Half of pharmacies set to deliver NMS within month of launch

It would be interesting to know what the percentage is of multiples and independents offering the NMS, (and this could account for the regional variations). The multiples have the resources to ensure that the NMS can be offered in all their branches at whatever cost.
I am still of the opinion that many independents are unwilling or unable to offer the NMS because of the existing workload. This and the crazy payment structure will also have convinced many indies that it is just not financially viable.

I really can't understand how any pharmacy, let a lone an independent can afford not to engage with NMS in the current climate. Achieving targets on NMS and MURs can more than pay for a techs salary.

Hi Nick,

In many cases the only way an independent could meet these targets would be to employ a second PHARMACIST for so many days a week. With the cost of this together with the costs of administering the services and the fact with the NMS it is easy to do work that you will not get paid for it is very possible or even likely that you won't break even.

Regards

Clive

Nick,

I can understand it because:

1. The targets may be unrealistic - relating the number of PATIENTS with new items in the agreed categories to the number of ITEMS dispensed in a month in a community Pharmacy is flawed. It takes no account of instalment scripts, nor weekly MDS.

2. The incentive scheme itself can equally be seen as a disincentive scheme. making it not worth doing any (or any more) unless you can reach the next target.

3. For those who have not completed their 400 MURs then spending one lot of time on an MUR @ £28 is a better use of time than spending 3 lots of time to earn perhaps £25 ....or perhaps nothing.

So although the concept of NMS is excellent the payment bands calculated around items dispensed per month makes no sense at all.

We hit double figures with completed NMS last month but will be paid nothing. So, from a financial point of view, it made no sense being engaged at all (except the one-off £750 payment). It certainly doesn't make financial sense to continue because instalment scripts have skewed our targets into the stratosphere.

I don't quite get it. Are we supposed to do the service to pay a Tech Salary? What is the point of that? I would expect to it cover my existing overheads not to create more overheads. Look, in the current climate, if income does not go up, there will be pharmacies that will simply close. Look at my previous comments. When are we as profession going to do things just to cover costs or even at a loss?
We are a busy pharmacy and we have employed a pharmacist now four days a week just to carry out the NMS service at a loss. Remember, Techs and ACTs are great but they can't replace a pharmacist. Because of the structure of NMS, as a pharmacy we are having to conduct almost 300 hundred 'interviews' a month by a pharmacist. It does not add up. We run the service at a loss. What is the point. Well, the PSNC tell me "think of all the good you have done" - I am a limited company, not a registered charity.
Clearly, comments like these, Nick, can only come from someone who does not pay the wages, loans etc etc. However, if you do, then you have a lot to learn!

SPOT ON!

I am not even sure when I am supposed to claim for the fee. I have done 3 NMS so far. Do I claim for those 3 and then hope for another 3 before the April deadline or wait until I have 6 completed and claim at the end of that month?..... and I still haven't seen the form to claim the "initial set up" fee

this debate is quite bizarre! I am getting feedback from both mutiples and independent contractors that they are meeting their threshold numbers without employing second pharmacists, but using their skill mix and workforce capabilities within the pharmacy team to effective use. Perhaps some lessons there to be learnt about delegation by the pharmacists!

Hi Sue,

You must realise that there are many pharmacies whose pharmacist(s) and staff are working flat out to to provide the essential services (ie dispensing) and generally running the pharmacy. "Delegation" is meaningless in this context. For these pharmacies to "embrace" MURs and NMSs absolutely requires more resources (ie more pharmacist/staff hours). The problem is that these extra costs may not be covered by the fees so you end up providing these services for next to nothing or even at a loss.
I can only assume that the feedback you are getting is from contactors who have a lot of free staff time.
Regards,

Clive