Pharmacy dispensing charge... did you know?

partyatmygaff

Six months but only up to a single month on the DPS, right?

angeldelight

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Six months but only up to a single month on the DPS, right?

Yes one month at a time on DPS

chinwag

Angeldelight: Just to be clear on the dispensing charges - are these charged per (full) prescription or per item on the prescription? Thanks.

whiterebel

angeldelight wrote: »

Yes one month at a time on DPS

According to McCauley's, you can get your 6 months all in one go, but only one month can go through on the DPS, just to be clear.

strandroad

partyatmygaff wrote: »

In Tesco, you get goods. In a Pharmacy, you get goods and services. When you consider the function of both the comparison becomes even more ridiculous.

That's not true. There's plenty of consultation going on in retail. If you walk into Dixons to buy an item no one is going to slap a charge on you because the guy spent time with you explaining phones or bikes and helping you choose.

Nonoperational

The dispensing fee is on each item. 4 items = 4 x dispensing fees.

Of course you can give out 6 months at a time. As was said that's on private prescriptions. On DPS you can only get one supply per month (unless you pay 6x€132 for 6 months but that's very rare). Blood pressure medication no problem giving 6 months together.

partyatmygaff

mhge wrote: »

That's not true. There's plenty of consultation going on in retail. If you walk into Dixons to buy an item no one is going to slap a charge on you because the guy spent time with you explaining phones or bikes and helping you choose.

No offense to DSG or their staff but you can't really compare a pharmacist to a retail sales assistant in Dixons/Currys/PCWorld.

chinwag

gpf101 wrote: »

The dispensing fee is on each item. 4 items = 4 x dispensing fees.

So, if I have two 'must get' items and a third 'optional quantity' (use as I need them) then I am paying several times over if I get that 3rd item in smaller amounts (rather than get full amount from chemist in one lot)?:eek:

Nonoperational

Yep. Assuming you don't go over the €132 DPS limit.

strandroad

partyatmygaff wrote: »

No offense to DSG or their staff but you can't really compare a pharmacist to a retail sales assistant in Dixons/Currys/PCWorld.

All I'm saying is that your argument is moot. There is plenty of situations when service is offered with goods.

chinwag

gpf101 wrote: »

Yep. Assuming you don't go over the €132 DPS limit.

If that's definite, then so much for my friendly local chemist!

partyatmygaff

mhge wrote: »

All I'm saying is that your argument is moot. There is plenty of situations when service is offered with goods.

The service a retail store provides isn't really comparable to the services provided by a pharmacy (For prescription drugs at least).

strandroad

partyatmygaff wrote: »

The service a retail store provides isn't really comparable to the services provided by a pharmacy (For prescription drugs at least).

Well you can certainly hurt yourself badly with an unsuitable item, such as badly fitted bike. You are also dealing with hundreds or thousands of euro for a single item. Yet still no one slaps a charge on you for protecting you from those risks.

partyatmygaff

mhge wrote: »

Well you can certainly hurt yourself badly with an unsuitable item, such as badly fitted bike.

The situation is different. A small mistake in a prescription could lead to death or permanent damage. The pharmacist's the person who's ultimately responsible for the safety of the prescriptions they dispense. Drugs are after all nothing more than medical tools.

You are also dealing with hundreds or thousands of euro for a single item. Yet still no one slaps a charge on you for protecting you from those risks.

The people who work in a bike shop aren't usually engineers or physiotherapists. They're not experts on either the mechanics of the bike itself or its use.

Nonoperational

chinwag wrote: »

If that's definite, then so much for my friendly local chemist!

It's definite ya.

You go in and for a fee they provide a service. It's not a perfect model but that's how it is at the moment.

strandroad

partyatmygaff wrote: »

The situation is different. A small mistake in a prescription could lead to death or permanent damage. The pharmacist's the person who's ultimately responsible for the safety of the prescriptions they dispense. Drugs are after all nothing more than medical tools.

The people who work in a bike shop aren't usually engineers or physiotherapists. They're not experts on either the mechanics of the bike itself or its use.

