TRUST YOUR CHEMIST AT YOUR PERIL

L1011

mountai wrote: »

Firstly I"m not ranting .

Yes, you are. Capital letters, insane use of exclamation marks, empty threats and inaccurate serious accusations - all that is ranting.

mountai wrote: »

Are the doctors working in conjunction with the Chemists?. Why have 3 dispensing charges when 1 will suffice. We are not ALL thick.

No. You got one charge. Anyone who wants to take all their drugs (and pay for them) in one go gets one charge.

Mountainsandh

MYOB wrote: »

Erm. No (well, unlikely). Where the hell are you getting that from?

You were acting as if we could freely compare Irish prices to other countries, and that is all I was referring to.

That was sarcasm.

You are telling me that because of legal wholesalers' prices, pharmacists in Ireland have no choice but to charge what they charge.

But I got this medication for 60 euros every month in a pharmacist for 2 years, and suddenly a different pharmacist is able to sell me the exact same for 30 euros. All in Ireland.

So is pharmacist #2 selling at a loss ? or simply applying more reasonable prices, closer to the wholesale price, and with a more honest mark up ?

edit : I should add that when I told pharmacist #2 my surprise, and asked if the lower price was recent, I was told that no, it had been like that for a year to a year and a half, since restructuring of prices or something ?

Alicat

mountai wrote: »

Firstly I"m not ranting . Are the doctors working in conjunction with the Chemists?. Why have 3 dispensing charges when 1 will suffice. We are not ALL thick.

Some people don't want it all in one go. Which I explained to you in my post, from which you decided to call me 'up my own arse', like the lovely gentleman you are.

If they don't want it all in one go then there will be a dispensing fee each time. It's the customer's choice. Unfortunately you chose not to disclose your choice to the pharmacist initially. and then got annoyed that their crystal ball wasn't working.

L1011

Mountainsandh wrote: »

That was sarcasm.

You are telling me that because of legal wholesalers' prices, pharmacist have no choice but to charge what they charge.

No, I wasn't. I was saying that you can't compare to foreign prices. I have absolutely no idea where you're getting the rest of that from.

Mountainsandh wrote: »

But I got this medication for 60 euros every month in a pharmacist for 2 years, and suddenly a different pharmacist is able to sell me the exact same for 30 euros. All in Ireland.

So is pharmacist #2 selling at a loss ? or simply applying more reasonable prices, closer to the wholesale price, and with a more honest mark up ?

The second pharmacist is likely using a fee-only structure, meaning that cheap prescriptions will be vastly more expensive there than at the first; but dearer prescriptions will be cheaper. Boots use this, amongst others.

mountai

MYOB wrote: »

Yes, you are. Capital letters, insane use of exclamation marks, empty threats and inaccurate serious accusations - all that is ranting.



No. You got one charge. Anyone who wants to take all their drugs (and pay for them) in one go gets one charge.

The only reason I paid one charge was that I insisted on getting what was on the form and would not allow the Chemist to set me up for further charges. This is great watching so called "Professionals" trying to defend the sharp practices of their "Profession".

Mountainsandh

It would be interesting to test what you are saying, but I have a feeling that my cheap prescription would still be dearer at chemist #1.

Alicat

Mountainsandh wrote: »

That was sarcasm.

You are telling me that because of legal wholesalers' prices, pharmacists in Ireland have no choice but to charge what they charge.

But I got this medication for 60 euros every month in a pharmacist for 2 years, and suddenly a different pharmacist is able to sell me the exact same for 30 euros. All in Ireland.

So is pharmacist #2 selling at a loss ? or simply applying more reasonable prices, closer to the wholesale price, and with a more honest mark up ?

edit : I should add that when I told pharmacist #2 my surprise, and asked if the lower price was recent, I was told that no, it had been like that for a year to a year and a half, since restructuring of prices or something ?

That is quite confusing how the price managed to be so different. I'll defend any untruths bandied about this thread but it is possible to get greedy pharmacists too. It would be interesting to know what medication it was.

