NPA receives 20 calls a day from pharmacists "out of pocket" on NMS

all thanks to the PSNC and their Board!!! Heads must roll.

Whenever the PSNC say they are reviewing ANYTHING urgently take it for granted that if they will have resolved the issue in a couple of years time we will be lucky. Look at the CIP FIASCO . we are still in the dark as to the accuracy of our paymments and the PSNC have still not done anything about the issue

I agree that the payment should per NMS , why is there no banding for MUR's ? . This should go back to the drawing board and this time include practicing pharmacists to simplify the whole process for NMS. No one wants to play the numbers game , the patient comes first .

I think this is what worries me the most about the PSNC negotiating team. If they couldn't see this coming when they were actually working out the particulars for this new service then I seriously have a vote of no confidence in their ability to actually work a deal that protects pharmacy core funding over the longer term.

The banding of the NMS Contract was done for one reason and one reason only and that was for the government to get something for nothing from contractors..... whats new there???
There is no other valid reason why you would want to create thresholds for a service. Why didn't the PSNC spot this before? Someone there must have know there would be a back lash to it or were expecting pharmacy contractors not to notice??

And I totally agree with Nailesh Patel the PSNC have a track record of actually sorting.... well not a lot really.

Cat M Margin Increase - FAIL
Stopping Branded Generics - FAIL
Setting up a viable Contract for Services - FAIL
Specials Contract - FAIL
Etc Etc Etc Etc.......

In a nut shell, the principle of the NMS scheme is great......... and that's about it!
Funding, banding, complicated payment structure, duplication of GP/Nurse/Surgery work, enough staff hours, ecconomics, huge pressure on pharmacists from area managers in multiples to achieve unrealistic targets and the list goes on......
If we are not careful, NMS will ultimately run out of steam - e.g. repeat dispensing - anybody recall that (it was hailed as the scheme that would guarantee the future of pharmacy)? The current structure will mean that pharmacists may need to choose between NMS's & MUR's becoming a 'Jack of all trades and Master of none'. For example, a pharmacy dispensing 10,000 script would be expected to do 400 MUR's pa, 480 NMS's pa and dispense 10,000 scripts.
As mentioned a few days ago (C&D on-line 30th Nov), I was one of those who embraced the scheme that much that I did more than my target only to find out that I would not be paid for the extra work. The PSNC's response - think about all the good you have done. Er..... I am a Limited Company, not a registered charity.
The PSNC needs to take on board all these issues and deal with them with some kind of urgency. If we are not careful, we could end up with a disillusioned profession, not preapred to carry out these tasks and then the net effect will be a FURTHER loss of funding from the NHS Employers who will have deemed the scheme a failure! Again, we never hear of the GP negotiators getting things so wrong. It just makes us appear a profession in disarray if only two months into the scheme, we are raising these sorts of concerns.

This is the DOH again. What a waste of our time trying to see if we can achieve silly targets, I think a fixed fee per NMS should be easier. Pharmacy is being taken for a ride by the DOH

I would suggest R Cygan sells the excess NMS that he hasn't been paid for to a third party - hopefully not a competitor for a fee. After all, surely all work done belong to him until he is remunerated for it. If he won't get paid for it ;is it his to do what he likes with?
Next comment we shall address the PSNC.

PSNC ( Please Start Negotiating Committee)
I once asked what powers Sue Sharpe actually had if the deal being offered was not adequate and she implied that she had none but feared that should we collectively take steps that would make a point the government may consider he nature of our restricted contract status.
Oh really, they would if for one second they thought that they could run the whole distribution network more efficiently than owner/proprietor who manage accounts/buying/administration/cleaning/pay roll/financing all for nil cost.
If they had to set up departments for all these things as well as departments to check the departments and pay for pensions such as those of Sue and her teams they would have a Cost Of Service nearly double that of the COSI report.
We need a representative union able to recommend and enforce actions like the BMA.
,BDA, or nurses not a civil servant sounding board.
I truly believe that nobody knows the workings of Category M and the global sum better than Sue and I'm sure the rest of the team are also knowledgeable but they have prove that they are not Negotiators.It is time for a new representative body this one can only seem to agree to make contractors work harder for less.
P.S. if you want suggestions I've got dozens

This is of vital importance and I hope that the negotiators are able to get NHS Employers to see that if banding is to stay (we are told NHS Employers specifically asked for this payment structure) then it needs to be fair. Currently it is not.

