What a complex web we weave.
In an election year, we have the Federal Government, through National Competition Policy (NCP), forcing changes to the NSW Pharmacy Act, that could lead to an eventual and total deregulation of the pharmacy marketplace.
Further momentum was given when ACCC boss, Graeme Samuels, said that he did not have a problem with pharmacies being located inside a Woolworths supermarket.
Graeme Samuels, prior to his appointment, was noted as being sympathetic to the ambitions of the "big end of town".

Some would view the stated aspiration of Woolworths and other major corporations to own pharmacies outright, as a misuse of their market power.

Small business has known for a long time that major corporations brutally misuse their market power, particularly in the use of tactics such as predatory pricing, which has been almost impossible to prove legally.

Big business has been successfully fighting changes to Section 46 for some years, but now seems reconciled to reforms, although still offering a fight before going down. The most vocal segment is the Australian Chamber of Commerce (ACC, the voice of big business), which still remains bitterly opposed to the proposed changes.

However, because it is election year, conservative politicians are waking to the fact that the Australian Labour Party (ALP) is narrowing the voting margins daily, and could be set for a win.
So there is definitely noise and clamour in the ranks as the "pollies" of both sides, endeavour to be associated with Trade Practice reforms for small business, and the potential for generating votes on this issue.

In a move to crystallise pharmacy issues in the minds of voters, the Pharmacy Guild of Australia (PGA) has circulated a petition among its members in NSW, inferring that big business is about to take over pharmacies.
The support from the general public has been strong to this point, with sentiment running in favour of pharmacy control of its business structure.
The curious thing is that the proposed changes to the Pharmacy Act only deal with restricting the number of pharmacies a pharmacist can own, and does not touch on actual ownership.

However, implicit in the process of NCP being imposed on state governments, is the distinct possibility of ownership looming as an issue in the immediate future.
So perhaps the PGA is right to be a bit hazy in its description of legislative changes, because it seems inevitable that Woolworths lobbyists will spring into action, and not cease until they had won their cause.

One pharmacist (David Wilson) located in Campbelltown, NSW, has decided to go on the offensive and has actually incorporated a supermarket within his pharmacy structure.
He is turning the tables by taking on an IGA grocery franchise as part of his operation.
He is not keeping items known to be injurious to health, such as cigarettes, tobacco and alcohol.

While the PGA has been critical of supermarkets owning pharmacies, it has been equally critical of pharmacists owning supermarkets.
David Wilson shrugs off this criticism and sees the progression into supermarket activity as a natural progression for his business, to slow down the rate of loss of pharmacy products to supermarkets.
Although many of David Wilson's colleagues may disagree with the message and image he is about to promote, he obviously agrees with the view of Graeme Samuels of the ACC and is unable to see the difference in selling products in a traditional pharmacy environment compared to a supermarket.
He notes that you will find items such as mineral water, Coca Cola and Darrell Lea chocolates in any number of pharmacies.
And while he is determined to go into the supermarket business, he is totally against supermarket intrusion into pharmacy, because of the potential for professional ethics to be sacrificed.

But David Wilson will be aware of one outcome that he is probably experiencing already, and that is the fact that consumers really like the combined supermarket/pharmacy as a one-stop exercise in convenience.
They will quickly reward this convenience with a sales increase that will take off at up to a 40 percent compound increase per annum (from a calculated base).
I have viewed this type of experience involving this pharmacy market combination, and it is a recipe for strong retail growth (but not necessarily professional services growth).

And they will like it even further if a bank agency is attached.
Yes, they will walk into the store, leave their prescription, draw out some money and immediately set about spending some of it in the supermarket area.
On average, this type of customer will stay longer in the store, make a much higher average spend, and will even give you time to dispense their prescription, because they are fully occupied.
With proper store design it is quite easy to designate a professional area that patients will easily recognise, and will not tarnish the pharmacy image.

On a slightly different note, the writer followed the spending habits recently, of two families located in the western suburbs of Sydney.
The objective was to determine what sort of a spend they would make after receiving a Pharmacy Direct catalogue, which is a supermarket of pharmacy merchandise without the groceries.
Neither family was aware they were being observed, and after approximately a half hour visit, family number one had spent just over $150 (two children aged 3 and 5), while family number two (three children under 10 years of age) spent just over $200.
This was not uncommon and the store was very busy.
No wonder Woolworths sees this as a way of increasing its business!

So I think we have come to the stage where we will see a diversity of pharmacy types begin to develop along new and different pathways - and was not this one of the recommendations contained in the Wilkinson Report of just over four years ago?

The PGA predictably will defend the traditional cottage industry style pharmacy, which constitutes the bulk of its members.
But should it not be taking more of a leadership role and opening debate on what would constitute a valid variation of a traditional pharmacy, and supporting those members that wish to tread that pathway?

It is unfortunate that business strength is measured in the dollars returned, for if we follow the traditional pharmacy line, medications are not ordinary items of commerce.
That says that pharmacy's true net worth measure should be expressed in health outcomes, not dollars.

Supermarket pharmacy may not be for you, but should you prevent your colleague from going down that track?
Is it not better to allow this person to increase total pharmacy market share and leave you undisturbed in your own traditional practice?

And finally, in another challenging move by Woolworths, they have registered a trademark containing the words "Woolworths, supermarket and pharmacy".
Now it is illegal for persons other than pharmacists to use the word "pharmacist" to describe themselves.
One would also think that this would apply to the word "pharmacy", but the issue here is not clear.
Surely the only people who can register the word "pharmacy" as part of their trademark should be only the persons who can legally own pharmacies?
This would not be the case for Woolworths at the point of initial registration of the names.
Do they know something we mere mortals are unaware of, or have they already been given the "nod".
If the latter, pharmacists will need to get "down and dirty" with the politicians and take full advantage of the election year.

A shapeup to a legal challenge should also be looming against the trademark registration.
The PGA will need to meet this head on, otherwise lose the battle from day one, or pharmacists will now have any corporation or other business, with the ability to call themselves a pharmacy.

This is going to cause the "mother-of-all" confusion to the general public, and this nonsense should be stopped dead in its tracks by the responsible legislators.

It is also a demonstration as to how powerful, and deadly serious, an adversary such as Woolworths really is.