Mountainsandh

Well as I said before, I read afterwards this article (I think it was actually on RTE news ?) reporting the results of price surveys around Ireland, and the name of the little town where I used to purchase said medication was mentioned as the one spot where the most expensive prices (in Ireland) had been observed.

edit : trying to find said article but it's proving difficult

L1011

mountai wrote: »

The only reason I paid one charge was that I insisted on getting what was on the form and would not allow the Chemist to set me up for further charges. This is great watching so called "Professionals" trying to defend the sharp practices of their "Profession".

If these were cross-profession "sharp practices", you wouldn't have got your cheaper prescription anywhere. You don't seem to manage to realise that.

Each pharmacy is a business and entitled to charge what the hell it wants. You found one charging less, and yet you're hanging the entire profession. Wonderful logic there.

Mountainsandh wrote: »

It would be interesting to test what you are saying, but I have a feeling that my cheap prescription would still be dearer at chemist #1.

Believe me, there is about a 99% certainty that that was the case.

Pharmacy A puts a 20% markup and a €3 fee - most common markup now, random fee.
Pharmacy B puts a €7.50 fee - standard fee for a fee-only structure
Pharmacy C puts a 50% markup and a €3 fee - 50% used to be common and some still charge this.

Drug costs 1.50 - this is roughly the wholesale cost of the antispasmodics I occasionally have to take.

Pharmacy A charges 1.50 + 0.30 + 3 = 4.80
Pharmacy B charges 1.50 + 7.50 = 9.00
Pharmacy C charges 1.50 + 0.75 + 3 = 5.25

Pharmacy B is nearly twice the price of A, and still hugely dearer than C

Drug costs €50 - this isn't uncommon for newer drugs

Pharmacy A charges 50 + 10 + 3 = 63
Pharmacy B charges 50 + 7 = 57
Pharmacy C charges 50 + 25 + 3 = 78

Pharmacy B is cheapest, but not by a lot over A, however by quite a lot over B.

So for a dear drug, the fee only place can be quite a lot cheaper. For something cheap, it is consistently dearer by a massive margin.

There is always a need to shop around, it can often be cheapest to split your prescription (although this has its risks, no pharmacist is going to be responsible for drugs another sells you). But there is no basis for the ridiculous slating of an entire profession.

When you consider that most dear drugs are going to be people who are going to go over the DPS limit and hence result in the pharmacy being paid the standard DPS rate, it has been argued that fee-only structures are actually more lucrative for the pharmacist and cost paying customers more.

bleg

MYOB wrote: »

No, I wasn't. I was saying that you can't compare to foreign prices. I have absolutely no idea where you're getting the rest of that from.



The second pharmacist is likely using a fee-only structure, meaning that cheap prescriptions will be vastly more expensive there than at the first; but dearer prescriptions will be cheaper. Boots use this, amongst others.

Boots & Sam McCauley's at least. What's funny is that both firms expect an increase in profits from this pricing structure i.e. the consumer will end up paying more in the long term when faced with a flat mark-up.

Soundman

mountai wrote: »

Incorrect . It said 28 tablets x3 . In my book that means 84 tablets . What part of maths do you not understand. All those years studying and you get it wrong. No where on the form was the word "Month" used. Assuming that we are all mugs . RIP OFF MERCHANTS .

In your words:

mountai wrote: »

"What does it say on the prescription?" Answer "One Month X 3"

28 Tablets x3 means just that. 3 dispensings of 28 tablets. It doesn't mean multiply the two numbers to get 84. You are within your rights to ASK for the 3 months worth in one go but the pharmacist was following the doctor's orders by what was going on the prescription. You handed in the prescription so you got what you were due to get.

Mountainsandh

I haven't found the exact article, but I think it was connected to the ESRI pdf Getting a Bigger Bang for the Buck, which concludes that there is a lot more to be done to bring pharmaceuticals delivery in Ireland to a satisfying level for customers as well as pharmacists.
Of course one of the main recommendations is for clear pricing and transparency in fees and prices, which doesn't seem to have happened at all since the start of 2012, otherwise I would not be on here complaining about the difference in price.

