Having just become a godfather for the first time, I've been reflecting on what it means to have responsibility for nurturing potential and ensuring the continuation of the best things we have to offer.
Abraham Lincoln said that "A child is a person who is going to carry on what you have started....the fate of humanity is in his hands."

It really isn't that different for a high-stakes industry such as ours.
We begin from a strong position with high potential for not only growth but also contributing to Australia's health.

To realize that sort of potential in the future will necessarily require some inspired stewardship and even more cooperation between pharmacy and the consumer healthcare products industry.
We can ensure the fertility of our future, the viability of this industry-as the National Medicines Policy puts it-in no small part by the way we choose to address ourselves to key issues.

I'd like to talk to you about some of the key areas in which I see this potential for our joint contribution, our cooperative safeguarding of a fertile future.

Scheduling
Top of my mind is the opportunity presented to pharmacy by way of those products that are rescheduled 'pharmacist only'.
The way we choose to address "switch" is important.
A focus on S3 rather than on those few products that have gone open is a better way to a fertile future.

The opportunity in S3 is -overtly-- to:
* demonstrate the most distinctive contribution pharmacy makes to the local community; and
* demonstrate the vital role pharmacy can play as part of the National Health Agenda.

It is perhaps less obvious that S4 to S3 switch is an opportunity for pharmacy to work with industry to identify those products which should be switched.
Switch does not have to be something industry does "to" pharmacy-we can do it very appropriately together.

This may seem an unprecedented idea, but it is certainly viable and less revolutionary than some of the government-driven switch in other markets.
Did you know that the Mexican government switched 350 prescription medicines in three years-to combat self-prescription?
By switching these products with a high safety profile, appropriate labels were introduced to aid their responsible use, and scarce government resources were concentrated on limiting self-prescription of the remaining higher-risk prescription substances.

Granted, we do not compare our market with that of Mexico, but the point remains highlighted that there is a relationship between appropriate sale of medicines and their quality use.
We must not, therefore, inexorably link high control with quality use-it just isn't that simple.

We are all familiar with the "cradle to grave" metaphor.
I'd like to suggest a slightly different personification, along the lines of god-parenting.
The birth parents of a lot of the products in our sector are on the Rx side of the business or in the hands of traditional medicine practitioners.
You pharmacists are the chosen god-parents.
Over the years you come to know these products well and how they behave and how they interact with others.
You have a pretty good idea of which ones-due to their safety record-- are ready for a little more freedom.
A product in S3 is like an adolescent.
There is a need for advice-and it must we well given to be heeded.
Their desire to attract a little attention is natural and helps them to thrive and find their way in the world. Too much thwarting of this desire has led to growing up too fast, and other forms of rebellion.

S2 products are like university students.
They can stand on their own with occasional help.

What I'd like to suggest to you now is that unscheduled products have not run away from home.
Instead, they've graduated and gone out to live on their own-in small doses.
This is not a betrayal.
And in the best tradition of the Australian family, the large pack sizes will be living at your house indefinitely.

I'd like to make clear that our industry does not think every product should "graduate" eventually. Supermarket sale of some medicine is inappropriate.
Some products are better sold in an environment where the advice of a pharmacist can be accessed. This is, of course, predicated on the idea that there is a difference.

The difference is the supportive advisory role a pharmacist can play.
Despite warnings by John Chapman and others, this role was missed in the smoking cessation category.

The Galbally report underlined the importance of fulfilling the potential of scheduling categories-or potentially losing them.

You may call cynical those in industry who shook their heads when some in pharmacy complained about not being prepared for the morning-after pill.
But as George Bernard Shaw once said, "The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."
International trends forecast many of the switches we are seeing here-sometimes years ahead.
And one wonders at the preparedness of these folks to dispense an Rx medicine for years only to throw up their hands at the time of a switch that was gazetted six months previously.

