Listening to our Premier today convinced me that Ms. Dunderdale is on her way out. She is now musing about reflecting, reviewing, revisiting, and reacting to the very loud and disapproving voices of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Dunderdale even mused on a leadership review - a sure sign that this by-election was not just another seat. If the Tories had retained the district - the grumbling government members might have bought the Ross Reid happy message a little longer. The loss of Carbonear - Harbour Grace - coupled with crashing polls - spells an end to her leadership.
So the dance begins - which of the upstarts wants to put the political knife in first? No doubt she's feeling a couple of them already.
I guess the permanent back-up finance Minister could do the Interim Premier bit as well. But with the Tories unable to come up with even an interim Finance Minister (other than Marshall - over and over) the talent pool appears shallow for an interim leader.
I think Darin, Terry, and Keith have a plan - the boys kind of see themselves as the male version of Susan, Joan, and Kathy. Just imagine their glee when the girls leave the roost.
Our Premier seemed really confused when interviewed today on the by-election loss - looked to the sky and wondered how they got to this place.
Muskrat, Abitibi, Fishery, Ferries, Roads, Come by Chance, and spending like drunken sailors comes to mind. Then there's the secrecy, arrogance, and dismissal of local small businesses. Yes that's right I almost forgot - 65 of them spread throughout the province - speaking to hundreds of people each - every day. Lastly there is this continued confusion about who our Premier works for - Danny? Nova Scotia? Emera? Ed Martin? or Stephen Harper?
I believe the Premier is going to have a snowy walk moment any day now and either Roving Tom is going to fill-in or the boys aforementioned will start implementing their plan.
Showing posts with label cicpo. Show all posts
Showing posts with label cicpo. Show all posts
Wednesday, November 27, 2013
Saturday, August 24, 2013
the Telegram, Pharmacy, Robbery, Government
The Telegram - today's edition deals with the continued violent crimes affecting Newfoundland and Labrador Independent Pharmacies. Barb Sweet interviews an owner and hears first hand the suffering local pharmacies are experiencing due to Government cuts.
One statement in the story reads as follows:
Among the changes announced in the 2013 provincial budget to the Newfoundland and Labrador Prescription Drug Program (NLPDP) was one that forces pharmacies to sell generic drugs at 25 per cent of the cost of brand name or patented drugs at the end of a four-year period.
This is a factual error the cuts to 25% of brand have already occurred. There have been 5 cuts in one year. There was no time to absorb the cuts or try to find ways to remain viable.
The government ignored the Dr. Locke report on pharmacy and ignored the numerous attempts by local pharmacy organized under the Council of Independent Pharmacy Owners to meet with officials, Ministers and the Premier. This has gone on for 5 years.
The robberies are horrific and this essential community service is under constant threat.
Owners and employees have no idea what to expect anymore - other than more of the same.
The government's insistence not to recognize the CICPO means a majority of independent owners continue to be ignored as government tries to do its bidding with an association which represents all pharmacists - not pharmacies.
At a time when the population is aging and governments are looking for ways to save - the local pharmacy is one of the few options available to it. Their attitude toward the CICPO and its members has been nothing more than disrespectful.
When all failed and CICPO members became involved in the last election campaign - the government got worse. They punished.
Make no mistake - Kathy Dunderdale and Susan Sullivan are making it very tough for independent pharmacies to survive - and apparently they don't really give a damn.
One statement in the story reads as follows:
Among the changes announced in the 2013 provincial budget to the Newfoundland and Labrador Prescription Drug Program (NLPDP) was one that forces pharmacies to sell generic drugs at 25 per cent of the cost of brand name or patented drugs at the end of a four-year period.
This is a factual error the cuts to 25% of brand have already occurred. There have been 5 cuts in one year. There was no time to absorb the cuts or try to find ways to remain viable.
The government ignored the Dr. Locke report on pharmacy and ignored the numerous attempts by local pharmacy organized under the Council of Independent Pharmacy Owners to meet with officials, Ministers and the Premier. This has gone on for 5 years.
The robberies are horrific and this essential community service is under constant threat.
Owners and employees have no idea what to expect anymore - other than more of the same.