I don't need a cheap prescription filled right now, so can't experiment, but I will keep that in mind and fill a "cheap" prescription with chemist #1 next time.

If that is going to be the case then I will have 2 chemists on the go.

Soundman

Here's an article with some interesting points in it.

http://www.myirishhealth.com/articles/how-to-save-money-on-your-prescriptions-in-ireland

mountai

Soundman wrote: »

In your words:



28 Tablets x3 means just that. 3 dispensings of 28 tablets. It doesn't mean multiply the two numbers to get 84. You are within your rights to ASK for the 3 months worth in one go but the pharmacist was following the doctor's orders by what was going on the prescription. You handed in the prescription so you got what you were due to get.

Can you please clarify for me , is the x3 meant to be there for the Chemists license to treble charge?. When I handed in the prescription I was offered 28 tabs NOT 28x3 as was stated . Why dont the Chemists ask the customer "Would you like to purchase the entire lot now, thus saving two extra dispensing charges" rather than assuming we would wish, automatically, to enrich him for no good reason?. I"ll tell you why ---- Sharpe Practice

L1011

mountai wrote: »

Can you please clarify for me , is the x3 meant to be there for the Chemists license to treble charge?. When I handed in the prescription I was offered 28 tabs NOT 28x3 as was stated . Why dont the Chemists ask the customer "Would you like to purchase the entire lot now, thus saving two extra dispensing charges" rather than assuming we would wish, automatically, to enrich him for no good reason?. I"ll tell you why ---- Sharpe Practice

More ranting, when you've had the entire answer to this spelled out in detail, with figures, already.

Is it "sharp practice" if Tesco don't spend time explaining to you that there's a larger box of Weetabix available? You asked, you bought at the lower price. Most people would be happy, except those who appear to get a kick out of ranting and raving.

mountai

MYOB wrote: »

More ranting, when you've had the entire answer to this spelled out in detail, with figures, already.

Is it "sharp practice" if Tesco don't spend time explaining to you that there's a larger box of Weetabix available? You asked, you bought at the lower price. Most people would be happy, except those who appear to get a kick out of ranting and raving.

Answer the question please

L1011

mountai wrote: »

Answer the question please

I did.

It is your decision whether to ask for one month or three months supply. You asked for three. You are ranting as if you were held down and forced to buy one.

Soundman

mountai wrote: »

Can you please clarify for me , is the x3 meant to be there for the Chemists license to treble charge?. When I handed in the prescription I was offered 28 tabs NOT 28x3 as was stated . Why dont the Chemists ask the customer "Would you like to purchase the entire lot now, thus saving two extra dispensing charges" rather than assuming we would wish, automatically, to enrich him for no good reason?. I"ll tell you why ---- Sharpe Practice

Presumably to stop people popping pills and getting addicted. If you have a lot of painkillers there and are subjected to a lot of pain, a lot of people who are suffering might be tempted to up their own dose to help themselves. If they only have 28 tablets to do them for the month or however long before the next dispensing they won't be as tempted.

sam34

Alicat wrote: »

It's quite disheartening to see the lack of respect and understanding from some of the public for what we do though..... Staying back half hour after work (unpaid) to try and track down the stupid doctor in the hospital that wrote your prescription incorrectly at 5 o'clock on a Friday evening.

ot, but pot, kettle, black...

mountai

Soundman wrote: »

Presumably to stop people popping pills and getting addicted. If you have a lot of painkillers there and are subjected to a lot of pain, a lot of people who are suffering might be tempted to up their own dose to help themselves. If they only have 28 tablets to do them for the month or however long before the next dispensing they won't be as tempted.

Condescending AH

Alicat

sam34 wrote: »

ot, but pot, kettle, black...

Did I say all doctors? Like people in this thread have been giving out about all pharmacists/pharmacies?

