One
of the comments made in the NCP review of pharmacy pointed to the
possibility that if pharmacy proprietorship was opened further,
that the resultant change would bring overall benefits to the industry
and the community in terms of "diversity, vibrancy, and entrepreneurial
thinking".
While I do
not advocate (at least at this stage in pharmacy development)
that ownership of community pharmacy should devolve to non-pharmacy
business interests, there is no reason why specific areas of pharmacy
could not be shared with suitable alliance partners, utilising
their capital and entrepreneurial perspective to lead the way
to a better solution.
Of course,
one could argue that by passing pharmacy "know-how"
on to other organisations in alliance, could eventuate in more
pressure back on the pharmacy ownership issue, as these organisations
join Woolworths et al in their quest for pharmacy dominance.
On the other hand, you could argue that such an alliance would
strengthen pharmacy, providing resources and alternative "know-how"
that could eventually find its way totally "in-house",
with the alliance partner being left behind.
Obviously,
there is an opportunity in the middle-ground, provided there is
care in the selection of an alliance partner, and that the agreements
structured are fair and pitched for the long term, with pharmacy
ownership firmly vested with pharmacists.
I have always
been struck by the range of skills that community pharmacists
embraces over their career span.
I have also been struck by the observation that each pharmacist
is no longer able to focus individually on each skill requirement,
because of the overall time investment required to be able to
complete all these activities.
Life is just too busy!
While this is a global phenomena, it is not going to go away without
proper planning for time management with delegation.
Delegation
can occur by training people internally to do various functions
that require skill, or it can occur by negotiating some segment
of your business (in alliance) to another organisation where the
benefit is going to be greater than going it alone.
There must be be mutual profitability (win/win) scenarios for
both alliance partners.
We have experienced this in the photoprocessing business where
initial alliances were with external photo laboratories, and then
on to in-house minilabs. Now with the rapid changes in digital
imaging we see a farming out to external organisations using terminals
marketed as imaging kiosks.
However, some pharmacists have been able to keep abreast with
both capital requirements and the necessary skills, to do all
their digital imaging in-house.
Along the way the total market has always expanded, but new non-pharmacy
organisations have absorbed some of this market.
What remains is always very viable and profitable for pharmacy
but there needs to be that extra vigilance required to stop sudden
shifts in the marketplace.
This type
of alliance structure has never seemed to permeate the professional
services area of pharmacy to any great degree, and attempts to
generate professional alliances are generally treated with suspicion,
even hostility. Even pharmacist-controlled attempts to provide
services in a non-traditional manner e.g. online pharmacy, have
been met with hostility from within the profession.
However, this may be about to change in a very forceful manner.
A new entrant
has been recorded as entering the pharmacy scene, and they style
themselves as Pharmeasy, a subsidiary of Advance Healthcare Group
Ltd, which is a listed public company.
Pharmeasy intends to operate a call centre to provide pharmacy
supply and prescription management.
It is rumoured that they have alliance arrangements with Health
Communications Network (HCN) and ePharmacy.
They also appear to have a relationship with at least one medical
fund (HCF) who is openly supporting them to their members, and
they have an advisory board with some prominent political names
(Michael Wooldridge, the ex federal minister for health and Kate
Carnell, pharmacist and ex chief minister of the A.C.T).
Obviously, this represents a threat to all pharmacies, with perhaps
the exception of ePharmacy, who are obviously gearing up for the
era of electronic prescriptions (when legalised). With HCN controlling
up to 75 percent of GP desktops around Australia, potentially
this represents a situation where a small number of people may
eventually control a large market share of prescription business
around Australia.
While this
is a threat to a majority of pharmacists, it also represents an
opportunity for every pharmacist to review their own prescription
management practices, and take steps to secure their own immediate
area, or tie in with other regional/national organisations, depending
on the depth of individual ambitions.
While pharmacists have had reasonable experience in marketing
products, they have not developed a great range of skills in marketing
professional services.
These skills will have to be developed in-house or acquired from
an external source, as a prerequisite for meeting this new challenge.
Pharmeasy
appears to have developed a rational marketing plan, no doubt
helped by a transfer of knowledge from a pharmacy source.
