The week in review


doctor wearing boxing glove

This week, all eyes have been on the King Review interim report, as stakeholders released their formal responses

Most stakeholders, it’s fair to say, weren’t thrilled with the Interim Report and made it very clear in their submissions, which were made public over the week.

The group representing CSO wholesalers, National Pharmaceutical Services Association, warned of the dangers of switching supply to a Manufacturer Distribution Model, and argued that a threat to wholesaler trading terms was a threat to community pharmacy.

The SHPA is concerned that the report doesn’t give hospital pharmacists the attention they’re due as an “untapped resource”.

The Guild was scathing in its criticism, saying the interim report contains serious errors and a “pre-conceived agenda” to shake up the sector.

The Medicines Partnership members also got together to pan the review… read a roundup of their comments here.

In other news, over the last weekend the Pharmaceutical Society of Australia released a report card on pharmacy services… and found we’re slipping behind other Western nations.

And the GP-pharmacist turf war is still bubbling away, with the focus this week turning to codeine as well as the King Review, where the RACGP‘s submission calls for a downscaling of pharmacy services, GP dispensing and the breaking of the “retail-medicine link,” where CMs are concerned.

Reckitt Benckiser has settled the class action over its Nurofen Specific range. The Fentanyl shortage continues, though shortage for one brand has been resolved. And the rollout of the new TerryWhite Chemmart brand is going gangbusters.

Previous Compounding pharmacist to pay $73,000 in damages
Next "King of Pharmacists" gets 31-year suspension

NOTICE: It can sometimes take awhile for comment submissions to go through, please be patient.

7 Comments

  1. Kevin Hayward
    05/08/2017

    I am overwhelmed by the continuous barage of negative comments regarding the King report throughout the week, culminating in the “expert” opinion of a marketing man? Am to believe that this panel of professional peers had nothing of value to say? Is the world of Pharmacy so perfect that nothing that has been suggested is worthwhile of our considerations? Or is this just an example of bias and scaremongering? I would like to have a balance in my journalism and hear the opposing viewpoints, if not the AJP will cease to be worthwhile reading.

    • Jarrod McMaugh
      05/08/2017

      I think the the opening paragraphs says it all Kevin. If the week has been filled with feedback to King that has been negative, then it would be disingenuous to report otherwise.

      I think it’s worth pointing out that AJP has always been keen to print opinion pieces by pharmacists. That gives you the platform to put your own views on it forward.

      • Kevin Hayward
        05/08/2017

        I find it hard to believe that no credence is being given to any aspect of a report prepared by a panel of exemplars in their field.

        • M M
          05/08/2017

          I agree with Jarrod’s last paragraph. Kevin, if you have the time you can write what you think about kings interm report.

          • Kevin Hayward
            06/08/2017

            I have yet to formulate a viewpoint of the King report, the fact that only one side of the argument has been projected has not helped me to do so.

    • Mick Rhodes
      07/08/2017

      Sir, I have contributed to the debate vigorously and believe the King Review is an exceptional piece of work. Many of the negative responses you refer too are frankly predictable because much of what is recommended in the King Review is an anathema to their existence. We’ve gone on record independently and have drawn similar conclusions to the King review. Our 2 reports are available to read should you be interested. I have also contributed to commentary and articles here on the AJP. Your assumption on the “marketing man” report certainly drew my attention and I took the effort to respond accordingly (https://ajp.com.au/columns/opinion/debased-prescription-change/?utm_source=AJP+Daily&utm_campaign=f4b9fd3c2f-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2017_08_03&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_cce9c58212-f4b9fd3c2f-109582657). In summary Kevin, I hear you.

      • Kevin Hayward
        07/08/2017

        Thanks for a considered opinion, representative of the other side of the story. Balanced debate is essential.

Leave a reply