The government's insistence not to recognize the CICPO means a majority of independent owners continue to be ignored as government tries to do its bidding with an association which represents all pharmacists - not pharmacies.
At a time when the population is aging and governments are looking for ways to save - the local pharmacy is one of the few options available to it. Their attitude toward the CICPO and its members has been nothing more than disrespectful.
When all failed and CICPO members became involved in the last election campaign - the government got worse. They punished.
Make no mistake - Kathy Dunderdale and Susan Sullivan are making it very tough for independent pharmacies to survive - and apparently they don't really give a damn.
Thursday, May 09, 2013
Deceptions of the Dunderdale Government - an Example
As complicated as the pharmaceutical business is - there are some very simple concepts.
Unlike Doctors who have a billing code a pharmacist does not.
The pharmacy - the business - has the billing code for community pharmacy services.
The government is one of many insurers that offers its clients a card to use at a pharmacy.
A pharmacy can choose to accept or reject any insurance card.
The pharmacist does not decide that administrative and business decision.
CICPO is a duly incorporated not-for-profit trade organization that represents its member companies.
As such the CICPO negotiates on behalf of its businesses with insurance companies.
When a tentative agreement has been reached - the members of the CICPO vote on the agreement.
If a majority of members vote in favour of the tentative deal - then each corporation must separately sign an agreement with the insurer. This is a tariff agreement which outlines the amounts that will be paid to the pharmacy for acceptance of that particular drug card. Amounts include a dispensing fee, any specialty fees, mark-ups etc.
At all times the agreement reached is between the insurer and corporation - not a pharmacist.
In Newfoundland and Labrador you DO NOT have to be a pharmacist to own a pharmacy. Wal-Mart, Lawton's, Shoppers, and independent pharmacies can be owned by shareholders who are not pharmacists.
A pharmacy must employ a pharmacist as part of a staff in order that the pharmacy can conduct business.
A Pharmacy has the following expenditures:
1. salaries; CPP - EI - Workers Compensation - Benefits Package,
2. mortgage, lease payments, building maintenance,
3. light and power, Oil, or other energy,
4. taxation - federal, provincial, municipal,
5. security systems,
6. refrigeration,
7.specialized computers - software,
8. consumables such as pill bottles, special packaging, paper,
9. communications, telephone, facsimile, and other,
10. shipping - delivery costs,
11. inventory - medications - both prescription and over the counter drugs,
12. accounting - legal - professional services,
13. snow clearing, paving, property external maintenance,
14. carrying costs (significant when you accept an insurance card and wait up to two weeks for payment),
15. working capital,
16. operating licences,
17. garbage storage and removal,
18. delivery - vehicle maintenance - gas,
19. banking fees,
20. and other normal expenditures of businesses in the service and retail sector.
Not one of the above is the responsibility of a pharmacist.
The pharmacist is an employee of the pharmacy.
If a pharmacist is not working in a pharmacy, they work for Universities, Governments, Hospitals, insurance companies and pharmaceutical manufacturers.
The pharmacist is an employee.
The government of Newfoundland and Labrador wants pharmacies in the province to administer the provincial drug card. It like all other insurers is asking that their clients have the convenience of simply presenting an insurance card for payment of prescriptions drugs.
The pharmacy has the right to accept that card for payment or to reject it - in preference to immediate payment by the customer. This is the same for all businesses - including other essential goods such as groceries, furnace oil, light and power, or telephone.
The government of Newfoundland and Labrador chooses to negotiate with the Pharmacists Association of Newfoundland and Labrador - an organization that is responsible to represent all pharmacists - regardless of where they are employed. The organization is NOT a trade body and pharmacists not pharmacies are the only entities eligible to vote.
Therefore the government of Newfoundland and Labrador is negotiating with employees not the corporations it wishes to conduct trade with.
The CICPO members - all corporate - are not willing to have employee pharmacists negotiate a corporate contract on behalf of the company. The CEO's of the corporations represent the business interests - not the pharmacists - not the employees.
Making matters worse the vast majority of pharmacists in PANL do not have a shareholder interest in private sector pharmacies be they publicly traded or private.
The vast majority of voting members of PANL are employees and have nothing whatsoever to do with running a business or any responsibility for paying the bills of a corporation.
Pharmacists receive a paycheck and benefits from their employer - the pharmacy.
