Seventy
percent of the turnover of a pharmacy comes from PBS and another
15% from OTC scheduled medicines so a "grocer" would not
be interested.
If 85% of turnover comes from PBS and Schedule Two OTC's then the
income from these is subsidizing the rent pharmacists are prepared
to pay for prime retail positions.
If pharmaceuticals are NOT ordinary items of commerce, and 70% of
business comes from PBS then maybe the government should reconsider
the location of pharmacies so the already expensive PBS is not made
more expensive by the rents that have to be paid for locations.
A PBS outlet in each town may be what is needed at a low rental
site rather than a number of outlets for PBS each with its own set
of overheads such as rent.
Who will give
the advice on the sale of medicines?
There will always be a need for pharmacy sales assistants that
are trained to know when a client should be counseled when they
purchase a packet of medicine scheduled as Schedule Two.
The pharmacy at a supermarket will have a separate checkout from
the general store.
No advice
will be given at checkout
If the National Drug and Poisons Scheduling Committee deem a drug
to be safe for sale in the open market then it will be sold at
supermarkets and no advice will be given.
This is the law and a change to the whole scheduling process needs
to happen for this to be changed. "Check out chicks"
will not be able to sell scheduled medicines at the general checkout
of a supermarket.
Just like the liquor store has to have a separate till and lockable
access so will the pharmacy.
This is a separate argument to the "open" pharmacy ownership
question.
It matters not who owns a pharmacy - the law still has to be met.
Pharmacists
employed by non pharmacists will not be held responsible
The sale of scheduled medicines will have to be made under the
watchful supervision of a registered pharmacist.
The registered pharmacist working for a non pharmacist owner (e.g.
Woolworth's) is protected from persuasion by others to alter professional
judgments based on commercial factors.
Everyone knows "medicines are not ordinary items of commerce".
The pressure will be on proprietors of pharmacies to ensure their
employee pharmacists do not break the law and bring their organisation
into disrepute.
Ethical standards are also involved which could lead to Pharmacy
Board activity for "unprofessional conduct".
No pharmacists
would want to move a business into a supermarket store
This is a "pipe dream".
Any money hungry pharmacist (and there are some) if offered a
price for a business to be leased to a "grocer" would
accept the offer if the offer was better than say the sale price
of the business.
Maybe the pharmacist would want to set an example to show that
it is possible to have a pharmacy in a supermarket and see it
run professionally.
The product
mix of a pharmacy is not suitable for a "grocer"
There is almost always a pharmacy business in close proximity
to a supermarket.
This is because the supermarket creates customer traffic.
There seems little difference between the business outside the
supermarket and independently owned and inside or right next to
the supermarket like the "Bakers Delight" or "Macs
Liquor store".
Ponder these
points and ask yourself whether the fight today is for short term
gain and whether the effort should be put into planning for the
day when pharmacies can be owned by other operators.
There needs
to be more discussion on the alternative models of practice that
will occur with "open" ownership and increased Information
Technology activity.
It is not too far from the day when scripts can be dispensed through
an ATM-type machine.
Be ready.
Next
article in Woolworths series-------->
|
.jpg)
