Check your Pharmacist has an honest relationship with you the customer.

liam84

Now you get it.

Glad that's cleared it up for you.

So when will we get those price lists up in the shops, do you think for us paying customers?

Kurtosis

Well, you can see how I misunderstood your message. Can't answer ya on the price lists, won't be in a pharmacy for the foreseeable future (unless I catch a cold)!

As for getting an itemised receipt as I said, it's not what you are paying for, it's the State paying. Why should you get a receipt for something you did not pay for? If the State want to tell you what they are paying then that is really up to them, a pharmacy shouldn't give you the details of a transaction between them and another party (in this case the government).

liam84

penguin88 wrote: »

Well, you can see how I misunderstood your message. Can't answer ya on the price lists, won't be in a pharmacy for the foreseeable future (unless I catch a cold)!

As for getting an itemised receipt as I said, it's not what you are paying for, it's the State paying. Why should you get a receipt for something you did not pay for? If the State want to tell you what they are paying then that is really up to them, a pharmacy shouldn't give you the details of a transaction between them and another party (in this case the government).

Penguin - I know you're only starting out in pharmacy, but I have actually said in a number of posts in this thread that I am a paying customer - that's why I suggested to you to go back and read the comments in context.

Here's an example of a post from earlier to which you responded.
"I went to get some meds this week, and the palaver I got from the pharamcist in explaining to me why he couldn't give me the reduced price cos the list wasn't accurate, and anyway he wasn't sure if one of the meds was on the 40% list, that I'd have to be buying more than 120 euro of drugs before he could give me a lower mark-up cos the State was paying it, and telling me that the generic drug he was giving me was cheaper than the branded one on my prescription. (didn't think he could do this, but since he said it was cheaper to me, I didn't argue and wasn't sure anyway.)

I gave up and just paid. The receipt I got had just one lump sum on it, not the individual price of the meds - is this legal?"

Why do you think I've been making the points about validly questioning the higher mark-up I am paying compared to others for the same service - refilling pills into a bottle each month - and getting a lump sum receipt.

Jeez. I give up.

locum-motion

Sunday afternoon now, I haven't been on since Friday night, but, my oh my, what alot of activity in the meantime!

Liam, I chose eggs as an analogy because I cooked myself an egg for my tea on Friday. Nothing else. I could just as easily have said bread, spaghetti, coffee or all of the above. The point I was making was that other retailers don't have to provide a breakdown of how their prices are arrived at at the point of sale; why should pharmacies? This was in direct response to your question but also to the actions of the IPHA. Sorry if it turned into a bit of a rant.

liam84

locum-motion wrote: »

Sunday afternoon now, I haven't been on since Friday night, but, my oh my, what alot of activity in the meantime!

Liam, I chose eggs as an analogy because I cooked myself an egg for my tea on Friday. Nothing else. I could just as easily have said bread, spaghetti, coffee or all of the above. The point I was making was that other retailers don't have to provide a breakdown of how their prices are arrived at at the point of sale; why should pharmacies? This was in direct response to your question but also to the actions of the IPHA. Sorry if it turned into a bit of a rant.

No bother. I'm not beyond a bit of a rant meself.

I'm curious about your other examples - they're all commodity goods - although coffee has variety and tastes to be able to compete on more than just price. Is pharmacy effectively selling commodity drugs and therefore is allowing itself to be defined by price alone or does it see itself as more than that as a professional service?

What was so bad about the actions of the pharma companies/IPHA? They cut their prices - long overdue in the view of the public (and pharmacists presumably) - and they provided details about what they charged the State - what's not to like?

angeldelight

liam84 wrote: »

They cut their prices - long overdue in the view of the public (and pharmacists presumably) - and they provided details about what they charged the State - what's not to like?

Nothing at all wrong with that. What's wrong is that they didn't give pharmacists any notice of what products would be reduced. So pharmacists who had bought stock at the old price had only 10 days to hope to dispense all of that stock. I know of pharmacists who were very very focused on this and still managed to lose 6-7k overnight between 31st Jan and 1st Dec.

