TRUST YOUR CHEMIST AT YOUR PERIL

L1011

stimpson wrote: »

I posted figures for the growth of pharmacies and pharmacists for the past 3 years.

And this supports your argument how, exactly?

stimpson wrote: »

You posted a vague reference to the Insolvency Journal.

Do you want a wall of links? Or do you want to be treated like an adult who can actually use a computer?

stimpson wrote: »

Yet I'm chronically confused? :rolleyes: Looks like someone is getting high on his own supply

You don't even know what your original point was anymore at this stage. That's chronically confused.

And I'm not a pharmacist.

stimpson

MYOB wrote: »

And this supports your argument how, exactly?

We've covered this. I understand it undermines your argument and you'd rather go round in circles.

[quote[
Do you want a wall of links? Or do you want to be treated like an adult who can actually use a computer?
[/quote]

One link? That backs your argument? Like grown up people do? Maybe?

You don't even know what your original point was anymore at this stage. That's chronically confused.

Thanks for your concern, but it was a simple point I was making. Growth in pharmacies = viable sector.

L1011

stimpson wrote: »

We've covered this. I understand it undermines your argument and you'd rather go round in circles.

It doesn't undermine my argument at all, as its not connected to it.

stimpson wrote: »

One link? That backs your argument? Like grown up people do? Maybe?

Here's a few hundred.

https://www.google.ie/#q=pharmacy+site:insolvencyjournal.ie&ei=2sy5UYqbKOer7AbjsYGgDQ&start=20&sa=N&bav=on.2,or.r_cp.r_qf.&bvm=bv.47883778,d.ZG4&fp=303a7ac6cdcb246b&biw=1280&bih=929

There's been probably 150 pharmacies or pharmacy chains with sufficient financial difficulties to call creditors meetings or go in to receivership. About 10% of all pharmacies in the country.

stimpson wrote: »

Thanks for your concern, but it was a simple point I was making. Growth in pharmacies = viable sector.

Even though

a: That's an unproven assertion on your part
b: The growth is no higher than the growth in the economy
c: The growth is no higher than the growth in population
d: The growth is actually significantly lower than the growth in medical card holders, the main form of pharmacy sales.

MBSnr

MYOB wrote: »

Estimated population increase, which based on past performance, is going to be much lower than reality.

You were the one who tried to use two years figures vs. one years figure.



Erm. I haven't tried denying that, so I've no idea what you're going after here.

I give up. First the figures are estimated yes - but all the info I have seen is that the pop. is greater than in the preceding years. You agree to that I believe? Second, it makes no odds as to whether I show 1yr or 2yr figures - both show an increase in retail pharmacies - again you have to agree. So your point was?

You didn't deny it, but you came back and queried my use of 1yr vs 2 yr data as above and you quoted that it was "Estimated population increase". Why do this if you don't have an issue with the figures?

And I'm not a pharmacist.

Neither am I. Funnily enough with your robust defence of them, it led me to believe you were.

/walks away

L1011

MBSnr wrote: »

I give up. First the figures are estimated yes - but all the info I have seen is that the pop. is greater than in the preceding years. You agree to that I believe? Second, it makes no odds as to whether I show 1yr or 2yr figures - both show an increase in retail pharmacies - again you have to agree. So your point was?

You didn't deny it, but you came back and queried my use of 1yr vs 2 yr data as above and you quoted that it was "Estimated population increase". Why do this if you don't have an issue with the figures?

I know the CSOs year to year population estimates to be poor at best. The actual growth figures to 2011 show a decrease per capita in pharmacies. The 2012 estimate shows a very small growth, but as the estimates are likely off, that can't be trusted until we get the real figures - in 2016.

I have no idea why you're trying to claim anything relating to denying there was an increase in pure numbers when this was never my point.

MBSnr wrote: »

Neither am I. Funnily enough with your robust defence of them, it led me to believe you were.

/walks away

If by "robust defence" you mean "dealing with a bluffer", then yes, it was robust.

stimpson

MYOB wrote: »

It doesn't undermine my argument at all, as its not connected to it.

Lol. Of course it is.