You need to decide if you demand the charge based on the fact that the customer is protected from danger (in which case you should pay a chef in a restaurant on top of the bill, since he protects you from food poisoning) or on the expert degree the person has (paying your architect extra on top of the project fees, because his studies were hard? I don't think so).

partyatmygaff

mhge wrote: »

You need to decide if you demand the charge based on the fact that the customer is protected from danger (in which case you should pay a chef in a restaurant on top of the bill, since he protects you from food poisoning) or on the expert degree the person has (paying your architect extra on top of the project fees, because his studies were hard? I don't think so).

Neither. It's not exclusively about patient safety but about the overall management of a patient's pharmaceutical care that justifies the fee.

To give you an example, look at the high tech drugs scheme. The pharmacist doesn't pay anything for the drugs and neither does the patient. The government pays for the drugs and pays ~€60 a month for the pharmacist to manage the patient's drug therapy. The fee is even paid if nothing is dispensed. What i'm trying to illustrate is that the fee paid isn't solely to cover the medicine but the patient care and counsel necessary for the medicine.

iPhone.

No wonder the country is bol***ed!!


Paying for things that don't exist now, I can understand paying if the drugs are dispensed and the patient needs advice, but if neither are sought during any given month to pay out regardless is just wrong!

At a minimum it should be a reduced payment if no intervention by the pharmacist is required in any given month.

Also, forgot to put in my post earlier, I thought all purchases had to be accompanied by an itemised receipt? Surely this 'charge' should be shown?

strandroad

But in plenty of businesses you have the need for qualified staff, or risk protection, or service management. State subsidised or not. This is normally calculated in the overall cost; you can't be surprised that it galls people that they are asked to cough up a fiver every time they get a prescription filled, when their particular prescription is not problematic. Especially if it applies to repeat prescriptions, in which case the risk is assessed once but the fee is applied to every instance regardless. It's unusual and hence seen as entitlement. Why can't pharmacies price their business like everyone else?

partyatmygaff

iPhone. wrote: »

No wonder the country is bol***ed!!

Paying for things that don't exist now, I can understand paying if the drugs are dispensed and the patient needs advice, but if neither are sought during any given month to pay out regardless is just wrong!

Well, the drugs on the high tech scheme are really a special case. They're usually only prescribed by hospital consultants for specialist cases and conditions. A few examples could be anti-rejection drugs after transplants or orphan drugs used to treat people with very rare conditions such as an inborn metabolic error.

The drugs themselves are usually either novel and extremely expensive (€5000 for a month's supply expensive) and need extra patient monitoring for side effects and therapy.

At a minimum it should be a reduced payment if no intervention by the pharmacist is required in any given month.

There is, it's halved to about €30 when there's nothing dispensed in a particular month.

iPhone.

High Tech drugs or not, a pharmacist dispenses correctly and gives advice as a matter of course or they should not be in business. Why the extra money from state coffers to do what you are obliged to do anyway by your licence in the first place is beyond me.

Also, you neglected to say in your earlier post the charge was reduced to half., are you a pharmacist by any chance?

partyatmygaff

iPhone. wrote: »

High Tech drugs or not, a pharmacist dispenses correctly and gives advice as a matter of course or they should not be in business. Why the extra money from state coffers to do what you are obliged to do anyway by your licence in the first place is beyond me.

How exactly do you propose they survive for drugs dispensed on the high tech scheme then? The government pays for the drugs for both the pharmacist and patient. They're not state employees, they're contracted by the HSE to provide a service (As are GPs and Dentists). It would be great if community pharmacists and GPs could offer their services free of charge but as much as it is a vocation it's also a job.

Also, you neglected to say in your earlier post the charge was reduced to half., are you a pharmacist by any chance?

No, i'm a student. I didn't include the fact that it was reduced by half as the exact details of the scheme wasn't relevant to the point I was making.

iPhone.

Your last point first if I may, of course it's relevant and you mislead. Its the charge in the instance of a patient not seeking drugs or advice that month is it not? Why give a false impression of the charge in the first place; which you did, you stated the amount of €60, then said they get paid regardless.

You can come back and slice it any way you want, but that is the impression you gave.

I propose they survive on the scheme the same way any other business survives, by the services and products they provide. If they don't provide, they don't get paid, when they provide, they get paid, simple really.