Also they provided details about what the State was charged - nothing wrong with that. What is wrong is that when people rang the IPHA helpline they were told everyone with a DPS card was also entitled to those prices which was blatantly untrue. They caused a lot of confusion for both patients and pharmacists.

locum-motion

liam84 wrote: »

...I'm curious about your other examples - they're all commodity goods - although coffee has variety and tastes to be able to compete on more than just price. Is pharmacy effectively selling commodity drugs and therefore is allowing itself to be defined by price alone or does it see itself as more than that as a professional service?...

Of course we see ourselves as providing a professional service, and drugs and the provision of same are much more than a simple commodity. But this thread isn't about Medication Use Reviews, Drug Interactions or anything else. The thread is about drug prices, and as long it's prices we're talking about then it is valid to compare them to other commodities. My central point still remains.

Tree

It's not normal to ask for a breakdown on a service either to be fair.

When was hte last time you demanded details on how the cost of a consultation with any other service cost you? Various insurances for liabitily and premises, lease, utilities and staff, do you need these costs given to you too? Profit is rarely pure profit.

liam84

locum-motion wrote: »

Of course we see ourselves as providing a professional service, and drugs and the provision of same are much more than a simple commodity. But this thread isn't about Medication Use Reviews, Drug Interactions or anything else. The thread is about drug prices, and as long it's prices we're talking about then it is valid to compare them to other commodities. My central point still remains.

Ok. But drugs are the only things you charge for at the dispensary counter not the things you mention above in capital letters.

Tree - "It's not normal to ask for a breakdown on a service either to be fair.
When was the last time you demanded details on how the cost of a consultation with any other service cost you? Various insurances for liability and premises, lease, utilities and staff, do you need these costs given to you too? Profit is rarely pure profit."

Who's asking for this kind of info? I haven't read about anyone asking for this.

As for when was the last time that I asked for a breakdown on the cost of a consultancy - it was last week. If I offer or purchase services of a consultant, I ask how the cost is broken down and what is included or allowed for. SOP.

locum-motion

liam84 wrote: »

...Who's asking for this kind of info? I haven't read about anyone asking for this...

You are asking for this.
Many of the last 20 or so posts in this thread, including my eggs-ample (Sorry for the pun, couldn't resist!), flow directly from what you posted in the following post.

liam84 wrote: »

...We're told that pharmacists don't act in concert, so we presume they don't collude on the mark-ups they charge private customers. Therefore, the information should be made visible in the store and at the till...

liam84

locum-motion wrote: »

You are asking for this.
Many of the last 20 or so posts in this thread, including my eggs-ample (Sorry for the pun, couldn't resist!), flow directly from what you posted in the following post.

Well, that was a direct response to something you posted related to mark-ups being disclosed mean pharmacists were coming clean. I said it was highly unlikely that pharmacists would disclose their profit margin/mark-ups. I haven't been seeking detailed information on costs like insurance, liability, etc, etc.

I have said consistently that detailed prices on individual items should be provided at the till instead of the lump sum total currently used. And I also suggested that a price list for common drugs should also be provided.

Clearly If I know what the base price is for the drugand the wholesaler's mark-up, it wouldn't take much to work out the mark-up, once the pharmacist gives you the individual prices of medicines, as opposed to a lump sum. Their overall profitability I'm not interested in.

This is how a pharmacist should begin to have an honest relationship with their customer.

Tree

By explaining how their business costs affect the price of a product? How does this make the pharmacist more honest? It's private business, not a goverment agency. The contract they have with the government is negotiated with the government. The private prices they charge you are a private contract and Totally Unrelated.

Seriously, have you any idea about business? Do you go to the pub wanting to know how much the drink comes from the wholesaler at so you can calculate the markup (which is likewise, NOT ALL PROFIT).

liam84

Tree wrote: »

By explaining how their business costs affect the price of a product? How does this make the pharmacist more honest? It's private business, not a goverment agency. The contract they have with the government is negotiated with the government. The private prices they charge you are a private contract and Totally Unrelated.

Seriously, have you any idea about business? Do you go to the pub wanting to know how much the drink comes from the wholesaler at so you can calculate the markup (which is likewise, NOT ALL PROFIT).

