Madam, – Ian O’Mara (July 3rd) castigates pharmacists for deciding to end our involvement in the medical card scheme after August 1st. He packs a lot of outrage into a short letter but completely avoids the obvious question of what he would have us do instead.
Mary Harney has imposed a 3 per cent cut on our State income. She has done this using her powers under the Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest Act 2009 which allows her to ignore any existing contracts between us and the State; and offer whatever rate of remuneration she considers “fair and reasonable”.
The stark choice we get under this legislation is to accept the new rates or to withdraw our services. There is no appeal process open to us.
This 34 per cent cut will force the closure of up to 300 pharmacies. This figure is not based on spin, hype or hyperbole but on hard, audited fact. Our decision to withdraw from all State schemes, not just the medical card scheme, has not been taken lightly. It is intended to get us into talks to protect these pharmacies, their workers and the long-term interests of the patients they serve, by achieving a negotiated settlement. We would obviously prefer to resolve this issue now if we were allowed to do so, rather than against a backdrop of disruption in August. However, given that negotiation is not currently on offer to us, if Mr O’Mara has a better idea for how we should proceed then I for one would love to hear it. – Yours, etc,
FINTAN MOORE,
MPSI,
Templeogue,
D6W
A chara, – Mary Harney’s idea to establish a “tendering process for the distribution of subsidised drugs by pharmacist” (“TDs told of €1bn in health budget cuts”, July 3rd) shows the fallacy of having an individual with no knowledge of health matters in charge of our health system.
It also shows that she still believes in the type of economics that led us into the bubble.
Pharmacists exist as an essential second check in the process of providing patients with the medications (effectively, controlled poisons) that they may need. Without that second check patients are not adequately protected.
Centralising the distribution of medications in the manner suggested would create the type of dispensing factory that might sound plausible, but the need for patient safety would require the employment of such a large number of pharmacists that it would in fact cost much more.
If not, the cost of litigation when things go wrong with such a system would be unimaginable.
As a pharmacist, although not employed in the community sector, I do think that this part of our health service can be improved and, as a result, millions saved. However, this will be achieved by applying knowhow from front line health care professionals and not by cutting corners. – Is mise,
OISÍN Ó hALMHAIN,
MPSI,
Viking Harbour,
Usher’s Island,
Dublin 8
Madam, – I am an independent pharmacist who would like to comment on our current dispute with our paymasters, the HSE.
Minister Mary Harney has imposed, without discussion, a reduction of my HSE fee income (the bulk of my business) of 42 per cent a year, effective from July 1st.
To put this in context, GPs, dentists etc have suffered an 8 per cent fee reduction (the pharmacist average is 35 per cent). I fully accept that changes to the current model of our remuneration are necessary (and require reduction), but I would have thought that these changes could be arrived at through negotiation or talks, as opposed to diktat.
Maybe I am being unreasonable but I believe that negotiation is a democratic right.
All I ask, is that the Minister and her officials negotiate with the IPU and we will find a resolution without any negative impact on our customers. Talk to us.We are reasonable people. – Yours, etc,
EMMET FEERICK,
Feerick’s Pharmacy,
Leixlip,
Co Kildare.
. .