Published by Computachem Services

P.O Box 297.
Alstonville. 2477
NSW Australia

Phone:
61 2 66285138

If you were asked by a person of another culture - and who did not speak good English or understand your ways - what would you answer if they were not a registered pharmacist?
The question arises when discussing with Aboriginal people from remote communities the proposed clause in the (soon to be released) Health Practitioners Bill in the Northern Territory that says only a registered pharmacist can own a pharmacy.

The existing Pharmacy Act in the Northern Territory (NT) is silent on who should own a pharmacy.
This fact, along with the successful Tiwi Health Board pharmacy project, has made the Pharmacy Guild nervous about Coles and Woollies picking up on the fact and running with it through their own pharmacy businesses in the NT.
Well the Pharmacy Act has been in place for a long time - about 20 years - and before that an NT Ordinance prior to self government that also failed to state who should own a pharmacy.
It should be assumed that Coles and Woollies are not dumb and would have been well aware of this business opportunity but decided against it.
The market size is not large - 200,000 people in 2003 and falling after a growth period caused in part by the upgrading of Australia's northern defences.
That is not a lot of people with the biggest centre Darwin of 90,000 people. Only as big as a large rural centre and not as big as Wollongong or Newcastle.

So why the fuss?
Is there a need to bring in a law to say who should own a pharmacy, and that it should only be a registered pharmacist?
Is there a problem?
Is the public at risk?

According to the National Competition Policy Review of Pharmacy Legislation (2000):

"The Review also believes that the Australian Capital Territory and Northern Territory Pharmacy Acts are ambiguous on the pharmacy ownership question. As they stand, they could fall within the boundary of acceptable regulation as set out in Recommendation 1, and therefore there is no need for the two Territories to amend their Acts to conform to the recommendation."

A COAG Working Group of Senior Officials (from Commonwealth and States/Territories) was then charged with reporting to the nine governments on the NCP report. It said:
"The Working Group propose that this recommendation (1) be accepted noting that this does not imply an obligation on the Australian Capital Territory or the Northern Territory to amend their legislation,"

So why the turnaround and where the authority for the recent statement that:
"The Health Minister Jane Aagaard says a national report recommends pharmacies should only be owned by chemists." (ABC Radio Darwin 21 August 2003)"

Well maybe that is so for the rest of Australia but not for the Northern Territory. The Hon Jan Aagaard continues to say that:
"There will be an exemption by the Minister, so that we can actually accommodate these situations for remote areas and
particularly aboriginal
communities.

So - what if the Minister (of the day) does not want to grant an exemption? - Aboriginal communities could NOT own their own pharmacy.
Honesty is what is needed to develop the trust of Aboriginal people. They have been hoodwinked enough over past years with shallow promises such that we cannot afford at a time of reconciliation
to NOT tell the truth.

An analysis of the situation in the last bastion of freedom from pharmacy ownership laws shows that:
1. The NCP review of pharmacy regulation said there was no need for change
2. The COAG Senior Officers Working Group supported this recommendation
3. There is no evidence that the public is at risk due to open ownership
4. Aboriginals living in remote communities do not have access to a pharmacy
5. The Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme is available to remote living Aboriginals through either their own health clinic pharmacy (in the case of Tiwi Islands) or a town-based retail pharmacy.
6. There is a desperate need to improve the quality use of medicines in remote Aboriginal communities and this can be done with the "profit" obtained from an "own pharmacy" approval number (license).

Surely these people, who are in a poor health status deserve the best by right, and not by an "exemption" at the whim of a Minister from an overly restricted piece of legislation.
The enactment of a law on who should own a pharmacy could be accused of being as much to protect the self interests of pharmacists as it is to protect the public.
Even if Coles and Woollies did own a pharmacy it would still have to be under the control of a registered pharmacist.
Are the detractors of this saying that the proprietorial interest of Coles and Woollies would be more detrimental for consumers than that of a registered pharmacist with a pecuniary interest in multiple stores also under the control of a registered pharmacist?
Does it mean that if Mr. Woolworth had been a pharmacist it would be okay?

A community controlled Aboriginal health organisation can own its Aboriginal Health Workers, doctors, nurses, pathology, radiology, and every other aspect of primary health care - but not the pharmacy!

Get real - and what would your answer be?
In all honesty!

Responses welcomed to rollom@bigpond.net.au