How can this professional organization (PANL) that has the mandate to represent pharmacists as employees also represent the employer - the corporation? How can this same organization claim to represent business when the business has not given express written permission to negotiate anything on the companys' behalf?
Is PANL going to go to the bank for these corporations and seek an interest rate for borrowing? Are they going to negotiate with wholesalers and manufacturers on their behalf? No they cannot and do not. Why then does this organization continue to claim to represent business? That is ethically wrong. It is materially wrong. PANL can say that government is negotiating with them - but PANL cannot claim to be negotiating for any business without the express written permission from the corporation.
The Government chooses to negotiate with PANL - when they have no authority to make decisions on behalf of the business. PANL does not bind a corporation.
Even under the farcical negotiation process with PANL - a "deal" was reached with government which is not binding on pharmacy - and not one corporation was asked to ratify such a "deal".
The CICPO pharmacies were not satisfied with a process which could bankrupt them - without a say - without any control - so they sent a formal notice to the Minister of Health that they would no longer accept the drug card for payment. This is a normal right of all businesses.
The notice was filed in accordance with the Provider Agreement between each pharmacy and government. All insurance companies and pharmacies operate under a "provider agreement" which outlines the rights and responsibilities of both parties.
The provider agreement between government and pharmacies required a 30 day notice for withdrawal of acceptance of the "card" as payment.
Upon that proper notification which was signed and delivered by over 60 individual corporations - the government decided to change the rules. The Government unilaterally changed the 30 day notice to 120 days and also added a condition that all patients that have been in the pharmacy within the past year were to be notified in writing - individually.
Further our members were threatened with disciplinary action and summary convictions if the "new" "immediate" changes to law were not followed.
We remain in the courts with that issue.
Now let's take the absurdity a step further - PANL which is supposed to represent pharmacists as a profession regardless of where they are employed do not actually negotiate any contracts for pharmacists!
The hospital pharmacists are represented by their union.
The University pharmacists are represented by MUNFA.
The government pharmacists are represented by their union.
Private sector pharmacists negotiate with their employer - the private pharmacy, drug manufacturer, insurance company etc.
All of the above pharmacists are voting members of PANL who are then trying to negotiate on behalf of private sector corporations!
We have a total conflict of interest. We have employees through PANL negotiating on behalf of businesses - most of whom have no risk whatsoever.
If a pharmacist has a problem with their working conditions or scope of practice or workplace health and safety - PANL is their representative. How then does PANL represent the employer?
There are no examples of this in any other sector.
The government is simply trying to force business to administer their social program at whatever they deem fit to pay for that administration. They can in fact put the business out of business without the private corporation having any control of their investment.
The government uses PANL as the path of least resistance knowing full well this is not would not be acceptable to any other corporation the government does business with.
When the government used Danny's old law firm to participate in the lawsuit against tobacco companies - the law society did not determine what the firm had to do the work for. Legal aid lawyers do not decide what hourly rate is charged by the law firm Minister Jerome Kennedy used to be a partner in. Tom Marshall did not allow government or a professional association to set his private legal rates.
Their law firms are not FORCED to do legal work for government at whatever rate of pay the government deems fit.
This is a pure deception - and the larger chain drugstores and mass retailers who have the individual ear of government when they employ lobbyists are happy enough to let their competition be slaughtered by government policy - when they publicly state they will be there to pick up the scripts when the more "vulnerable" independents fail. As for rural areas? They would be happy enough to mail the drugs if the local pharmacy disappears. Who cares about urgency, snowstorms, equal access, and rural communities? Good question.
The bottom line is government chooses it's people to sit at a table and then proceeds to dictate who sits on the other side. This is deception. This is dealing in bad faith with the corporations they want to do business with. Most importantly they are placing in jeopardy the equitable delivery of necessary medications to the most vulnerable in our society.
Unlike Doctors who have a billing code a pharmacist does not.
The pharmacy - the business - has the billing code for community pharmacy services.
The government is one of many insurers that offers its clients a card to use at a pharmacy.
A pharmacy can choose to accept or reject any insurance card.
The pharmacist does not decide that administrative and business decision.
CICPO is a duly incorporated not-for-profit trade organization that represents its member companies.