If I got a prescription wrong, I'd call myself stupid. Calling a doctor 'stupid' in frustration because they have written an incorrect prescription doesn't mean I have no respect for the entire profession.

Ocean Blue

mountai wrote: »

Can you please clarify for me , is the x3 meant to be there for the Chemists license to treble charge?. When I handed in the prescription I was offered 28 tabs NOT 28x3 as was stated . Why dont the Chemists ask the customer "Would you like to purchase the entire lot now, thus saving two extra dispensing charges" rather than assuming we would wish, automatically, to enrich him for no good reason?. I"ll tell you why ---- Sharpe Practice

6 months of a contraceptive - generally no problem. 3 months of a sleeping tablet or anti-depressant - very unlikely. Certain medicines are not appropriate for stock-piling regardless of the cost implications. If a person were to come to harm and it turned out I had dispensed 84 tablets rather than 3 separate dispensings of 28 (which is what 28 x 3 means) I could be found negligent both professionally and civilly. I'm sorry if that means paying an extra dispensing fee but that is the situation .

Soundman

mountai wrote: »

Condescending AH

AH?

palmcut

The guidelines from the pharmacy regulators are to dispense a months supply at a time.
Some of the reasons for this are;

The prescription may be changed and pharmacists are not legally allowed to re-use returned medication.

With some medication the temptation may be to use the 3 months supply too quickly.

The logic of dispensing 3 months at a time suggests that pharmacies should stock 3 months supply of all medication at a time. (not economically possible)

Having 3 months supply of medication in the home may be dangerous for children.

All the State drug schemes are designed for 28 days or one month.

mountai

Ocean Blue wrote: »

6 months of a contraceptive - generally no problem. 3 months of a sleeping tablet or anti-depressant - very unlikely. Certain medicines are not appropriate for stock-piling regardless of the cost implications. If a person were to come to harm and it turned out I had dispensed 84 tablets rather than 3 separate dispensings of 28 (which is what 28 x 3 means) I could be found negligent both professionally and civilly. I'm sorry if that means paying an extra dispensing fee but that is the situation .

Would a Doctor thus expose himself to the same risk by allowing a patient the scope to have these addictive and dangerous drugs ? Dont think so . Keep digging Lads (and of course Lasses)

Soundman

mountai wrote: »

Condescending AH

Again Mountai, what do you mean by this post?

L1011

mountai wrote: »

Would a Doctor thus expose himself to the same risk by allowing a patient the scope to have these addictive and dangerous drugs ? Dont think so . Keep digging Lads (and of course Lasses)

The doctor will have written a prescription for 6 individual dispensings. Same as yours was written for three.

Its up the pharmacist to decide whether it is safe or not to allow you to buy more than one months supply at a time, and in many cases, it isn't.

It'd be better for everyone if you'd stop making wild accusations based on speculation on something you've repeatedly shown that you know nothing about.

Ocean Blue

mountai wrote: »

Would a Doctor thus expose himself to the same risk by allowing a patient the scope to have these addictive and dangerous drugs ? Dont think so . Keep digging Lads (and of course Lasses)

The doctor doesn't want the patient to have all those tablets. He wants 28 given now then again in 4 weeks and so on. You are the only one who thinks he is prescribing 84 in one go.

mountai

Having 3 months supply of medication in the home may be dangerous for children.


So is having a bottle of Bleach

sam34

Alicat wrote: »

Did I say all doctors? Like people in this thread have been giving out about all pharmacists/pharmacies?

If I got a prescription wrong, I'd call myself stupid. Calling a doctor 'stupid' in frustration because they have written an incorrect prescription doesn't mean I have no respect for the entire profession.

no you didn't say all doctors, nor did I say you did. calling someone who made a mistake "stupid" is disrespectful however, especially that in the circumstances we are discussing it is extremely unlikely the person is in fact stupid.
a far more likely explanation is extreme tiredness due to shifts of 36 hrs or more, or overwork, or getting distracted by a cardiac arrest call etc etc etc.