You ask how does this make the pharmacist more honest?

Let me make it real simple for you.

Can pharmacy owners provide the individual prices of what they charge for individual drugs to their customers when they purchase them?
Would they be willing to put up a price list in their shops so that their retail prices are more transparent?

For example, a till receipt might contain some or all of the following (the types and prices are made up so don't argue with them):

Actonel 35mg €39.21
Micardis 45mg €19.62
Zoton Tab 40mg €49.91
Zyprexa 15mg €132.41
Nexium 45mg €49.11

Total: €290.26

Forget the paranoia about other people knowing mark-ups and profitability. I know how much a pub charges for a drink because they put a list of prices up inside. (It's not that difficult to come by the other information on mark-ups, etc, if someone wants to get hold of it - and to work out if someone is ripping you off.)

locum-motion

I don't know how many different items are in the average pharmacy's dispensary, but I think I heard a figure of 2,500 somewhere, and there are many variations of dose and quantity that might be prescribed.

Posting a comprehensive price list would be impossible.
Posting a few examples would be useless to the vast majority of patients.

And a price list wasn't what you asked for before. You were asking for profit margins and mark-ups to be posted.

If a price list was what you actually meant all along, then I apologise for assuming you typed what you meant and meant what you typed.

It would also mean relying on the pharmacist to come clean on their profit margin/mark-up which they're unlikely to do. and to provide itemised bills on each of the meds as opposed to lumping them all into one total so the customer can't see what they've been charged for each med (sneaky)

so we presume they don't collude on the mark-ups they charge private customers. Therefore, the information should be made visible in the store and at the till.

liam84

locum-motion wrote: »

I don't know how many different items are in the average pharmacy's dispensary, but I think I heard a figure of 2,500 somewhere, and there are many variations of dose and quantity that might be prescribed.
Posting a comprehensive price list would be impossible.
Posting a few examples would be useless to the vast majority of patients.
And a price list wasn't what you asked for before. You were asking for profit margins and mark-ups to be posted.
If a price list was what you actually meant all along, then I apologise for assuming you typed what you meant and meant what you typed.

Thanks Locum. I hadn't realised I was asking for profit margins and mark-ups to be posted as opposed to getting an itemised price list instead of a lump sum total. It must have been Someone Else.

Here's the first time the issue was raised much earlier in the thread by Someone Else:

"......telling me that the generic drug he was giving me was cheaper than the branded one on my prescription. (didn't think he could do this, but since he said it was cheaper to me, I didn't argue and wasn't sure anyway.) I gave up and just paid. The receipt I got had just one lump sum on it, not the individual price of the meds - is this legal?"


A bit later there was another comment from Someone Else:
"First one sounds like a plan. An illegal one. It would also mean relying on the pharmacist to come clean on their profit margin/mark-up which they're unlikely to do. And to provide itemised bills on each of the meds as opposed to lumping them all into one total so the customer can't see what they've been charged for each med (sneaky)"

A little later again:
"It's only when it's under €120 that the customer has any say in what they pay or whether they pay a particular pharmacy. It all depends on how motivated you are as a customer to seek out value for money. To assist this, pharmacies should be required to provide itemised receipts for the drugs they dispense instead of just gross totals. And an itemised price list of drugs should be made available in stores so that customers can compare. And someone should put together a website that lists all the prices of these drugs for even greater transparency."

Here's the fourth time Someone Else references having visibility on price information at the till, and acknowledge that mark-ups are kept secret. "Well no it doesn't. We're told that pharmacists don't act in concert, so we presume they don't collude on the mark-ups they charge private customers. Therefore, the information should be made visible in the store and at the till. One or two pharmacists explaining how they charge does not reflect how the whole market acts or charges, nor should it - if it is truly competitive. In fact, I'd assume any pharamcist worth their salt would keep secret what they charge their private customers in order to remain competitive in the public eye."

When a poster says that itemised receipts are issued in general, because they have a receipt in their hand showing this, Someone Else replied:
"You say in general, but only have your own receipt as evidence that it happens. I have receipts from the last three years from four different pharamcies that says they don't. Now maybe I've picked on unusual pharamcies, and the general practice is that prices are itemised sufficiently.
If what you say about the prices changing every month is accurate then a price list would be difficult but not impossible. I presume there must be a Top 20 or 30 drugs prescribed all the time. Those are the ones to publicise within your store and grab customers attention."