As such the CICPO negotiates on behalf of its businesses with insurance companies.
When a tentative agreement has been reached - the members of the CICPO vote on the agreement.
If a majority of members vote in favour of the tentative deal - then each corporation must separately sign an agreement with the insurer. This is a tariff agreement which outlines the amounts that will be paid to the pharmacy for acceptance of that particular drug card. Amounts include a dispensing fee, any specialty fees, mark-ups etc.
At all times the agreement reached is between the insurer and corporation - not a pharmacist.
In Newfoundland and Labrador you DO NOT have to be a pharmacist to own a pharmacy. Wal-Mart, Lawton's, Shoppers, and independent pharmacies can be owned by shareholders who are not pharmacists.
A pharmacy must employ a pharmacist as part of a staff in order that the pharmacy can conduct business.
A Pharmacy has the following expenditures:
1. salaries; CPP - EI - Workers Compensation - Benefits Package,
2. mortgage, lease payments, building maintenance,
3. light and power, Oil, or other energy,
4. taxation - federal, provincial, municipal,
5. security systems,
6. refrigeration,
7.specialized computers - software,
8. consumables such as pill bottles, special packaging, paper,
9. communications, telephone, facsimile, and other,
10. shipping - delivery costs,
11. inventory - medications - both prescription and over the counter drugs,
12. accounting - legal - professional services,
13. snow clearing, paving, property external maintenance,
14. carrying costs (significant when you accept an insurance card and wait up to two weeks for payment),
15. working capital,
16. operating licences,
17. garbage storage and removal,
18. delivery - vehicle maintenance - gas,
19. banking fees,
20. and other normal expenditures of businesses in the service and retail sector.
Not one of the above is the responsibility of a pharmacist.
The pharmacist is an employee of the pharmacy.
If a pharmacist is not working in a pharmacy, they work for Universities, Governments, Hospitals, insurance companies and pharmaceutical manufacturers.
The pharmacist is an employee.
The government of Newfoundland and Labrador wants pharmacies in the province to administer the provincial drug card. It like all other insurers is asking that their clients have the convenience of simply presenting an insurance card for payment of prescriptions drugs.
The pharmacy has the right to accept that card for payment or to reject it - in preference to immediate payment by the customer. This is the same for all businesses - including other essential goods such as groceries, furnace oil, light and power, or telephone.
The government of Newfoundland and Labrador chooses to negotiate with the Pharmacists Association of Newfoundland and Labrador - an organization that is responsible to represent all pharmacists - regardless of where they are employed. The organization is NOT a trade body and pharmacists not pharmacies are the only entities eligible to vote.
Therefore the government of Newfoundland and Labrador is negotiating with employees not the corporations it wishes to conduct trade with.
The CICPO members - all corporate - are not willing to have employee pharmacists negotiate a corporate contract on behalf of the company. The CEO's of the corporations represent the business interests - not the pharmacists - not the employees.
Making matters worse the vast majority of pharmacists in PANL do not have a shareholder interest in private sector pharmacies be they publicly traded or private.
The vast majority of voting members of PANL are employees and have nothing whatsoever to do with running a business or any responsibility for paying the bills of a corporation.
Pharmacists receive a paycheck and benefits from their employer - the pharmacy.
How can this professional organization (PANL) that has the mandate to represent pharmacists as employees also represent the employer - the corporation? How can this same organization claim to represent business when the business has not given express written permission to negotiate anything on the companys' behalf?
Is PANL going to go to the bank for these corporations and seek an interest rate for borrowing? Are they going to negotiate with wholesalers and manufacturers on their behalf? No they cannot and do not. Why then does this organization continue to claim to represent business? That is ethically wrong. It is materially wrong. PANL can say that government is negotiating with them - but PANL cannot claim to be negotiating for any business without the express written permission from the corporation.
The Government chooses to negotiate with PANL - when they have no authority to make decisions on behalf of the business. PANL does not bind a corporation.
Even under the farcical negotiation process with PANL - a "deal" was reached with government which is not binding on pharmacy - and not one corporation was asked to ratify such a "deal".
The CICPO pharmacies were not satisfied with a process which could bankrupt them - without a say - without any control - so they sent a formal notice to the Minister of Health that they would no longer accept the drug card for payment. This is a normal right of all businesses.
