C+D Senators question NMS payment structure

if ever a payment system was designed so that contractors do not receive fair payment for this new service then this is it. plus, i can only wonder how i will have time to do 30 plus nms per month plus 30 plus mur's! i reckon thats 72 hours extra work per month!

The Senators were most certainly right to question the complex payment structure "negotiated" by PSNC. It is almost as if it were designed to ensure we don't get paid for work done.
I am disappointed that the impact of the NMS on employee pharmacists was not addressed. To these pharmacists the NMS probably will mean little more than an increase in workload and more targets to be met.

Regards.

dont you just love the psnc guilt trip ,its not for the money its for the benefit of the patient.
How about hey Doc explain to your patient what you just put them on ,giive them chance to make choices ,take control of their treatments ,now that would be to benefit the patient but hell wiill freeze over first.
we have been told for a benefit to be seen numbers have to be up ,i am thinking about stoppiing sleeping and opening a 168 hr pharmacy ,I might just fit it all inthen even if sleep /rest deprived ,How good is a pharmacist that is under strees ??? perhaps time to step back and look not at what we are educationally capable of but how much we can do in a day,the arguement remodel work loads does not work here mur nns ehc etc. all drop at the pharmacists foot plus responsible pharmacist requirements ,2nd pharmacist ?no way psnc cant get the money for that patient care service.Perhaps if the psnc talked to pharmacists that do the job day in day out we might just might get realistic offering .to thiose who may read this i am not a ludite just fed up with chang for the sake of change or to justify some ones existance

I AM STILL WAITING FOR THE DAY WHEN CONTRACTORS RECEIVE A FAIR PAYMENT FOR ALL THE HARD WORK THEY PUT IN FOR BOTH PATIENTS AND THE NHS SERVICES AS A WHOLE.

Dear Clive,

Thanks for your comments. The Senators were asked about the effect on employee pharmacists, which we'll be covering fully in our Senate feature. Chris Perrington (superintendent pharmacist at Sainsbury's) said the service would "use the skills that pharmacists have" and would also have "professional benefits" for employee pharmacists. Hope that answers some of your questions.

Many thanks,

Emma Weinbren
Reporter
Chemist+Druggist

Hello Emma,

Thanks for your prompt reply.

I am afraid the comments by Mr Perrington will give no comfort at all to employee pharmacists who have experienced the pressures applied to meet MUR targets by many employers. The NMS will just add to this.

Regards

Clive

I absolutely agree with what the pharmacists who actually work at the coal face are saying. My branch dispenses over 15,000 items per month so my monthly "target" will be 60 numbs (as we are calling the NMS here), 40 MURs, Supervised consumption, EHC etc etc as well as keeping the waiting time for scripts within the company target.
I say we are at a point where it is untenable for us to carry this workload but I feel like a lone voice in the wilderness.
Until the folk in the ivory towers actually work a ten hour day, dispense 800 items (with just 3 staff), perform the required MURs and enhanced services, deal with queries, fill trays, supervise staff, source stock etc etc etc ad nauseum nothing will ever change.
15,000 is just numbers to all these people who don't actually practice. They negotiate on our behalf (when the DoH lets them) but just seem to keep coming away with a worse and worse deal.
Why can't you guys that run the big companies get this sorted out? The GPs can speak with one voice and look what great deals they get.
We divided ourselves and wonder why we get conquered.
Time to unite boys. Not just a senate (look what happened to Rome), all you MDs and owners lets see some cahonas! Shut your loss making branches and get the PR rolling at national level.

I can't work out why the fee for the NMS was not double in the first 6 months, or the second year the targets were not reduced by half. If we all reach the targets in the first 6 months surely the chances are we will reach that same target within the first 6 months of the second year. I think someone's calculator was not working the day this "service" was negotiated. Or is more money available to fund the second 6 moths of the second year?