Here's a few hundred.

https://www.google.ie/#q=pharmacy+site:insolvencyjournal.ie&ei=2sy5UYqbKOer7AbjsYGgDQ&start=20&sa=N&bav=on.2,or.r_cp.r_qf.&bvm=bv.47883778,d.ZG4&fp=303a7ac6cdcb246b&biw=1280&bih=929

150 to be precise. If you limit it to hits in the past year you get 7 hits:

https://www.google.ie/#q=pharmacy+site:insolvencyjournal.ie&source=lnt&tbs=qdr:y&sa=X&ei=7825UeSWJaiS0QWGnIDYDg&ved=0CBoQpwUoBTgU&bav=on.2,or.r_cp.r_qf.&fp=9e03aade3bc470a0&biw=1371&bih=716

There's been probably 150 pharmacies or pharmacy chains with sufficient financial difficulties to call creditors meetings or go in to receivership. About 10% of all pharmacies in the country.

Now you're just making up statistics.

Even though

a: That's an unproven assertion on your part
b: The growth is no higher than the growth in the economy
c: The growth is no higher than the growth in population
d: The growth is actually significantly lower than the growth in medical card holders, the main form of pharmacy sales.

a. It's not unproven. It's the PSI's own numbers.
b. It is higher than the growth in the real economy
c. You have provided nothing to back up that claim
d. Again, nothing to back up your claim.

Tails142

Someone earlier wrote that I wouldn't expect a deli to charge the same price as Tesco for a sandwich etc. No I wouldn't.

But at least Tesco and the deli advertise their prices so I can make an informed decision when choosing MORE EASILY, why can't the pharmacy advertise their fees and markup for prescription drugs, they don't because they're not interested and make excuses that it's too complicated.

Obviously pharmacists are professionals with a body of knowledge and path to entry to the profession but the majority are working in business to make a profit line most other professionals and don't want tip rock the boat. The drug companies also have a lot to answer for too by the way.

L1011

stimpson wrote: »

Lol. Of course it is.

The only connection here is the one you've invented as your sole proof for a lost point.

stimpson wrote: »

150 to be precise. If you limit it to hits in the past year you get 7 hits:

Some refer to groups with significantly more than one pharmacy in them.

The sector has been in trouble for a lot more than a year.

stimpson wrote: »

a. It's not unproven. It's the PSI's own numbers.
b. It is higher than the growth in the real economy
c. You have provided nothing to back up that claim
d. Again, nothing to back up your claim.

a: The assertion that growth (albeit tiny) = viable is your own, and unproven.
b: Its pretty much equal, if anything.
c: Yes, I have - you just happened, as always, to ignore that.
d: http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/number-of-medical-card-holders-totals-37-of-population-578153.html - 38% rise in 4 years.


Unless you can prove your assertion that growth, however small and however below profile, means a sector is inherently viable there really isn't much point even debating this with you, as clearly you have no other angle on it and no proof, just an outdated personal opinion that you're refusing to have corrected.

stimpson

MYOB wrote: »

Unless you can prove your assertion that growth, however small and however below profile, means a sector is inherently viable there really isn't much point even debating this with you, as clearly you have no other angle on it and no proof, just an outdated personal opinion that you're refusing to have corrected.

It's telling that you think a few pharmacists going to the wall is a sign that the industry is no longer viable, but when presented with facts that more pharmacists are opening than closing, you refuse to accept that the sector is viable.

Perhaps there isn't much point debating with me when I cheat by using facts to back up my argument.

L1011

Theres a hell of a lot more to my argument than that, it's just that thats the only thing you've tried to poorly and ill informedly offer as evidence for your "ah sure they're rolling in it" arguments.

stimpson

MYOB wrote: »

Theres a hell of a lot more to my argument than that, it's just that thats the only thing you've tried to poorly and ill informedly offer as evidence for your "ah sure they're rolling in it" arguments.

Most of your argument is based on fantasy, so you'll forgive me if I try to stick to verifiable facts.

And I'm not sure I've said they are rolling in it. More fantasy.

