Published by Computachem Services

P.O Box 297.
Alstonville. 2477
NSW Australia

Phone:
61 2 66285138

There is an emotional significance to many pharmacists, having qualified, being able to open their own pharmacy business. Or more likely, being able to buy an existing pharmacy.
There is a cost/benefit to all of this- be protected from the competition of "big business", or suffer a drastic loss to family life- these are the choices.
It will also require pharmacists to have skills they were not taught at pharmacy college.

If the objective of pharmacist ownership is to render personal service by owner/pharmacist how can this be achieved when a pharmacy is open 84 hours a week or more?
How is it achieved when a pharmacist is allowed to be a partner in a partnership owning or controlling a number of pharmacies, especially when the number of pharmacies exceed the number of pharmacist partners?

What is the reflection on pharmacists who are in charge of pharmacies when the owner or partner is not on the premises?
Are they less professional, less diligent because they do not own the pharmacy?

Is the objective of pharmacist ownership to render the ultimate punishment on unprofessional or illegal behaviour, the removal of that pharmacist from the Register, and consequently force them to sell the pharmacy?

Could not the same objective be achieved by confining pharmacy ownership to incorporated companies with a majority of Registered Pharmacists on the Company Board and if that company were to breach standards remove the registration of all the pharmacists and therefore force them off the board, and force the company to find new pharmacist directors?

Is it not possible for large corporations to impose standards on their employee pharmacists that if breached, would terminate their employment with that corporation and consequently make it more difficult for them to be employed elsewhere?

Where I am currently working there are five pharmacies in the city centre, as well as Coles, Franklins, and Woolworths.
I have not heard the public expressing the opinion that the city would be better served if there were more supermarkets.
It is possible that they would be better served with the same number of pharmacies trading the hours the supermarkets trade.
Away from the city centre there are other smaller independent supermarkets who seem to be able to exist in the face of competition from the majors. No doubt a similar situation would exist if larger incorporated pharmacies were allowed to develop.

Perhaps what pharmacy needs is a strong independent, pharmacy owned corporate group, with its own developed standards, or as an alternative, a franchise system similar to McDonalds.
As I understand it, that organisation imposes standards on the franchise holders, and also extracts significant fees from them.
But in return they assist in store location and staff training among other benefits.
Perhaps there could be a franchise that imposes standards of competitive pricing in pharmacy, and another that imposes standards of patient counseling, and perhaps another that imposes standards for cosmetic sales and another for photographic processing and sales.
The common thread may be that prescriptions are available at all pharmacies in the same way that fries are available at McDonalds, KFC, and Pizza Hut (even if none of them are as good as those sold by the local, independent, fish and chip shop!).

In summary; could incorporation raise the standards of pharmacy, pharmacists, support staff, and the service rendered to the public?
How much publicity will be given to pharmacies achieving QCPP status, and what will be the implication for those pharmacies who cannot or will not achieve that status?