The notice was filed in accordance with the Provider Agreement between each pharmacy and government. All insurance companies and pharmacies operate under a "provider agreement" which outlines the rights and responsibilities of both parties.
The provider agreement between government and pharmacies required a 30 day notice for withdrawal of acceptance of the "card" as payment.
Upon that proper notification which was signed and delivered by over 60 individual corporations - the government decided to change the rules. The Government unilaterally changed the 30 day notice to 120 days and also added a condition that all patients that have been in the pharmacy within the past year were to be notified in writing - individually.
Further our members were threatened with disciplinary action and summary convictions if the "new" "immediate" changes to law were not followed.
We remain in the courts with that issue.
Now let's take the absurdity a step further - PANL which is supposed to represent pharmacists as a profession regardless of where they are employed do not actually negotiate any contracts for pharmacists!
The hospital pharmacists are represented by their union.
The University pharmacists are represented by MUNFA.
The government pharmacists are represented by their union.
Private sector pharmacists negotiate with their employer - the private pharmacy, drug manufacturer, insurance company etc.
All of the above pharmacists are voting members of PANL who are then trying to negotiate on behalf of private sector corporations!
We have a total conflict of interest. We have employees through PANL negotiating on behalf of businesses - most of whom have no risk whatsoever.
If a pharmacist has a problem with their working conditions or scope of practice or workplace health and safety - PANL is their representative. How then does PANL represent the employer?
There are no examples of this in any other sector.
The government is simply trying to force business to administer their social program at whatever they deem fit to pay for that administration. They can in fact put the business out of business without the private corporation having any control of their investment.
The government uses PANL as the path of least resistance knowing full well this is not would not be acceptable to any other corporation the government does business with.
When the government used Danny's old law firm to participate in the lawsuit against tobacco companies - the law society did not determine what the firm had to do the work for. Legal aid lawyers do not decide what hourly rate is charged by the law firm Minister Jerome Kennedy used to be a partner in. Tom Marshall did not allow government or a professional association to set his private legal rates.
Their law firms are not FORCED to do legal work for government at whatever rate of pay the government deems fit.
This is a pure deception - and the larger chain drugstores and mass retailers who have the individual ear of government when they employ lobbyists are happy enough to let their competition be slaughtered by government policy - when they publicly state they will be there to pick up the scripts when the more "vulnerable" independents fail. As for rural areas? They would be happy enough to mail the drugs if the local pharmacy disappears. Who cares about urgency, snowstorms, equal access, and rural communities? Good question.
The bottom line is government chooses it's people to sit at a table and then proceeds to dictate who sits on the other side. This is deception. This is dealing in bad faith with the corporations they want to do business with. Most importantly they are placing in jeopardy the equitable delivery of necessary medications to the most vulnerable in our society.
Friday, January 18, 2013
Dunderdale Govt. Eroding Health Care
Please follow at The NL Pharmacy Blog - your community and health care services are being eroded.
New Drug pricing policy for April of 2013 will continue to erode the viability of independent pharmacies in Newfoundland and Labrador.
These changes are subsequent to the (non)negotiations held last year with provincially chosen pharmacy groups - resulting in an imposed contract. The remuneration was supposed to reflect that generic drug prices would be reduced to 35% of brand.
The Dunderdale government has now signed on to a reduction for 6 generic drugs to a price of 18% of brand. These drugs represent approximately 20% of the pharmaceutical dispensing. Therefore the "contract" reached last year ties pharmacies to dispensing fees that will not in any way offset these additional reductions.
Further pharmacies, physicians, and other health care advocates are already warning that drug shortages are impacting patient care. This new reduction in price will increase the likelihood that drug shortages will become more acute.
The CICPO is holding its AGM this weekend - after which a News Release will be distributed. This year's Annual General Meeting will focus on results presented by Dr. Wade Locke regarding the future viability of the independent pharmacy model. Dr. Locke has completed the in depth study over the past 6 months - and it will be made public by month's end.
The future for independent pharmacy both in rural communities and inner-city neighbourhoods will in large part depend on the willingness of government to realize the value and potential of these businesses and primary health providers.
More to follow....