L1011

stimpson wrote: »

Most of your argument is based on fantasy, so you'll forgive me if I try to stick to verifiable facts.

And I'm not sure I've said they are rolling in it. More fantasy.

Your entire argument is based on looking for numbers, no matter how old or irrelevant, to back up a single unproven assertion.

If you can point me to this apparent fantasy do. Otherwise it's just more confusion.

stimpson

MYOB wrote: »

Your entire argument is based on looking for numbers, no matter how old or irrelevant, to back up a single unproven assertion.

If you can point me to this apparent fantasy do. Otherwise it's just more confusion.

So the growth of the sector over the past 3 years is old and irrelevant? Right.

The fantasy is mainly here: http://www.boards.ie/search/submit/?thread=2056969494&query=&user=9049&date_from=&date_to=

L1011

stimpson wrote: »

So the growth of the sector over the past 3 years is old and irrelevant? Right.

Growth in number of participants, which is no higher than economic growth, below population growth and well below medical card growth, is not any indicator of the financial health of the industry.

There was a significant growth in the number of taxi licences, did that indicate a financially healthy sector?

stimpson wrote: »

The fantasy is mainly here: http://www.boards.ie/search/submit/?thread=2056969494&query=&user=9049&date_from=&date_to=

Oh, grow up you child.

stimpson

MYOB wrote: »

Growth in number of participants, which is no higher than economic growth, below population growth and well below medical card growth, is not any indicator of the financial health of the industry.

There was a significant growth in the number of taxi licences, did that indicate a financially healthy sector?

More fantasy. Higher than economic growth (-0.9% to +0.4% depending on how you count it), higher than population growth (0.45% pa in the past 3 years).

You're just making up as you go along.

L1011

Chosen growth figures, almost certainly inaccurate population estimates, and all to support a baseless assertion anyway. When you can debate as an adult, come back to me as your blackholed til then

stimpson

MYOB wrote: »

Chosen growth figures, almost certainly inaccurate population estimates, and all to support a baseless assertion anyway. When you can debate as an adult, come back to me as your blackholed til then

Taking your ball and going home?

Very adult of you.

mountai

Good man stimpson All those "Number Crunchers" have retreated to "The trans Neptunian Panic Zone" !!!! LOL !!!!

L1011

mountai wrote: »

Good man stimpson All those "Number Crunchers" have retreated to "The trans Neptunian Panic Zone" !!!! LOL !!!!

fisher8181

mountai wrote: »

Good man stimpson

resigned yourself to being a cheerleader to stimpson?!
good man.

fisher8181

stimpson wrote: »

the number of pharmacies has continued to grow, pointing to it being a viable industry.

why have you spent the last 5 pages arguing this point?
So what if pharmacy is a valid industry?
It has nothing to do with the op

palmcut

riclad wrote: »

i HEARD 2 weeks ago on the radio,under a new law
chemists will now have the right to give you a cheaper generic medicine ,
EVEN if on the doctors prescription it says drug x non generic drug .
But why would they do this.
THis is on the radio every few weeks, some drugs are 5 times more expensive in ireland than the uk.

WHEN the government spends billions on drugs for medical card users,
its only in the last two years that they have said maybe its better for people to buy generic medicine.
THIS country is full of vested interests ,lawyers, consultants etc
who may have little interest in saving money for the public.

WE need a full public inquiry ,why are drugs so expensive here ,vs the uk.

The most recent available figures for the cost of drugs dispensed under all State schemes is 2011. The figures are available on the HSE website under PCRS publications.

The total payment for drugs and medicines by the PCRS in 2011 was 1,114,610,000.
In addition the PCRS paid 350,180,000 for High Tech medicines.(Mainly cancer drugs). A total of 1.46 billion.
The number of issued medical cards in 2011 was 1,694,063.
The number of issued medical cards in 2006 was 1,221,695.
An increase of 472,368 medical cards between 2006 and 2011.

The number of drug items dispensed on State schemes in 2011 was 72,023,261. In 2006 this figure was 60,885,810..

