Pharmacy groups report 'disturbing' rise in GP abuse of power

The Independent Pharmacy Federation (IPF) told C+D that aggressive commercial strategies were "on the increase", while Pharmacy Voice said they had heard "a number of disturbing allegations" about GPs' business practice. - OK, this all sounds pretty anecdotal to me unless there are hard pressed proven cases.

Anyway, anecdotes aside, it is clear that GP's should not direct patients per se, however, if a practice has a strong relationship with a pharmacy, the GP would naturally advise the patient, if they sort the GP's advice. It is clear that not all pharmacies are the same, infact not all pharmacies offer the same level of services, therefore the ones that are progressive should definitely be given the nod ahead of a poor service provider. This is why all surgeries should have sign posting differentiating pharmacies on times of service, service elements, etc.

It would be interesting to see via FOI how many GP surgeries have vested interests in "in house" pharmacies, especially since 2005 with the new contract.

GPs abuse their power for financial gain?
No! It can't be! Surely, you must be mistaken?

They do it , who will stop them???

It seems clear to me that the GMC have a very easy way to stop this situation. Stipulate that GPs cannot have a business ownership/relationship (other than going-rate rent) with a pharmacy which is sited within their own practices catchment area (do you know of any that are outside?!)

I agree that GPs should have the right to invest in business ventures as they see fit. But with 100hrs pharmacy already having been shown to be a potentially very marginal business in previous C&D reports, the only way for them to be successful to come in and very quickly take a very large % of the existing prescription business. This can only be achieved by putting themselves physically within the surgery and potentially use verbal recommendations from practice to patients, which may cross the ethical line.

It is such a clear area for potential conflict of interest that could easily be removed, I can't see why the GMC would think that such an ownership rule would be unreasonable. GPs would of course then have equal opportunities to be entrepreneurial and start businesses on the same footing as everyone else without having the temptation to use their special relationship with patients as a way of gaining a business foothold.

Be careful of what you wish for. If you initiate restrictive practices because of unfair competition or lack of competition you might end up totally opening up the pharmacy market by removing control of entry. If you stop GPs having their pharmacies in their premises do you stop having GP consulting and/or prescribing as part of internet services or in Sainsbury's, Boots, etc? Do you close down opticians in pharmacies? Do you restrict the provision of clinical services in pharmacies? Another thing to consider is the significant market in recent years where pharmacists make successful applications and then sell the NHS contract to the local GPs. Do you stop large companies like Assura, Virgin, Circle, CareUK to name but a few owning both medical practices and pharmacies? This would end up being a legal nightmare. I think all businesses must be more transparent about who owns them, who makes financial gain from them and keep patients informed about how they can complain if they believe there is conflict of interest or wrongdoing without fear of retribution.

There is always fear of retribution if you complain as a patient. The GP is free to kick you off his register.

Meanwhile C+D's sister publication Pulse (for GPs) is running an article on how to set up an inhouse pharmacy http://www.pulsetoday.co.uk/main-content/-/article_display_list/14179605/setting-up-an-in-practice-pharmacy (you will need to register (free) to read the article).

I read both C+D and Pulse and (considering they are published by the same company) the amount of weeks where the publications seem to be massively conflicting with each other still surprises me. No wonder both groups get riled with each other.

Hi Jenni,

Thanks for your post. For your info, UBM - C+D's parent company - sold Pulse a few months back to another publishing company.

In which case I apologise and you may remove my comment. I've been reading both for 3+ years, and wasnt aware of the recent split.