The next big chance to get it right
But I'm not cynical.
I see a chance to get it supremely right in the very near future.
The rescheduling of Xenical as of May 1 is the biggest chance yet to address this issue.
I'm temped to say "with your biggest customers", but I won't go there…
What I will suggest is that Roche has a lot of global experience in switching this product.
If you work closely together, a good outcome is certainly possible.

Perhaps, as pointed out by Kos Sclavos in February issue of Pharmacy News, pharmacies are a first port of call when it comes to dealing with weight issues-- and indeed other health issues.

That's a vibrant place to be.
And a big responsibility.
I'm encouraged that you have some substantial programs in place to help you maximize your potential. I'm thinking particularly about the Quality Care Pharmacy Program and PSA's practice support programs.

I'm told that more than 2000 pharmacies across Australia subscribe to QCPP- the PSA program helps these pharmacies meet and maintain 18 QCPP standards.
But as you well know, that's not full coverage.
Word needs to spread to the remaining 3000 pharmacies-- pharmacies must embrace the implementation of professional services.
And if they do it will be very persuasive for product marketers.
It will help dispel the notion that S3 is the "black hole" that statistics suggest.

Why
Why will these programs have this effect (if they are well subscribed and implemented)?
Because they will highlight and practice the very factors that differentiate pharmacy from alternate distribution models; namely their advisory role and the contribution it can make to the National Health Agenda.
This makes sense to people in consumer healthcare companies with marketing and sales backgrounds. They understand unique selling propositions and positioning and value-adding.

What of the role Manufacturers can play?
The good news that it is in the interest of manufacturers to ensure pharmacy understanding of the medical solutions they offer.

How can we ensure that such training occurs?
It is as simple as return on investment and with that I lead to issues currently in review by the bodies of industry.
Both pharmacies and manufacturers expect a return on investment, effort time and allocated resources.

Consistency and compliance
From a manufacturer's point of view, investment is intended to bring consistency and compliance-both in manufacturing and in marketing. It is no different for a retail pharmacist who wants staff training to be some guarantee of consistent quality, wants customer education to be some assurance of compliance, etc.

And yet when it comes to the relationship between the producer and the retailer, this investment sometimes results in neither consistency nor compliance.
I'm referring to the issue of switching at Point of Sale where at the end of a marketing sequence that has traversed advertising, Point of Sale support and merchandising and training-not to mention conference sponsorship and other more generalized support-- the consumer is motivated to select my brand but at the point of sale is encouraged by pharmacy staff to switch to a private label that has made no greater investment than the effort to be on hand.

Why compromise a flow of opportunities highlighted above if the long term consequence of a compromised ROI leads manufacturers to seek alternate partnerships in the face of your choice of alternatives to us?

When you have one voice across an industry as complex as ours, it is foolish to expect agreement on all fronts on our various agendas.
But while we might not be singing the same note, wouldn't it be grand if we were on the same page of the score and perhaps even within an octave of one another, in synch with the momentum of debate, applying our intelligence, energies and expertise across the issues… seeking an outcome together and creating a positive outward perception of this industry

That is my view of this industry.

To use the words of one well known Executive Director, "Most often it is not so much having a carrot as knowing where to stick it!"
I'd like to stick it so the view is one going forward and not one that leaves us chasing our tails, mimicking the holding pattern of the past with little to show for our talk but the changes that are cast upon us by default.

In closing, I am a keen observer of the industry/pharmacy relationship in my hat as ASMI President, as well as in my company cap and even as an AIPM board member.
I am not, however, cynical about our chances so long as we can all agree to embrace the god-child.
It is a joint responsibility.
We'll need to invite you into our processes, consult you sooner and support our products with pharmacist-friendly training.
That will be a challenge for some of us-and we can all look for ways to do it better.
Meanwhile, I'll call upon you to support the efforts being made by your industry bodies to maximize your effectiveness in a challenging and changing profession that has yet to reach its fullest potential. And beyond that I'll call upon you to take a long-range view with regard to my industry.
As you know, god-parents don't raise a child.
They do take some responsibility for its long-term best interests, though.