Markcheese

A pharmacy is entitled to charge what it likes, that's free market .... It's no harm for the op to warn people to shop around (which isn't all that easy as no prices displayed <also not easy, no meds on shelf in front of customer,multiple strengths of multiple drugs,> )
Chain pharmacies wont have much room to complain when tesco pharmacies(and the like) start undercutting them as well opening stupid hours ... Or someone brings out a virtual pharmacist to replace highly paid,highly paid pill counters... Could save the government and punters a fortune...

nino1

Markcheese wrote: »

It's no harm for the op to warn people to shop around (which isn't all that easy as no prices displayed <.

Making a few phone calls is easy enough

Markcheese

nino1 wrote: »

Making a few phone calls is easy enough

True enough... Probably should be pushed a bit more ....I'm off to Spain on Wednesday won't have to ring round as I'll stock up for the year.... If I was organised I'd go on regular cheapo ryan air day trips just for the meds...

Markcheese

As an aside, once you're gonna be over the limit on the drug refund scheme anyway ,there's no need to shop around, and with the amount of meds many older people are on you'd hit the limit quick...

L1011

Markcheese wrote: »

True enough... Probably should be pushed a bit more ....I'm off to Spain on Wednesday won't have to ring round as I'll stock up for the year.... If I was organised I'd go on regular cheapo ryan air day trips just for the meds...

You would (or maybe not actually!) be astounded how many people do that. Only issue is that customs can occasionally get a bit suspicious so it'd be hugely advisable to keep a copy of the prescription (even if the drugs are actually OTC in Spain).

Any pharmacy that wants the business will give you a rough price on the phone and as you said, for people with a lot of drugs, its going to be €144 everywhere anyway - and they'll be getting paid the same amount as everyone else by the state also.

Asking for prices to be displayed is impractical and probably illegal - there's about 20000 prescribable items and prescription meds can't be advertised to the general public. Putting up your markup would be confusing, and relies on people knowing the cost price of the drugs to make an informed choice; a cheap drug is cheaper in a pharmacy with a markup and small fee than it is in a pharmacy with no markup and a flat fee; but that second pharmacy will be massively cheaper for something pricey.

Mountainsandh

This thread caught my eye, and here is my story : a med that needs to be got monthly, cost me 60 euros for the last 2 years, until last month when I discovered at a different chemist that it was only 32 euros at their place (or so), and furthermore, that there was a generic available for 25 euros.

I have changed chemists, but am pretty pi$$ed off at having given 60 euros monthly for 2 years to that chemist number one in a smaller town, that I trusted, and to whom I was naively wishing to give my business, you know, supporting non chain native shops and what not. :mad:

It's only recently that I remember reading an article with comparisons of chemist prices in the country and it was news to me that they could charge what they wanted on prescription medicine. The small town I supported was cited as having the dearest chemist in the country I think, trust me to go for that one.

It is dishonest on the part of chemists not to inform people of generic equivalents, and to have profited for the past few years on the grounds that people should "shop around", when people didn't even know that they should. Medication in my mind was something that was already regulated, how was I to know that it was available cheaper elsewhere when this fact was not publicized ?

Anyway, that shop as far as I'm concerned have shot themselves in the foot, and I'm hoping I'm not the only customer to have left them.

locum-motion

stimpson wrote: »

4%? Pull the other one.

Pharmacies are valued at an amazing 2x turnover. You'd be a long time making that up on 4%

http://www.tca.ie/images/uploaded/documents/Pre-02%20(008)%20Pharmacy.pdf

That report is 12 years old, FFS. I guarantee that no pharmacy has changed hands for anywhere near 2x turnover in at least the last 8 years.

locum-motion

mountai wrote: »

...Closed Shop Rip off Merchants.

Closed shop? How exactly is it a closed shop?

You do realise, don't you, that pharmacy in this country is completely deregulated. You could open a pharmacy tomorrow if you wanted. In Ireland, absolutely anybody (even convivted murderers, for example) is allowed to own a pharmacy, and can open one wherever they want, with absolutely no restrictions.

Since you're so convinced that pharmacies are absolutely creaming it in, I suggest you open one up for yourself. Then you'll find out the truth!