You then responded with the explanation :
"At the time the DPS was set up, a thing called the 'Unified Claim Form' was invented. It's the blue and white receipt that you get with your medicines. It's called the Unified form coz the same piece of paper can have different data printed on it according to which of the various Community Drugs Schemes the patient is on.
Look near the top right corner. Liam, I bet your paper with no individual prices on it has the letters DP or DPS in a box there......DP is printed on DPS receipts. The data thereon is the data that the Dept of Health wanted printed on it when the scheme was set up. There's no mystery or conspiracy there, I'm afraid."

To which Someone Else reasonably responded in another post:
"As a paying patient who does have DPS in the corner of his Unified Form - I'm suddenly interested in seeing what's what. So what if a unified form was issued by the Govt? Does that stop pharmacies presenting itemised receipts to their customers? I never mentioned mystery or conspiracies, just give me information."


Here's where Someone Else corrected another poster who was making a similar assumption about him wanting to know about mark-ups and profit margins.:
"Well, here's what I actually said: 'To assist this, pharmacies should be required to provide itemised receipts for the drugs they dispense instead of just gross totals. And an itemised price list of drugs should be made available in stores so that customers can compare. And someone should put together a website that lists all the prices of these drugs for even greater transparency.'
I didn't say anything about cost and margin. Maybe go back and read the context in which I made this statement, cos I don't want to repeat it all again and clog up the discussion."

This was his response where he understood what Someone Else was getting at:
"You began the post by talking about mark-up and the customer being blind to it above €120. This led me to believe that the "itemised price list" you wanted instead of gross totals referred to a breakdown of price for each item. Sorry for the misunderstanding, but just showing why I drew that conclusion."

Except he still didn't get it:
"As for getting an itemised receipt as I said, it's not what you are paying for, it's the State paying. Why should you get a receipt for something you did not pay for? If the State want to tell you what they are paying then that is really up to them, a pharmacy shouldn't give you the details of a transaction between them and another party (in this case the government)."

To which Someone Else replied:
"I am a paying customer.......Why do you think I've been making the points about validly questioning the higher mark-up I am paying compared to others for the same service - refilling pills into a bottle each month - and getting a lump sum receipt."


Sorry for the confusion and mix-up.

locum-motion

OK, there's been confusion on both sides here; As I see it at the moment (having done alont of re-reading) we've been arguing different points; you've been arguing FOR one thing, while I was arguing AGAINST a different thing. Apologies.

liam84 wrote: »

"As a paying patient who does have DPS in the corner of his Unified Form - I'm suddenly interested in seeing what's what. So what if a unified form was issued by the Govt? Does that stop pharmacies presenting itemised receipts to their customers? I never mentioned mystery or conspiracies, just give me information."

The answer to your question here is "Yes". The IT solutions used in pharmacies to keep records and to print labels and receipts are designed to conform to a specification. That specification (as I said in the bit reproduced below) specifies what the DOH wants on the forms. It doesn't allow the pharmacy to amend that.

Now, all that being said, given that historically DR and DP prices were the same, it didn't matter in the past. Now that DR and DP prices are likely to be different, what you'll probably see happening in future is that you'll be given DR receipts unless and until your total for the month passes by the Govt's threshold value, at which point your prescriptions cease to be a private transaction between you and the pharmacy and becomes a transaction for which the Govt pays.