They will, in fact, be an Internet/mail order pharmacy without
owning the actual pharmacy (shades of Woolworths "bricks
and mortar" approach), and will earn their income primarily
from product sales.
The recent sale of the Hilton nutritional business (an open selling
vitamin company previously owned by A.P.I Ltd) to Pharmeasy gives
them an instant mail order/online customer base from which to
build from.
They are building premises at North Rocks in Sydney as a pharmacy
warehouse, and it appears that the prescription management service
will also operate from here.
Little is
known about the financial and other arrangements with the pharmacy.
Obviously, the pharmacy will pay some form of franchise fee to
become the annointed dispenser of prescriptions.
Pharmeasy could elect to deal with just one pharmacy, or make
separate arrangements with other pharmacies located near where
the client lives.
The risk/benefit of such an arrangement can only be assessed by
the pharmacist(s) involved.
Pharmeasy
promotes the following message to potential clients:
* For patients
on regular medication, a free and personalised medication
management service
* Patients to send physical prescription to Pharmeasy (they do
not arrange to pick up, but will communicate with doctor's surgeries.
This direct communication will increase when electronic prescriptions
become legal).
* Medicines delivered discretely in brown paper packages.
* A reminder alert to the patient when repeat prescriptions fall
due.
* A filing system to hold patient prescriptions
* Maintenance of medical records for appropriate claims (safety
net, medical fund receipts etc.)
* Competitive pricing on private prescriptions and OTC items.
* Free membership
* A delivery cost of $3.95 per parcel
* An information helpline (1300 765 888) available 9am to 6pm
weekdays only.
The system
is not that different to what is already offered by most community
pharmacists.
It has been "packaged" to create tangibility, and relies
on its core service of "prescription reminder" as its
key element to drive the service.
This is one service component that patients appreciate and welcome,
because it is built around convenience. It is time saving and
it avoids confusion (particularly in elderly patients).
By upgrading services like the above, local community pharmacists
can protect their market and block potential intrusion by Pharmeasy.
It may also pay to detail your local GP's and advise them regularly
of the service you offer, particularly a pick up service from
the doctor's surgery. The detailed Pharmeasy member's application
form contains a range of permissions, which includes dealing direct
with the doctor.
This is an important service to build awareness of now, because
when electronic prescriptions become legal, there will be intense
lobbying to be on the receiving end of this format.
Planning should
also be occurring for the implementation of a safe encrypted document
exchange system to receive electronic documents, also to file
them legally in encrypted format.
There may be a few legal challenges in the communications area
before it all settles down.
Already we have seen an attempt by the PGA to patent part of the
MediConnect communications system; HCN are developing their own
system; some Divisions of General Practice have an internal system
based on PGP, Monash University have put their system out in the
public domain; and the HIC is rumoured to have abandoned its original
e-mail based system.
Except for one pharmacy developed system (HEALTH-Dx) there does
not appear to be any universality among the systems so that all
parties in the health field (and outside) can talk to each other.
Other consideration around security include the fact that the
HIC want to generate all electronic signatures (rather than register
signatures generated by the participants); GP's have a penchant
for only using software already integrated with primary desktop
software i.e. script writing software, that may eventually create
legal challenges built on concentration of market share claims.
So the dust
is yet to settle, and pharmacists are advised to seek out a suitable
messaging system now, so that it will be in place when Pharmeasy
begin their major advertising campaign, built around the ease
of doctors transmitting electronic prescriptions to online pharmacies,
or their equivalents.
It is advised that the system selected not be e-mail and have
a key strength greater than 128 bit, also the ability to generate
a private key on the desktop of your own computer, and that documents
can be legally identified and stored safely in electronic format.
Challenges
will continue to be issued to pharmacy at large, because outsiders
who have been following the Woolworths debate, have seen opportunities
they can build around the structure of pharmacy, without challenging
for ownership.
Pharmacists will need to evaluate all alliance opportunities,
because as has been pointed out by many writers in this publication,
individual community pharmacies are too small in unit size and
numbers to sustain a brand image that would drive private marketing
initiatives, sufficiently to beat off major competitors.
|