Government continues to stall on 100-hour exemption

I hope the decision is made and we can all continue doing what we do on a daily basis that is providing a healthcare service to the community. The 100hr control of entry is proving to be a distraction and as i mentioned in the article about rowlands I feel there is nothing wrong with healthy competition. If everyone thinks im off my head or that i do not know what the threat feels like then i am in an area where there over 26 pharmacies in a 1 mile radius !!!! I see the threat on a daily basis but at the same time our script figures have gone up by 25% in the last year and we are not inside a health centre. It comes down confidence and standing above the rest.

This is an issue that should have been resolved a long time a go.
Firstly, each contract granted (irrespective of what type) costs a PCT ten's of thousands of pounds each year in funding. Instead of effective and targeted pharmaceutical funding in order to provide a better service from established pharmacies, what we are seeing is a decline in the quality of service with little or no improvement to access for patients.
Secondly, there is very little policing of compliance and I have been made aware of cases where 100 hour pharmacies run by some multiples being unable to find pharmacist cover and have closed and simply displayed a notice "closed for training". This, of course, is against there terms of contract.There should be severe punishment, which may include being removed off the pharmaceutical list for persistent non-compliance.
HOWEVER, if PCT's are concerned about excessive applications for 100 contracts in their area, they should look to designate particular areas or towns as areas where "local pharmaceutical services are or are to be provided". This bit of complex legislation means that exempt applications are brought under regulation 13 (1) (b), However, regulation 13 (1) prevents this type of "exempt” application in circumstances in which "local pharmaceutical services are or are to be provided". So, if an area is designated for such local pharmaceutical services by the PCT, it means these types of exempt applications cannot be considered. This over rides the misconception that exempt contracts such as 100 hour applications are always granted. Far from it.
Hence, if there was a better understanding of the regulations by PCT's, many of the unwanted applications that have been granted could have been stopped.
PCT's - its not too late!

A healthy competition is good in the health sector, as good customer service and clinical checks will be established in each and every pharmacy. The rising pool of pharmacists graduating will balance the up and coming events of increasing pharmacy contracts, and to those that disagree are the ones who do not work, or appreciate the field and usually fail on clinical checks and have a very back dated pharmacy. Shame to those people who want to stop the 100 hour exemption, being greedy only reflects on the service arcade you give to your customers. Nothing wrong with competition, I say keep rolling on the contracts and I hope we see a lot more. Multiples need to stop bullying young pharmacists and future buisness men, the government should now understand lifting this expedition will mean a monopoly.

What nonsense! Healthy competition - I can point you in the direction of at least ten 100 hour pharmacies that have not had a single permanent pharmacist in all the time that they have been open. That is not healthy competition, that is embarrassing to the profession Don't get me wrong, I've nothing against locums or 100 hour pharmacies.. The problem is on many occasions these pharmacies can't even fill their contracted 100 hours with pharmacists. Great for locum pharmacists, but that is not quality patient care. It means patients suffer, there is lack of continuity and local services and initiatives are not developed. That is not what pharmacy is about. Pharmacies are businesses just like many areas of healthcare e.g. General Practice, but what do you mean by competition - the battle for every prescription, a field day for locum pharmacists or a being part of the healthcare sector where competition is based on quality of the service provided?

As an ex-proprietor of an independent pharmacy i feel that this issue is now over rated by greed. We all know that you cant have a monopoly over business. Its a shame that all these young pharmacists and students coming out of university can not afford to buy a pharmacy unless they have family contacts or plenty of money. Pharmacies are either passed on to family members or sold to multiples. The only way these young pharmacists can realise their dreams is if goodwill values fall. This can be achieved by such healthy competition opening everywhere and depressing the current goodwill values. These young pharmacists may then be able to purchase businesses at a more realistic price. For most of the current proprietors, they cant really say that they will suffer as they have had a good income- a lot more than others - already. Pharmacy income has been profitable even if every one moans about it. I do hope that this exemption is not closed and that more pharmacists use this exemption to target areas where high volume pharmacies dominate. We must bring down goodwill as well as create more job opportunities for all these young pharmacists coming up.

Whilst i agree that the LPS option prevents exempt applications, it should not be used as a tool do this as this is not an indication for its implementation. I have sucessfully challenged this LPS designations {and their not so legal use] with the PCT which has cost them alot in legal fees. If any PCTs do adopt this practice than i advise applicants to scrutinise these and fight their ground. Its a shame that you are posting such a comment as PCTs should not deploy LPS to prevent excessive applications. They are intended to promote services genuinely

I have heard this remark before, but it is impossible to get one single pharmacist to cover 100 hours, it needs at least three permenant pharmacists. I would support every pharmacy having a named "Chief Pharmacist " and a named "Deputy Pharmacist," even if neither do full time hours.
I know we haven't finances for a second pharmacist but post Shipman we should have pushed for some hours to stop total single handed practice. With the extra workload, 2-4 hours a week could be used for extra services, staff training or CPD or the odd lunchbreak!

I agree totally that one pharmacist cannot cover 100 hours. My concern is that many 100 pharmacies have no permanent pharmacists at all. I also agree with your suggestion about named Chief and deputy pharmacists. Likewise, one pharmacist should not attempt to do all 100 hours either. However, as to breaks for lunch and CPD - tough. That is the nature of the animal - 100 hours of cover.
I have nothing against 100 hour pharmacies, my concerns are that this may become the undoing of pharmacy and a further decline in the credibility of pharmacy. Remember, we are pharmacists running pharmacies first. Too much of the focus in comments above are purely "business & competition orientated" first.

This monopoly has gone on for too long, and it needs to be removed in order increase choice both for the pharmacists and customers. There are some who are prevented from establishing their own practices, and are forced to either work for the dictatorial, bullying monopoly contractors, or leave the profession. The primary objective of the contract limitation was to achieve a rational distribution of pharmacies, and that failed, but instead produced "dispensing sweat shops".I.M.H.O., i believe the only way forward is to reintroduce a "Cost-Plus" contract with a bias towards enhanced and advanced services remunerated on a unit basis.

The abuse of LPS option only delays exempt applications, it does not stop them. We will get to the stage where some applications will still be subject to the current rules at the same time as new applications under new rules - if they ever happen. What a mess!

I think PCTs using this ploy don't care because they won't be around to pick up the pieces.