Currently contractors can only be underpaid and some are finding that they just miss a target and get nothing at all for all their hard and valuable efforts. This has already been picked up by PSNC and hopefully we shall see changes agreed this side of Christmas. Any solution needs NHS Business Services (PPD) approval as their computer systems need to be amended - not a prospect that fills any of us with confidence.

I would like to see a roll-over clause introduced very soon. This would accept that any unpaid NMS claims be banked (something that the PPD Cray Supercomputer could retrospectively calculate) and paid at the end of the Financial Year as a flat (£25?) fee.

Many businesses are 'in the red' with NMS, even allowing for the 6 for £750 set-up / implementation allowance. Lets end this 'technical glitch' as soon as possible and turn NMS into the best news pharmacy story of 2011.

Am I the only one who gets the impression that the PSNC is as useful as a chocolate teapot at the Mad Hatters Tea Party. Perhaps they could do the profession a favour and STOP negotiating for a change, as it seems that every time they do, our workload (Mostly useless tick boxing) increases and our renumeration decreases.
I dont think any other medical (or para-medical) profession
has been subjected to such a massive increase in their workload as a result of their Negotiating Bodies incompetance

Totally agree, banding targets are a disaster! We cannot control the number of new medicines eligible!

I have always said that the PSNC is about as useful as one grain of salt trying to melt a ton of smow. They haven't got a chance because they always start from the wrong premise which is "Please Sir allow us to be more clinical and we will gladly forego some payment for the current work we do" ALL new work (clinical or otherwise) should be NEW money and should be paid on us invoicing the DOH for out time as any other contractor in the provate sector would do

I think that Ian almost hit the nail on the head when he said 'I truly believe that nobody knows the workings of Category M and the global sum', except that he then added a proviso.

I don't believe that any community pharmacist can really say how Cat M works and what they actually pay for a drug with all the retrospective 'price watch' deals.
it is too complicated.

Clearly the PSNC needs to go back to the drawing board. Multiples could afford to take a hit as a loss leader, but perhaps that is the plan, two speed pharmacy services, one for the large multiples and a slow lane for the smaller independent multiples.

Which does not make it right or fair, hence a full review with a more equitable settlement to benefit across the profession to deliver a good pateint centred service.

Once again...another con!

Sadly, this 'clever' suggestion is basically equivalent to fraud. The declaration made on the FP34C is that everything claimed for applies to that NHS contract ONLY. Even switching between pharmacies within the same company is illegal!

absolutely right to you my colleagues.payment should be per NMS.The present payment structure proves a point,that the DOH has no intention of paying pharmacist for their hard earned work.it is a total con......

I absolutely agree with all the comments made by readers. I have completed NMS consultations and missed by a couple of consultations to hit the target, it does make me think whether it's worth it all, of course for the patient, but in this time of recession money comes side by side.

Pharmacy is being taken for a ride as a profession who the government thinks should continue working for pittance. Keep cutting their funds until they can't survive

This was a sarcastic suggestion to illustrate the stupidity of the situation and lack of forethought from the PSNC.Unfortunately, there is no formal standard for illustrating as such except using " " said one sarcastically. If you think i posted this with no thought to patient/data confidentiality and professional/legal conduct you were wrong.I therefore in future will illustrate such points by qualifying them.

and silly targets they are indeed, targets,a word that has become so common in the health service. we are health professionals for goodness sake, banding payments for the NMS is unfair and contractors should be paid per NMS. please DoH/PSNI help us focus/concentrate on putting the health of our patients first and diminish/or do away with the use of the word 'targets' as if patients are objects, i find it very offensive when that word is used in relation to service to human beings!