EXCLUSIVE

A planned national minor ailments scheme could reimburse contractors for their time or for the number of patients they register, pharmacists have suggested. But payment should not be based on product margins, they warned.

PSNC revealed last week that it was negotiating a national scheme for England with NHS Employers and, while pharmacists and representatives celebrated the news, they also cautioned that it must not be hampered by inadequate funding.

Numark director of marketing Mandeep Mudhar said the “most simple” way of remunerating pharmacists would be to pay for every consultation undertaken. “The payment should be based on the service provided rather than the profit being made on the products,” he told C+D on Thursday (May 14).

Graham Phillips, owner of Manor Pharmacy Group (Wheathampstead) Ltd, agreed that pharmacists should be “remunerated for their time” rather than for products provided. Mr Phillips said he would be “happy to just be paid the net cost of goods” supplied under the scheme, as long as he was also “paid for providing a professional service”.

'Don't undervalue our expertise'

Community pharmacist Dilip Shah suggested that pharmacists should be paid between £5 and £10 per consultation. “Please do not undervalue pharmacists’ expertise,” he posted on the C+D website.

Under a minor ailments scheme launched by Devon LPC last year, pharmacists are paid a monthly administration fee of £10 as well as a £10 fee for each consultation. But community pharmacist Marc Borson warned that the sector should not expect this level of payment for the national service. “It will be near to £1 if the government has any sense,” he posted on the C+D website.

​“There will always be at least a couple of businesses [in each] area that will offer this and will thrive as a result,” he added. ​“Treat it as marketing and it will be worth it.”

The right incentives?

Locum pharmacist Ahmad Atchia posted on the C+D website that the sector should “learn about” the Scottish model of payments based on registration numbers as a way to ensure “proper remuneration” that was “fair all round”.

And the Welsh government pointed out to C+D today (May 18) that this model – also used for a scheme running across two of its health boards – of paying pharmacists based on patient numbers rather than for products or consultations ​“ensures there is no incentive for pharmacists to supply a medicine when the evidence indicates the clinical benefit is marginal”.

But Mr Mudhar warned that payments based on patient registrations could result in a ​“complicated funding mechanism”. ​“Keeping funding really simple will encourage engagement from pharmacists,” he said.
 

How should pharmacists be paid to deliver a national minor ailments scheme?

We want to hear your views, but please express them in the spirit of a constructive, professional debate. For more information about what this means, please click here to see our community principles and information