Does that make sense?

locum-motion wrote:

"At the time the DPS was set up, a thing called the 'Unified Claim Form' was invented. It's the blue and white receipt that you get with your medicines. It's called the Unified form coz the same piece of paper can have different data printed on it according to which of the various Community Drugs Schemes the patient is on.
Look near the top right corner. Liam, I bet your paper with no individual prices on it has the letters DP or DPS in a box there......DP is printed on DPS receipts. The data thereon is the data that the Dept of Health wanted printed on it when the scheme was set up. There's no mystery or conspiracy there, I'm afraid."

sam34

yogy, there's no need for that sort of rubbish here.

it's unhelpful and pointless

post in a similar vein again and you will be banned

yogy

Fair enough.

sam34

fair enough to take offence i think, but we dont tolerate unhelpful sarkinesss round these parts

yogy

liam84 wrote: »

If I walked into my pharmacy and I knew that the man/woman behind the counter had more than how many 'eggs' they were going to sell me on their mind, I might sit up and take notice. Maybe they'd be aware of the illness I had. Maybe they'd know about the effects other drugs might have on me. Maybe they'd be willing to take the time to talk about that and what impact it was having on my life. Maybe they'd be willing to get involved in what they are actually dispensing drugs for, and provide some value around the product were otherwise mindlessly shovelling into a pill bottle on my behalf. Maybe they might come up with some added-value service that I'd be willing to pay for because my GP is too busy or hasn't enough time to take time out to discuss things. .

Good job liam84, you've just summed up the pharmacist's job right there. It's far from just counting pills as some lesser informed might believe. All that, and having to deal with some irrational, ignorant customers!

liam84

locum-motion wrote: »

OK, there's been confusion on both sides here; As I see it at the moment (having done alont of re-reading) we've been arguing different points; you've been arguing FOR one thing, while I was arguing AGAINST a different thing. Apologies.

The answer to your question here is "Yes". The IT solutions used in pharmacies to keep records and to print labels and receipts are designed to conform to a specification. That specification (as I said in the bit reproduced below) specifies what the DOH wants on the forms. It doesn't allow the pharmacy to amend that.

Now, all that being said, given that historically DR and DP prices were the same, it didn't matter in the past. Now that DR and DP prices are likely to be different, what you'll probably see happening in future is that you'll be given DR receipts unless and until your total for the month passes by the Govt's threshold value, at which point your prescriptions cease to be a private transaction between you and the pharmacy and becomes a transaction for which the Govt pays.

Does that make sense?

Locum - thanks for the apology. Clarity restored.

Now that you've answered yes to my question - I'm curious about a system design that the Govt has imposed on a private sector operation that appears to contravene good consumer law/practice.

Why would the DOHC/HSE/whoever stipulate that a DPS patient who is regularly under the threshold not be given detailed price information on their medicines (and I'm not referring to mark-ups or profit margins) - particularly when their prescription is consistently the same amount over time? Why would the DOHC insist that only a lump sum be provided?

It's a curious practice and one that should be reported to OCA. I presume pharmacies wouldn't have any objection to it, since they are blind to these price details being provided to the customer - whether they are met by the customer in part or in whole.

I take your comment about the DR prices. Are you saying that even though I'm part of the DPS scheme and have a card, I'll now be filed under this DR system unless and until I surpass the DPS threshold?

locum-motion

liam84 wrote: »

I'm curious about a system design that the Govt has imposed on a private sector operation that appears to contravene good consumer law/practice.

I'm curious too.

liam84 wrote: »

Why would the DOHC/HSE/whoever stipulate that a DPS patient who is regularly under the threshold not be given detailed price information on their medicines (and I'm not referring to mark-ups or profit margins) - particularly when their prescription is consistently the same amount over time? Why would the DOHC insist that only a lump sum be provided?

To be honest, I'd say it never even crossed their mind to look at it like that.

liam84 wrote: »

It's a curious practice and one that should be reported to OCA.

Who's the OCA?

liam84 wrote: »

I take your comment about the DR prices. Are you saying that even though I'm part of the DPS scheme and have a card, I'll now be filed under this DR system unless and until I surpass the DPS threshold?

Your DPS card doesn't entitle you to anything if your family's drug spend for a given month doesn't pass the threshold (when it's calculated by the Govt's formula). So, yes.

liam84

locum-motion wrote: »

I'm curious too.

To be honest, I'd say it never even crossed their mind to look at it like that.

Who's the OCA?

Your DPS card doesn't entitle you to anything if your family's drug spend for a given month doesn't pass the threshold (when it's calculated by the Govt's formula). So, yes.

Ok, thanks. OCA - Consumer Affairs.

