own gp practice

kdowling

do you have to be a doctor to own a gp practice?
can a pharmacist own one?

RobFowl

kdowling wrote: »

do you have to be a doctor to own a gp practice?
can a pharmacist own one?

You don't have to be a doctor to own one but there rules preventing pharmacists owning one.

kdowling

i thought that alright. but why are doctors allowed own pharmacies and not the other way around?

Paralief

Doctors, nor their immediate relatives, are not allowed to own pharmacies or to have a beneficial interest in them. The Pharmacy Act is quite specific about this.

kdowling

Paralief wrote: »

Doctors, nor their immediate relatives, are not allowed to own pharmacies or to have a beneficial interest in them. The Pharmacy Act is quite specific about this.

that cannot be correct can it?
so the husband of a doctor cannot own a pharmacy?
what if he is a pharmacist?

Paralief

We are getting to angels & heads of pins. The Pharmacy Regulator and medical council make the final decisions

kdowling

Paralief wrote: »

We are getting to angels & heads of pins. The Pharmacy Regulator and medical council make the final decisions

the reason i am interested in this is because i am a pharmacist and my fiance is a NCHD.
so i was wondering if it would be possible for her to open a gp practice and employ a gp and for me to open a pharmacy in the same building.

i know of a gp who owns a medical centre (gp, pharmacy and dentist)
do you know how they get around this rule?

RobFowl

kdowling wrote: »

the reason i am interested in this is because i am a pharmacist and my fiance is a NCHD.
so i was wondering if it would be possible for her to open a gp practice and employ a gp and for me to open a pharmacy in the same building.

i know of a gp who owns a medical centre (gp, pharmacy and dentist)
do you know how they get around this rule?

You are allowed own the building and rent it out. Pharmacists are not allowed own GP practices thought (and vice versa although not as clearly enshrined in law)

Paralief

If you are a pharmacist then you should look at the Act & interpret it for yourself, from memory it is around section 65. It is absolutely clear what is verboten.

kdowling

For the purposes of section 35 and so much of this Part
as relates to that section, it is professional misconduct by a registered
pharmacist if—
(a) he or she, or
(b) to the knowledge of the registered pharmacist, his or her
partner or employee,
has a beneficial interest in a medical practice.
(2) For the purposes of section 36 and so much of this Part as
relates to that section, it is misconduct of the kind referred to in that
section by a pharmacy owner if—
(a) the pharmacy owner, or
(b) to the knowledge of the pharmacy owner, a partner or
employee of the pharmacy owner,
has a beneficial interest in a medical practice.

“beneficial interest” in a medical practice or registered
retail pharmacy business includes—
(i) where the practice or business or a part of it is
owned by—
(I) a company, the interest of a director of or shareholder
in the company,
(II) a corporate body which is not a company, the
interest of a member of the body,

(ii) where the practice or business is carried on in leased
premises, the interest of the landlord in the rent or
other consideration for the tenancy where that rent
or other consideration—
(I) does not represent the rental value of the tenancy
on the open market and the difference may
reasonably be attributed to the existence of a
commercial relationship between the parties
other than that of landlord and tenant, or
(II) is ascertained by reference to the receipts or profits
of a registered retail pharmacy business or a
medical practice,
and a person shall be regarded, for the purposes of this
section, as having a beneficial interest in such a practice
or business if his or her spouse or dependent child has
such an interest in it;

and a person shall be regarded, for the purposes of this
section, as having a beneficial interest in such a practice
or business if his or her spouse or dependent child has
such an interest in it;

“spouse” does not include a spouse who is a registered
pharmacist, a registered pharmaceutical assistant or a
registered medical practitioner;

I am not good at legal speak but i assume from the above that in my case when my fiance becomes my spouse that it would be okay for her to have a gp practice and myself to have a pharmacy together.
Am i interpreting this correctly?

Paralief

What are you on about? Section 35 of the Act is about complaints.
Now I know this is just a wind up. Get a life.

kdowling

Paralief wrote: »

What are you on about? Section 35 of the Act is about complaints.
Now I know this is just a wind up. Get a life.

Chill out there Paralief!!
If you read my post you will see that the section that i highlighted relates to pharmacists haveing a beneficial interest in a medical practice which is what the thread is about!

sam34

Paralief wrote: »

What are you on about? Section 35 of the Act is about complaints.
Now I know this is just a wind up. Get a life.

as is site-wide policy, if you have a problem with a post then please report it and let the mods deal with it.