poledriver
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2005
- Messages
- 11,543
NEWS : Critical diagnosis: pharmacists put credibility on the line
here
After a 'pills and fries' PR disaster, another deal risks public trust, writes Mark Metherell.
For years pharmacists have scored first or second in the rankings for most trusted profession.
The presence in every suburb of a health professional able to offer qualified advice at no direct cost, appeared to trump any mutterings about higher prices flowing from their monopoly status.
That status continued even as most pharmacies took to devoting entire walls to displaying herbal and other remedies, lending their credibility to costly products of unproven worth.
Now their reputation has taken a hit with the revelation of a new commercially driven approach, partly brought on by the squeeze on pharmacy incomes, but also by the potential of information technology to reach into the medication experience of individual patients.
The pills and potions giant Blackmores had quietly reached an arrangement with the Pharmacy Guild for pharmacists to recommend its ''companion'' remedies when dispensing prescribed drugs for common chronic conditions such as high cholesterol, high blood pressure and reflux.
A throw-away line by Blackmores' chief executive, Christine Holgate, defined the commerce-over-care nature of the arrangement.
She described the deal as a ''Coke and fries'' option which could be served up with prescribed medicines, generating ''a new and important revenue stream'' for pharmacies.
The Pharmacy Guild, representing 5000 pharmacies, is regarded as a toughie among lobbyists in Canberra, negotiating about $4 billion a year in government payments to pharmacists for dispensing subsidised prescription medicines.
For 10 days after the ''Coke and fries'' miscue, the guild held the line in the face of outcry from some pharmacists and health experts over the lack of medical evidence to back such combos, and concerns about commerce-driven dispensing.
Finally, the guild and Blackmores axed the ''companions'' scheme, along with the software which prompted pharmacists to promote the option to patients, blaming ''inflammatory'' media reports.
This week the Herald reported on another arrangement the guild has reached with the international pharmaceutical company, Pfizer.
Under this computerised scheme, Pfizer pays pharmacists $7 to enrol patients prescribed any of nine Pfizer drugs in ''patient support programs'' which send patients emails encouraging healthy lifestyles and continued use of their product.
Pfizer and the guild insist the program cannot be likened to the Blackmores plan. Pfizer Australia's chief executive, John Latham, denies the scheme can sway pharmacists to sell its products, given the drug prescription depends on a doctor.
Latham said the scheme aimed to ensure patients complied with their prescriptions and offered benefits for those with chronic conditions such as heart disease, diabetes, asthma and mental health conditions for whom continued medication was vital.
Pharmacists said while the Pfizer scheme might benefit patients, the uproar over the Blackmores scenario meant it only deepened pharmacists' credibility problems.
The arrangement comes at a difficult time for Pfizer and the guild, both under fire over the pharmaceutical company's direct distribution arrangements, which critics say weaken timely supply of drugs.
Grant Kardachi, president of the Pharmaceutical Society of Australia, says of the uproar: ''It probably does not help our credibility at this point in time …'' as pharmacists seek to strengthen their clinical role.
Kardachi is also ''a bit uncomfortable'' about a drug company potentially usurping the role of the pharmacists.
Dr Ken Harvey, a long-time activist on pharmaceutical issues, says there is a case for programs to promote medicine compliance. But his concern is the lack of transparency in such schemes, an issue of significance given Pfizer would be looking to promote its drugs, like Lipitor for cholesterol, before their patents expire, exposing them to stiff competition from generic drugs next year.
The Consumer Health Forum chief executive, Carol Bennett, says ''information given to consumers should be independent of vested interests seeking to maintain profits''
The latest controversy sharpens the campaign by health groups like Bennett's against the apparently cosy accord the Pharmacy Guild has with the federal government.
For years pharmacists have scored first or second in the rankings for most trusted profession.
The presence in every suburb of a health professional able to offer qualified advice at no direct cost, appeared to trump any mutterings about higher prices flowing from their monopoly status.
That status continued even as most pharmacies took to devoting entire walls to displaying herbal and other remedies, lending their credibility to costly products of unproven worth.
Now their reputation has taken a hit with the revelation of a new commercially driven approach, partly brought on by the squeeze on pharmacy incomes, but also by the potential of information technology to reach into the medication experience of individual patients.
The pills and potions giant Blackmores had quietly reached an arrangement with the Pharmacy Guild for pharmacists to recommend its ''companion'' remedies when dispensing prescribed drugs for common chronic conditions such as high cholesterol, high blood pressure and reflux.
A throw-away line by Blackmores' chief executive, Christine Holgate, defined the commerce-over-care nature of the arrangement.
She described the deal as a ''Coke and fries'' option which could be served up with prescribed medicines, generating ''a new and important revenue stream'' for pharmacies.
The Pharmacy Guild, representing 5000 pharmacies, is regarded as a toughie among lobbyists in Canberra, negotiating about $4 billion a year in government payments to pharmacists for dispensing subsidised prescription medicines.
For 10 days after the ''Coke and fries'' miscue, the guild held the line in the face of outcry from some pharmacists and health experts over the lack of medical evidence to back such combos, and concerns about commerce-driven dispensing.
Finally, the guild and Blackmores axed the ''companions'' scheme, along with the software which prompted pharmacists to promote the option to patients, blaming ''inflammatory'' media reports.
This week the Herald reported on another arrangement the guild has reached with the international pharmaceutical company, Pfizer.
Under this computerised scheme, Pfizer pays pharmacists $7 to enrol patients prescribed any of nine Pfizer drugs in ''patient support programs'' which send patients emails encouraging healthy lifestyles and continued use of their product.
Pfizer and the guild insist the program cannot be likened to the Blackmores plan. Pfizer Australia's chief executive, John Latham, denies the scheme can sway pharmacists to sell its products, given the drug prescription depends on a doctor.
Latham said the scheme aimed to ensure patients complied with their prescriptions and offered benefits for those with chronic conditions such as heart disease, diabetes, asthma and mental health conditions for whom continued medication was vital.
Pharmacists said while the Pfizer scheme might benefit patients, the uproar over the Blackmores scenario meant it only deepened pharmacists' credibility problems.
The arrangement comes at a difficult time for Pfizer and the guild, both under fire over the pharmaceutical company's direct distribution arrangements, which critics say weaken timely supply of drugs.
Grant Kardachi, president of the Pharmaceutical Society of Australia, says of the uproar: ''It probably does not help our credibility at this point in time …'' as pharmacists seek to strengthen their clinical role.
Kardachi is also ''a bit uncomfortable'' about a drug company potentially usurping the role of the pharmacists.
Dr Ken Harvey, a long-time activist on pharmaceutical issues, says there is a case for programs to promote medicine compliance. But his concern is the lack of transparency in such schemes, an issue of significance given Pfizer would be looking to promote its drugs, like Lipitor for cholesterol, before their patents expire, exposing them to stiff competition from generic drugs next year.
The Consumer Health Forum chief executive, Carol Bennett, says ''information given to consumers should be independent of vested interests seeking to maintain profits''
The latest controversy sharpens the campaign by health groups like Bennett's against the apparently cosy accord the Pharmacy Guild has with the federal government.
here
