Written Answers. - Pharmacy Regulations.
Ulick Burke
Question:
211
Mr. U. Burke
asked the
Minister for Health and Children
if his attention has been drawn to the fact that, as a result of his decision to revoke the Health (Community Pharmacy Contractor Agreement) Regulations, 1996, on 31 January 2002, there is no fitness to practise legislation governing pharmacy; if his attention has further been drawn to the fact that a person with a criminal record for supplying illegal drugs can own a pharmacy; if his attention has further been drawn to the fact that such a person would have an automatic entitlement to obtain a State contract to dispense medicines on behalf of the State; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
[5963/02]
Ivor Callely
Question:
212
Mr. Callely
asked the
Minister for Health and Children
the basis on which he revoked the Health (Community Pharmacy) Contractor Agreement Regulations, 1996, when the review group was due to report; if he intends meeting with the IPU on this issue; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
[5970/02]
Jack Wall
Question:
213
Mr. Wall
asked the
Minister for Health and Children
the reason he has decided to revoke the 1996 regulations governing pharmacy; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
[6008/02]
Jack Wall
Question:
214
Mr. Wall
asked the
Minister for Health and Children
if he will delay implementation of his decision to revoke the 1996 regulations governing pharmacies until the review group he established has reported on the complex issues involved; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
[6009/02]
Jack Wall
Question:
215
Mr. Wall
asked the
Minister for Health and Children
his views on the case put forward by the Irish Pharmaceutical Union in which it asked him to rescind or put a moratorium on his decision to revoke the 1996 regulations governing pharmacies; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
[6010/02]
Michael Ring
Question:
257
Mr. Ring
asked the
Minister for Health and Children
the reason he did not wait until the standing committee had produced its findings before revoking Statutory Instrument 152, 1996, governing the position of pharmacies; and if he will consider putting on hold all contract issues until the matter has been resolved.
[5488/02]
Michael Ring
Question:
258
Mr. Ring
asked the
Minister for Health and Children
if his attention has been drawn to the fact that anyone, including convicted criminals, can open pharmacies allowing free access to names and address of children, women, elderly people living alone, those on controlled drugs and so on; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
[5489/02]
Michael Ring
Question:
259
Mr. Ring
asked the
Minister for Health and Children
his views on whether the geographical spread of pharmacies will be concentrated in urban areas following his revocation of Statutory Instrument No. 152 of 1996 governing pharmacies.
[5490/02]
Michael Ring
Question:
260
Mr. Ring
asked the
Minister for Health and Children
if he has considered the long-term consequences for mostly rural populations following his revocation of Statutory Instrument No. 152 of 1996, governing pharmacies.
[5491/02]
Michael Ring
Question:
261
Mr. Ring
asked the
Minister for Health and Children
the alternative he proposes to Statutory Instrument No. 152 of 1996, governing the position of pharmacies.
[5492/02]
Willie Penrose
Question:
268
Mr. Penrose
asked the
Minister for Health and Children
the reason he took steps to pre-empt the examination by the review group established to study the 1996 regulations governing pharmacies; if this review is now redundant; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
[5526/02]
Denis Naughten
Question:
292
Mr. Naughten
asked the
Minister for Health and Children
his views on whether the deregulation of pharmacies will lead to rationalisation within the sector and the closure of almost 400 pharmacies in small towns; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
[5740/02]
Denis Naughten
Question:
293
Mr. Naughten
asked the
Minister for Health and Children
if he will rescind his decision to deregulate pharmacies in view of the fact that the review group established by the Government has not reported.
[5741/02]
Denis Naughten
Question:
294
Mr. Naughten
asked the
Minister for Health and Children
his plans he has to ensure patient compliance does not regress in view of his decision to deregulate pharmacies; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
[5742/02]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 211 to 215, inclusive, 257 to 261, inclusive and 268, 292, 293 and 294 together.
