Posted by on November 24, 2019 2:32 pm
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
Categories: Top Page Links


“Pharmacists Paid for Not Delivering Prescription Drugs?”

By Phoebe Ann Moses, courtesy of Contrepoints


Will pharmacists soon be paid for not dispensing prescription drugs from the doctor’s prescription? That’s what seems to be under discussion right now between pharmacists’ unions and health insurance.


The doctors would be deprived of their authority to prescribe, and the pharmacist would go back to them to “arrange” the prescription.


While this once again raises the problem of the prescriber-seller, a highly monitored conflict of interest in this area, it also poses an ethical problem.


For health insurance, the proposed measure is meant “to ensure the delivery of the relevant amount of drugs needed for treatment to avoid any risk of misuse.” The Egora site explains :


“In concrete terms, the pharmacist will be financially encouraged (via a ‘sharing of economy’) not to dispense all or part of the variable-dose treatments prescribed by the doctor.”


Having obtained a number of new payment streams, pharmacists could now also be granted the right to challenge a prescription.


In the very tense atmosphere between the medical profession and the government, it’s hard not to imagine that we are taking a “divide and rule” approach to our caregivers. Pharmacists have already been given the right to vaccinate (a role initially assigned to doctors and nurses), and participation in medical teleconsultation; they would now be given the right to review prescriptions written by doctors. This can only increase tensions between them, especially since the discussions between health insurance and pharmacists are taking place without the doctors being invited.


For the president of UFML [union of French physicians] 1 , Jérôme Marty:


“This is the greatest cowardice, one profession can not be subordinated by another without at least participating in the discussions …”


Nor is it difficult either to see in this very surprising decision a form of compensation being “offered” by the state to pharmacists: after all, pharmacies have been more and more difficult to operate. Price caps, or even the cancellation of certain drugs brings with it its share of annoyances: turnover is down, closures are up. Various new fees have already been implemented, such as “dispensing fees” , supposed to promote “the key role of the pharmacist in the patient’s understanding of his treatment” .2  Why not? But shouldn’t this be done in a transparent way, and not by pretending to ignore the fact that the real problems lie elsewhere?


Egora does not hide the real reason for these new powers granted to pharmacists:


“New skills [have been] awarded in recent years to pharmacists to offset the decline in the volume of sales of reimbursable medicines. “


This is not just an ordinary cost of doing business, but of the critical, even total dependence on the state: the government is the master of prices, of the law, and there remains only to beg for some table scraps to continue working.


What happens to pharmacists is an illustration of this dependence.


As reported on the website 20Minutes :


“The policy aimed at making generic drugs known in the 1990s was the first to be based not on doctors but on pharmacists,” recalls Etienne Nouguez, CNRS researcher and author of a thesis on this profession. “They showed that they were good students. And they have been able to build on this success to negotiate new rights. “


Good students? All caregivers should be aware of the addiction that has become established because they are the next on the list: we do not sign agreements with the State with impunity.



Phoebe Ann Moses is interested in social issues, new technologies, politics. Patient and taxpayer, she is concerned about the future of her taxes.