RobFowl

liam84 wrote: »

Now that you've answered yes to my question - I'm curious about a system design that the Govt has imposed on a private sector operation that appears to contravene good consumer law/practice.

Why would the DOHC/HSE/whoever stipulate that a DPS patient who is regularly under the threshold not be given detailed price information on their medicines (and I'm not referring to mark-ups or profit margins) - particularly when their prescription is consistently the same amount over time? Why would the DOHC insist that only a lump sum be provided?

It's a curious practice and one that should be reported to OCA. I presume pharmacies wouldn't have any objection to it, since they are blind to these price details being provided to the customer - whether they are met by the customer in part or in whole.

The HSE is exempt from competition law as the CA views it as an "undertaking" as so not bound by it.
(The CA (Competition Authority) is a government appointed body BTW).
Also the Gocernment gave itself the ability to unilaterally reduce fees with no negotiation under "ministerial order" in the Emergency budget last year.

Effectively this means that while the HSE and DOH impose very ridgid views on competition law on pharmacists they themselves are not bound by it. N

This effectively means they can do what they want with little if any recourse.

meditraitor

RobFowl wrote: »

The HSE is exempt from competition law as the CA views it as an "undertaking" as so not bound by it.
(The CA (Competition Authority) is a government appointed body BTW).
Also the Gocernment gave itself the ability to unilaterally reduce fees with no negotiation under "ministerial order" in the Emergency budget last year.

Effectively this means that while the HSE and DOH impose very ridgid views on competition law on pharmacists they themselves are not bound by it. N

This effectively means they can do what they want with little if any recourse.

The recent price reductions are effectively reductions at wholesale level and not pharmacist....... The pharmacist will buy the drugs at the -40% cost plus the discount the wholesaler is will to give, which is an average of about 18% now. And on PI's it can be anything up to 50% discount from list price for major drugs

angeldelight

meditraitor wrote: »

The recent price reductions are effectively reductions at wholesale level and not pharmacist....... The pharmacist will buy the drugs at the -40% cost plus the discount the wholesaler is will to give, which is an average of about 18% now. And on PI's it can be anything up to 50% discount from list price for major drugs

To be picky they're reductions at manufacturer level i.e. the manufacturers reduced the cost price that they sell them to the wholesaler at. The wholesaler then applies their mark-up and then sells them to the pharmacist. Presuming the wholesaler hasn't changed their mark-up %age then the pharmacist will be buying them at a lower price. However the 1st version of the IPHA list that was put up didn't take into account the wholesaler mark up.

Also the wholesaler discount is only 18% for their best customers i.e. big shops or chains, direct debit or short credit term billing, many years custom etc. Newer smaller pharmacies wouldn't get anywhere near this. And there is no discount on refrigerated lines or CDs.

I'm just pointing out things people may not be aware of when they're looking at the figures, there's a lot of factors and it's more complicated than just looking at a list online

meditraitor

angeldelight wrote: »

To be picky they're reductions at manufacturer level i.e. the manufacturers reduced the cost price that they sell them to the wholesaler at. The wholesaler then applies their mark-up and then sells them to the pharmacist. Presuming the wholesaler hasn't changed their mark-up %age then the pharmacist will be buying them at a lower price. However the 1st version of the IPHA list that was put up didn't take into account the wholesaler mark up.

Also the wholesaler discount is only 18% for their best customers i.e. big shops or chains, direct debit or short credit term billing, many years custom etc. Newer smaller pharmacies wouldn't get anywhere near this. And there is no discount on refrigerated lines or CDs.

I'm just pointing out things people may not be aware of when they're looking at the figures, there's a lot of factors and it's more complicated than just looking at a list online

A lot of wholesalers do not buy from the Irish manufacturers so the price is the same as before but they have to sell it at 40% discount plus their discount, and when dealing with pharmacists do not differentiate with discount whether to multiples or independent(a lot of independents are formed into buying groups already). I guarantee you any chemist could avail of these discounts if they shopped around.

There are at least 5 PI companies out there that will offer between 15% and 50% discount across the range and this is at the -40% cost price(only 300 odd products) post patent products and in patent products(100s more).

