Letter: Complementary roles of the doctor and pharmacist
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: John-Paul Flintoff's report, based in part on extracts from a lengthy telephone conversation with me, gives a distorted picture of the long-running battle between doctors and pharmacists in rural areas.
Throughout Europe every rural town and village has its pharmacy. That is not so in England. Doctors can simply take over dispensing in rural areas so that when the surgery is closed people have to wait to have their prescriptions dispensed. Even when there is a pharmacy there, patients on a doctor's dispensing list are prevented from using it.
GPs are paid generous allowances towards the cost of premises and ancillary staff. They are also paid a profit on their dispensing so they are reimbursed twice. On average, a doctor is paid about pounds 1.50 per prescription; by contrast the pharmacist is paid about 12p. It is thus hardly surprising that 'dispensing doctors' write 17 per cent more prescriptions than do their non-dispensing colleagues.
Pharmacists dispense several billion pounds worth of drugs annually at the taxpayers' expense. The Government naturally checks dispensing on a random sample basis to ensure that the taxpayer is getting value for money. No such checks are applied to dispensing by doctors who are thus able to spend tens of millions of pounds worth of taxpayers' money without anyone knowing what, if anything, it has been spent on.
This problem does not exist in Scotland because there is no extra financial reward for dispensing by doctors there. Rural pharmacies are thus viable and able to thrive. Doctors get emergency supplies of medicines by writing a special NHS prescription for their own use, but this facility is not available in England and Wales. In Scotland there is harmony between the medical and pharmaceutical professions; they work together for the benefit of patients and that is the way it should be throughout the United Kingdom.
Yours faithfully
T. P. ASTILL
Director
National Pharmaceutical
Association
St Albans, Hertfordshire
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments