Part charges for drugs

Press, 29 July 1978, Page 14

Part charges for drugs

Pharmacists have been complaining about having to deal with customers who are confused or irritated by the charges for certain prescription medicines In fairness to the chemists and their staff, and to customers with prescriptions. any further confusion should be disposed of as quickly as possible. The policy of imposing part charges on drugs for which cheaper, but equally’ satisfactory alternatives, are available is sound Temporarv administrative confusion should not be allowed to bring the whole policy into disrepute. The part-charge system should work smoothly if doctors who prefer drugs for which charges are made also take responsibility for informing their patients that they will have to pay The list of free and part-charge drugs is complicated and is bound to change as new drugs come on the market and old ones are superseded Most doctors are already busy enough; so the Health Department has a clear duty to keep doctors fully, clearly, and promptly informed of anv changes in the status of particular drugs The department failed to discharge this duty properly in April when notification of new part charges on certain drugs was delayed. Printing delays may have been to blame, but the department must assume some responsibility for the increased confusion and difficulties faced by chemists as a result of the delays.

The additional responsibilities of doctors do not stop short at keeping up with Health Department notifications on charges for drugs. For the sake of economy the Health Department decides when a charge can be made without impairing standards of health care. If doctors still prefer the drug for some special reason, they must both tell the patient why the free alternative is not being prescribed and. when hardship might be inflicted by the expense to the patient, the doctors should apply to the Health Department for the charge to be waived. In some instances doctors may have to challenge the Health Department’s ruling on a particular drug.

These extra responsibilities for the doctors are not so onerous that the whole system should be scrapped. Imposing charges on certain drugs was a duly considered step and will help to achieve the aim of containing or reducing public spending on drugs. The Health Department should not be swayed by complaints from chemists or doctors, any more fhan by protests from the drug companies. The department should continue to pursue a policy of securing the best possible value for the large sums of money spent on drugs. At the same time it must heed any complaints about the difficulties of administering the system and do its utmost to make the task of doctors and chemists as easy as possible.