Following legal advice from the Attorney General, I revoked the Health (Community Pharmacy Contractor Agreement) Regulations, 1996 (SI No. 152 of 1996), which set out criteria and procedures to be used by the chief executive officer of a health board when determining applications for granting community pharmacy contracts. The effect of the revocation for the awarding of new community pharmacy contracts is that there are no restrictions on granting new contracts in terms of location, population or viability of existing pharmacies. The revocation does not affect the operation of the community pharmacy scheme, and existing contracts still stand. All existing contract applications and appeals lapsed with the regulations. Those affected should contact the relevant health board directly concerning re- applying. The opening of new pharmacies continues to be governed by the Pharmacy Acts, subject to restrictions imposed by non-pharmacy legislation such as the planning Act.
The pharmacy review group established by my Department to examine the pharmacy issues raised in the OECD report on regulatory reform in Ireland is now being asked to report as quickly as possible, given the new situation. The type of framework, whether statutory or otherwise, required for community pharmacy services will be considered when the group reports. I am considering a number of options pending the completion of the work of the group. I have already met with representatives of the Irish Pharmaceutical Union to discuss their concerns following the revocation of SI No. 152 of 1996. A further meeting will take place shortly.
A central element of the community pharmacy contractor agreement between health boards and community pharmacists is clause 9 of the contract. This provides for a review by the pharmacist of the medicine therapy of the patient including screening for any potential drug therapy problems, therapeutic duplication, drug-drug interactions, incorrect drug dosage or duration of drug treatment, drug allergy interactions and clinical abuse or misuse. The review also includes an examination of the rational and cost effective use of the medicine prescribed, including the choice of medicines and the potential for wastage. On completion of the above mentioned review, the pharmacist shall offer to discuss with the individual for whom the prescription is issued, or with the carer of that person, all such matters as the pharmacist, in the exercise of his or her professional judgment, deems significant. It will also include counselling the patient on the importance of compliance with the directions for use of the medicine, techniques for self-monitoring during therapy and the need for patient compliance and the action to be taken in the event of a missed dose. I do not envisage any change in the operation of clause 9 as a result of the revocation of SI No. 152 of 1996.
Section 2 of the Pharmacy Act, 1962 provides for the keeping of open shop for the dispensing of medical prescriptions and sale of poisons. The legislation does not restrict the ownership of pharmacies but provides that the dispensing and compounding of medical prescriptions must be under the personal supervision of an "authorised person" as defined under section 2(3) of the Act. A shop for the sale of poisons must also be under the personal management of an "authorised person" as defined under Section 2(3). The European Communities (Recognition of Qualifications In Pharmacy) Regulations, 1987 (SI No. 239 of 1987) and European Communities (Recognition of Qualifications in Pharmacy) Regulations, 1991 (SI No. 330 of 1991) amended the Pharmacy Act, 1962 to further define an "authorised person". The purpose of SI No. 239 of 1987 and SI. No. 330 of 1991 was to give statu tory effect in this country to EEC Council Directives 85/432/EEC, 85/433/EEC and 85/584/EEC. These regulations provide for the mutual recognition of qualifications in pharmacy in respect of nationals of member states and include the provision that a pharmacy in this State which has been in operation for less than three years shall not be managed or supervised by a pharmacist who qualified in another EC member state. There is no reason to suppose that unsuitable persons are involved in the operation of pharmacies. If the Deputy has any specific concerns in this regard I suggest that he contacts the relevant health board directly.
My Department is working on a framework for a pharmacy Bill to rationalise and update the pharmacy Acts, 1875-1977. The issue of fitness to practise in relation to a number of professions, including pharmacy will be addressed. The overall increase in community pharmacy contracts under the 1996 regulations was approximately 50. Of these, about half are outside urban areas. However, applications for rural areas were also refused by health boards under the population, distance and viability restrictions of the 1996 regulations. Therefore, the overall effects of the 1996 regulations are not clear. The pharmacy review group will be studying the extent to which the 1996 regulations achieved the objective of a wider geographic spread of pharmacy services. An assessment of the effects of revocation of SI No. 152 of 1996 on geographic spread, without data on the achievement of this objective would be merely speculative.
