Other
commentators in this publication have made the point that past forays
by Woolworths were simply to "stir" and test the waters.
But the current onslaught has the feel of a very determined battle
plan that will end up, in the collective minds of Woolworth's executives,
with full ownership of a chain of pharmacies, located inside existing
Woolworths' retail stores.
But I don't
think it will stop there.
Woolworths' marketing strategy has been to run specialty retailing
as a separate entity e.g. Dick Smith electronics, and while there
is a "fit" with supermarket and pharmacy, because of
the retail mix, the specialty healthcare side does not fit comfortably.
Major retail outlets tend to attract "well-person" shoppers,
for the simple reason that someone who is not feeling well, or
who is looking for some personal advice, will not feel comfortable
in a mass shopping environment.
Well-managed patients with chronic ailments will part with some
of their prescription business whilst shopping, but they will
still want to maintain contact with "their pharmacist".
This is what
Alan Jones had to say on the 23rd July 2003:
"Well
Woolworths are planning, we are told, to move to the next stage
of a long term program to operate a chain of full service pharmacies
in conjunction with its supermarkets.
And the government has to stop it.
It's said they have completed the first phase of their pharmacy
plan, wrapping up a 12 month trial of a broadened health and beauty
offering in two New South Wales supermarkets.
Well
that's where is should stay.
We
don't want Woolworths dishing out medicine or prescriptions.
So
the government has to move here.
This
is ridiculous - the establishment in supermarkets of full service
pharmacies with dispensaries manned by registered pharmacists.
What
next?
We
are reaching where it will just be Woolworths at one end of town
and Coles at the other and everyone will be wiped out.
The
Pharmacy Guild of Australia has opposed the entry of the major
food retailers into pharmacy on the grounds that quality of service,
range of goods and counselling would be compromised.
And
I agree with them.
However,
Roger Corbett said Woolworths will be moving to the next stage
of its pharmacy expansion, but hasn't put a timetable on it.
Well
government better beat him to the punch."
My experience
has centred on corporate medical centres and what that has meant
to the single unit GP Practice.
Corporate medicine has succeeded in systemising very profitably,
those elements of medicine that lend themselves to a form of "mass-merchandising".
It is also a form of vertical integration and cross-fertilisation.
To a certain
extent, GP's have resisted corporatisation, but have enjoyed financial
and lifestyle benefits when they did incorporate, that have more
than offset the more time-intensive personal form of solo general
practice.
Those of their
colleagues still wishing to preserve their private practices have
done so, with difficulty, and have had further salt rubbed into
the wound, when they are faced with patients who come to them
for specialty information and treatment, but give the "bread
and butter" components of their treatment to the corporate
practice.
Does this
sound familiar?
Why will patients/customers
do this?
Because of
price and convenience -bulk billing, extended hours, prompt appointments
with no waiting.
One of the
components of the corporate medical centre, the pharmacy, has
had difficulty in developing because of location rules for pharmacies,
the fact that pharmacies must be controlled by pharmacists, and
the outright opposition of the Pharmacy Guild of Australia.
What seems
to have been forgotten here is that Woolworths, in its own right,
could open up medical centres, the same as other corporate investors.
And a willing general public would support any such share issue
that had the Woolworths name attached.
So just go back up the page when I talk about a "pharmacy
fit" with a supermarket environment, and then ask yourself
the question, "Would a specialty pharmacy be a good fit with
a corporate medical centre?"
There is no
doubt about the answer, and there is no doubt that Woolworths
would see it as a more suitable strategy to conquer the ownership
and location issues with pharmacy, before investing in medical
centres.
So one has
to ask why the Pharmacy Guild is not looking to a marketing strategy
to compete with the newer and stronger forms of pharmacies that
will eventually arrive in non-pharmacist hands?
The solo pharmacy practice that is in the majority now, will only
be able to provide a marginal service in the face of the opposition
that can be expected in the future.
I cannot see
any alternative than to have pharmacists form corporate entities
and build their strength so that they will have the resources
to battle for a majority of market share when Woolworths Rx eventually
arrives.
It may be an unpalatable decision for solo pharmacists to have
to make, but it is better to make it in an environment where pharmacy
legislation still favours pharmacist-only ownership or control
of pharmacies.
A pharmacist controlled corporate entity would still have the
edge on a Woolworths Rx because of training and attitude.
The environment would simply be "different".
The alternative
may be for the future that you will sell out to Woolworths Rx
and work for them as a manager or pharmacist-in-charge.
Make no mistake, if you opt for this approach, you will be "screwed"
on wages, and you will be subservient to the general store manager,
who will put pressure on your professional discretion.
This has long
been the experience in the UK and the US, and recent examples
have appeared in AuspharmList, the Australian pharmacy bulletin
board, where pharmacists have been sacked for simply being professional
and patient-orientated or threatened to be "blacklisted"
if they did not conform to unprofessional directives.
So it is now "crunch" time for Australian pharmacists
and decisions can no longer be put off.
Both the Pharmacy Guild of Australia (PGA) and the Pharmaceutical
Society of Australia (PSA) have to demonstrate some far-sighted
leadership here, and perhaps it is time for the PSA to emerge
from the shadow of the PGA and lay down a variety of practice
structures that will give pharmacists genuine options.
Meanwhile,
it would not hurt for our pharmacy leaders to acknowledge some
thanks to Alan Jones for his sympathetic help.
Perhaps they have already done so, but it would not hurt to build
on the experience.
And despite what Alan Jones advocates in the way of government
support, I would not hold your breath because of the weight given
to economic rationalism.
The only counterbalance is the planned approach to National Health,
which currently favours restrictions on ownership and location.
My feeling is that long-term, this approach will eventually be
proven to be too unwieldy and a severe restraint on competition,
and collapse will be the outcome.
An ideal situation for Woolworths Rx (and others) to pick up the
pieces and negotiate a more profitable deal with governments.
What can you
do for the moment?
Well, you could approach your professional and political organisations
and press them for answers, and you could make a submission to
the new Senate enquiry into the Trade Practices Act.
The Senate enquiry is going to investigate whether the Act adequately
protects small business against anti-competitive or unfair conduct.
It will also consider other measures to assist small business.
This forum would be a good starting point to register the special
nature of pharmacy, and why pharmacy health care needs to be protected,
given that Australian pharmacies are considered to be "best
practice" models when compared to world standards.
Hopefully the PGA and the PSA will be involved in this inquiry.
Finally, you
could also write and thank Alan Jones for his support, as it may
be needed again.
|