

bleg

Just to get back to the crux of the issue.

The fact remains that under the emergency legislation introduced in February the Minister cut fees paid to other health professionals by 8%. On June 18th she announced that she'd be cutting the fees paid to pharmacists to 24% (HSE figure) 34% (IPU figure independently assessed by PwC).

In the interim period, from February to June, what was the Minister doing?
She didn't meet with Pharmacists.
She didn't ask pharmacists to come up with proposals for 133m worth of cuts.
She didn't take into account the proposal put forward by the IPU.
She said any pharmacist that didn't like the contract had the right to terminate.
She didn't investigate the capability of the HSE to manage upon the event of pharmacists terminating their contract.
She ploughed ahead with her head in the clouds without taking the advice of the pharmacists, patient groups or the TWO reports she had commissioned on the sector.
She gave pharmacists less than 2 weeks notice. Even if she had said in February that she'd be bringing in these cuts in June it might have given pharmacies a chance to adapt and there might not be so many terminators.

Is all of this OK?

dvpower

Red_Marauder wrote: »

I would be very reluctant to believe that doctors are prescribing drugs to a fatal level "quite often", however. Given the nature of general practice or any situation where one is prescribing to a pharmacy, the nature of the prescription would tend to be somewhat routine and difficult to screw up for someone in a professional capacity as a recurring event.

I'd imagine that the crappy system we have of a doctor scrawling the prescription down on a piece of paper and then the pharmacist having to try and interpret the name of the drug and the dosage must lead to errors (e.g mixing up similarly named drugs, misinterpreting the dosage).

But relying on the expertese of pharmacists to catch these problems seems wrong; that's just adding another layer of potential for human error. Wouldn't it be possible for prescriptions to be eletronically transferred to pharmacists and some common sense validation of drugs against dosages against medical conditions applied.

Riskymove

bleg wrote: »

Is all of this OK?

funnily enough if you change the context a bit lots of people would think it good..."sticking to her guns" ; refusing to bow to lobbies etc

SparkyLarks

Yes it is Ok.

Mary Harney is paying for a service from the pharmacists.
Thankfully she is trying to reduce the amount being paid for these services.
If more ministers and civil servants took the same approach with my money I woul be much happier.

Many Pharmacists are able to cope with these prices, some are not.
So why should taxpayers money have to go to subsidise the un compedative pharmacists.

There are so many pharmacists after springing up over the last few years, we now have too many. some of these will have to fail, just like the builders, coffee shops, spars etc.

bleg

dvpower wrote: »

But relying on the expertese of pharmacists to catch these problems seems wrong; that's just adding another layer of potential for human error. Wouldn't it be possible for prescriptions to be eletronically transferred to pharmacists and some common sense validation of drugs against dosages against medical conditions applied.

That's what pharmacists do.

For the benefit of other people who asked why there is a separation between prescribing and dispensing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharmacy#Separation_of_prescribing_from_dispensing

Red_Marauder

bleg wrote: »

Is all of this OK?

Yes. The simple fact is that the Minister has to make cuts in her Department. Personally, I would rather that she cut the fee paid to these individuals for dispensing medicines under the GMS scheme than have to cut or cancel services within the HSE system - which is what the pharmacists are currently doing in their reaction.

I'd imagine that the crappy system we have of a doctor scrawling the prescription down on a piece of paper and then the pharmacist having to try and interpret the name of the drug and the dosage must lead to errors (e.g mixing up similarly named drugs, misinterpreting the dosage).

Actually the prescribing system is quite effective, and is there for good reason. People in a hurry will always resort to shorthand and that is where interpretation problems arise, so the best answer is a clear and well defined shorthand system for prescribing medicines that all medical professionals can read. I don't believe errors are common at all.

dvpower

bleg wrote: »

That's what pharmacists do.

For the benefit of other people who asked why there is a separation between prescribing and dispensing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharmacy#Separation_of_prescribing_from_dispensing

I see a very clear reason why doctors shouldn't generally be in the dispensing business. I don't see why the dispensing business requires such highly qualified (and highly paid) professionals that it has now.

The same wiki page has a section on the future of pharmacy which envisages pharmacists becoming more involved in patient care.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharmacy#The_future_of_pharmacy

I could see a role akin to a public health nurse, but again this doesn't require the level of qualification or expense that pharmacists currently enjoy. And to be honest, the amount of psudo scientific quackery that most pharmacists currently tend to stock might be a barrier to this.

Alun

dvpower wrote: »

Wouldn't it be possible for prescriptions to be eletronically transferred to pharmacists and some common sense validation of drugs against dosages against medical conditions applied.

That's the way it worked when I was in the Netherlands (10 years ago). The doctor typed the prescription on the computer (computerized records too!) and it was automatically transferred to the nearest pharmacy. Often the prescription would be ready for me by the time I got there, no waiting involved. Also no money changed hands either at the doctors or the pharmacy since everything was covered by my health insurance. So yes, it's certainly possible.

dvpower

Red_Marauder wrote: »

Actually the prescribing system is quite effective, and is there for good reason. People in a hurry will always resort to shorthand and that is where interpretation problems arise, so the best answer is a clear and well defined shorthand system for prescribing medicines that all medical professionals can read. I don't believe errors are common at all.

I wasn't aware that medical shorthand extended to names of drugs. I can understand it on medical notes, but I don't see the value of it on prescriptions.

At the risk of going off topic I do think it would be better if prescriptions were written in a language that the patients could actually read. If pharmacists have a role in double checking a prescription, surely another pair of eyes (those belonging to the person who is most interested in what the prescription says) would help.

irish_bob

SparkyLarks wrote: »

Yes it is Ok.

Mary Harney is paying for a service from the pharmacists.
Thankfully she is trying to reduce the amount being paid for these services.
If more ministers and civil servants took the same approach with my money I woul be much happier.

Many Pharmacists are able to cope with these prices, some are not.
So why should taxpayers money have to go to subsidise the un compedative pharmacists.

There are so many pharmacists after springing up over the last few years, we now have too many. some of these will have to fail, just like the builders, coffee shops, spars etc.

very good post , what we had with theese phatmacists was corporate wellfare , i know the banks are an example of this also but lets not benchmark against appaling behaviour