There is no reason for the chemists to compalin about price, they get the reimbersment and also a hefty discount from the wholesaler and the dispensing fee. No pharmacist has to sell any product at a loss..............

For some reason people think the pharmacists are taking the brunt of this price reduction, this is completely untrue, in some cases the stock they bought at previous higher prices was being returned to wholesalers before the prices reduction came in, and then they replenished this stock at the new price after the 1st. Most pharamists knew the reduction was coming for at least 6 weeks prior and this is plenty of time to reduce stock holding at no cost to themselves because they still charged the old price till the 1st.

Personally I think its not a big enough reduction in prices and if you look at the basket average across the countries (spain, greece denmark etc) the HSE used to instigate this reduction we are still very expensive.....


The public is paying over the odds for named drugs unnessearily because the industry wants it that way...This is not the pharmacists fault per say but they do have to at least take some of the blame for not forcing/advising the government to change the regs with regard to dispensing off patent named/generics instead of the big named brands.
There has to be a few altruistic pharmacists out there that can use the years of knowledge to advise the HSE on ways to improve the system while making savings, then the wholesalers and manufacturers will have to up their game. Its not always about business(for some)!!!! The public interest should be paramount, not just in terms of safety but also unnessesary cost being loaded onto them for drug that can and do cost much less across europe.


The HSE is probably the main culprit because of their lack of action or even insight into the industry they pretend to oversee.

locum-motion

RobFowl wrote: »

The HSE is exempt from competition law as the CA views it as an "undertaking" as so not bound by it.
(The CA (Competition Authority) is a government appointed body BTW)...

Sorry to nitpick, but the CA views the HSE as exempt from competition law because it is NOT an undertaking.

If several pharmacies ("a collection of undertakings" in competition law parlance) get together and decide a particular price, that's illegal.
If the HSE tells all pharmacies that they are going to pay a particular price for something, then that's not illegal price fixing as the HSE isn't an "undertaking".

liam84

RobFowl wrote: »

The HSE is exempt from competition law as the CA views it as an "undertaking" as so not bound by it.
(The CA (Competition Authority) is a government appointed body BTW).
Also the Gocernment gave itself the ability to unilaterally reduce fees with no negotiation under "ministerial order" in the Emergency budget last year.

Effectively this means that while the HSE and DOH impose very ridgid views on competition law on pharmacists they themselves are not bound by it. N

This effectively means they can do what they want with little if any recourse.

Not sure if you were introducing the Comp Authority separately, RobFowl. I meant the Office of Consumer Affairs - OCA - which sets out stipulations regarding good retailing/customer practice. I don't think it's a competition issue as to whether pharmacies should provide details on their prices. Ultimately, pharamacies could provide these details at the till level if they wanted to. And they should, if there's to be transparency around drug pricing between pharmacies for paying customers like myself. At least then I could see a comparison.

I presume I could walk into another pharmacy and ask how much I would be charged for each of my meds individually? Would any pharmacist object to that?

RobFowl

locum-motion wrote: »

Sorry to nitpick, but the CA views the HSE as exempt from competition law because it is NOT an undertaking.

If several pharmacies ("a collection of undertakings" in competition law parlance) get together and decide a particular price, that's illegal.
If the HSE tells all pharmacies that they are going to pay a particular price for something, then that's not illegal price fixing as the HSE isn't an "undertaking".

You are indeed correct

My point was in reply to Liam84 asking why the DOHC has set up the system as it is.

They have done so simply because they can is a facitious answer.

They have set up the system partly to limit their exposure while allowing medication to be more affordable. Because of competition law they refuse to negotiate with the IPU on behalf of pharmacists collectively and then refuse to negotiate individually as "it is logistically impossible".
They impose prices and terms and condition on the same pharmacist and as they are deemed exempt from competition law they are allowed do this.

Thus the market is destorted quite badly and the "system design that the Govt has imposed on a private sector operation" does "appear to contravene good consumer law/practice"

This is as stated previously by locum-motion and others below 120€ there is an open market and above 120€ a month there is a strongly regulated and imposed system in place with set prices and no normal market.

In terms of itemised receipts my prescriptions always are .......