Nonoperational

iPhone. wrote: »

No wonder the country is bol***ed!!


Paying for things that don't exist now, I can understand paying if the drugs are dispensed and the patient needs advice, but if neither are sought during any given month to pay out regardless is just wrong!

At a minimum it should be a reduced payment if no intervention by the pharmacist is required in any given month.

Also, forgot to put in my post earlier, I thought all purchases had to be accompanied by an itemised receipt? Surely this 'charge' should be shown?

That's a great input. The country is bol***ed because pharmacists charge €3-5 per item they dispense.

iPhone.

Please read my post again.

I was referring to the fee paid by the tax payer for drugs not dispensed and professional advice not sought in a given month not the dispensing fee.

partyatmygaff

iPhone. wrote: »

Your last point first if I may, of course it's relevant and you mislead. Its the charge in the instance of a patient not seeking drugs or advice that month is it not? Why give a false impression of the charge in the first place; which you did, you stated the amount of €60, then said they get paid regardless. You can come back and slice it any way you want, but that is the impression you gave.

I honestly have no idea where you're going with this.

What I posted to try and illustrate the reason for dispensing fees:

To give you an example, look at the high tech drugs scheme. The pharmacist doesn't pay anything for the drugs and neither does the patient. The government pays for the drugs and pays ~€60 a month for the pharmacist to manage the patient's drug therapy. The fee is even paid if nothing is dispensed. What i'm trying to illustrate is that the fee paid isn't solely to cover the medicine but the patient care and counsel necessary for the medicine.

The exact figure doesn't matter in the context of the point I was making. The point is that the dispensing fee is not only for dispensing the medicine to the patient but for the other services provided.

I propose they survive on the scheme the same way any other business survives, by the services and products they provide. If they don't provide, they don't get paid, when they provide, they get paid, simple really.

They do provide. Their role isn't just to provide people their drugs. One of their main roles is to manage the pharmaceutical care of their patients. Pharmaceutical care doesn't mean "Give the patient a box of tablets, tell them how to use it and then forget about them".

Nonoperational

iPhone. wrote: »

Please read my post again.

I was referring to the fee paid by the tax payer for drugs not dispensed and professional advice not sought in a given month not the dispensing fee.

My apologies. The HT non dispensed fee is a bit rich alright. It has been halved and will probably be done away with in the future.

chinwag

gpf101 wrote: »

It's definite ya.

You go in and for a fee they provide a service. It's not a perfect model but that's how it is at the moment.

Ok, thanks. But in all honesty, if you go into a chemist and ask for, say 25% of what's prescribed on an optional item, shouldn't the local pharmacist call you to one side and say . . look, it's very expensive buying it this way, why don't you get the full amount prescribed rather than buying in small 'tap-up amounts' as you are doing? Am I being naive? I have asked my local chemist in the past about purchasing items on my prescription sensibly (moneywise). Somehow, I doubt if I got the proper advice. Really, I think it's disgusting to exploit people in this way.
But, is it really €5.00 per item? That seems a bit high to me.

partyatmygaff

chinwag wrote: »

Ok, thanks. But in all honesty, if you go into a chemist and ask for, say 25% of what's prescribed on an optional item, shouldn't the local pharmacist call you to one side and say . . look, it's very expensive buying it this way, why don't you get the full amount prescribed rather than buying in small 'tap-up amounts' as you are doing? Am I being naive? I have asked my local chemist in the past about purchasing items on my prescription sensibly (moneywise). Somehow, I doubt if I got the proper advice. Really, I think it's disgusting to exploit people in this way.
But, is it really €5.00 per item? That seems a bit high to me.

It's not as simple as €5 per item. For medical card and many other public prescriptions it's on a sliding scale from €5 to €3.50 depending on the amount of items dispensed.

For private prescriptions and particularly OTC drugs the dispensing fee varies. In some cases, there mightn't even be a dispensing fee.

angeldelight

Funnily enough having the patient care fee for the high tech is considerably cheaper than if a mark-up to the product was applied. The products cost in the region of 800-2000 euro (some more, few less) per month so really I think the patient care fee is a more sensible way to go about it