New Drug pricing policy for April of 2013 will continue to erode the viability of independent pharmacies in Newfoundland and Labrador.
These changes are subsequent to the (non)negotiations held last year with provincially chosen pharmacy groups - resulting in an imposed contract. The remuneration was supposed to reflect that generic drug prices would be reduced to 35% of brand.
The Dunderdale government has now signed on to a reduction for 6 generic drugs to a price of 18% of brand. These drugs represent approximately 20% of the pharmaceutical dispensing. Therefore the "contract" reached last year ties pharmacies to dispensing fees that will not in any way offset these additional reductions.
Further pharmacies, physicians, and other health care advocates are already warning that drug shortages are impacting patient care. This new reduction in price will increase the likelihood that drug shortages will become more acute.
The CICPO is holding its AGM this weekend - after which a News Release will be distributed. This year's Annual General Meeting will focus on results presented by Dr. Wade Locke regarding the future viability of the independent pharmacy model. Dr. Locke has completed the in depth study over the past 6 months - and it will be made public by month's end.
The future for independent pharmacy both in rural communities and inner-city neighbourhoods will in large part depend on the willingness of government to realize the value and potential of these businesses and primary health providers.
More to follow....
Tuesday, December 04, 2012
Prestigious National Award for NL Business Owners
 | ||||
| CICPO Wins Prestigious National Lifetime Achievement Award |
Read the full story: PRESS HERE
Thursday, June 07, 2012
CICPO and Blue Cross Reach New Agreement
Continuing to build on a good partnership - promoting best health outcomes resulting in controlled costs the Council of Independent Community Pharmacy Owners and Medavie Blue Cross have reached a new agreement.
This
agreement comes at a time when independent pharmacy revenues are being eroded
by changes to generic drug pricing at the governmental level. “We are pleased
to see Medavie Blue Cross participate in a process of real negotiation and meaningful
recognition of independent pharmacy in Newfoundland and Labrador,” says
Director of Third Party Relations CICPO, Phil O’Keefe.
To read complete release PRESS HERE
This type of industrial cooperation will achieve the best results both from a fiscal and health perspective. Positive negotiations that recognize the needs of and objectives of both sides - prove consultation and collaboration work in an arena of respect.
Tuesday, April 24, 2012
Dunderdale Government using Hakapik on Local Business
 | ||||||||||||||||||
| Fisheries Minister Darin King says the PR war between governments and anti-sealing activists is changing. In recent weeks, King has had ”very positive” meetings with two different animal rights groups. — Photo by Joe Gibbons/The Telegram |
Monday, April 16, 2012
Government Imposed Contract will Harm Independent Pharmacy - CICPO
 |
| CICPO Release |
Notice to Editors: 16/04/2012
Please be
advised that the Council of Independent Community Pharmacy Owners is preparing
information for a News Conference on Thursday or Friday of this week.
This
conference will outline the catastrophic losses to independent pharmacy from
both the agreement imposed by government and the changes to generic prices
forced by legislation.
Please note
that an amending agreement was executed on April 14-2012 and delivered to
pharmacies yesterday afternoon.
There is no
tentative agreement and there is no ratification process for pharmacies.
Initially
government stated it was making changes to generic drug pricing and would
reinvest in pharmacies. The government has since made further changes in an
imposed amending agreement that will see negative changes to the reimbursement
of dispensing fees.
Currently
there is a “proposal” in place regarding “underserviced” areas regarding an
annual reimbursement for qualifying pharmacies. Today there is no agreement on
the terms and conditions of such reimbursement.
Further the
administration for pharmacies respecting the change in their computer systems
to reflect the imposed agreement could not be completed between yesterday
afternoon and this morning at opening. This is causing significant confusion as
patients fill their prescriptions today.
The Council
will advise editors of the time and place of the conference and the attendees
for interview.
At this
point the only comment from the Council is:
Phil O’Keefe
Director of Third Party Relations CICPO
“Our worst
fears have materialized; independent pharmacy and the people they serve have
been dealt a crippling blow. We are incensed that an agreement was reached
without ratification of the businesses it will impact; and in fact was signed
by the President of the Pharmacists’ Association of Newfoundland and Labrador,
Sandra Carey, who does not own or operate a pharmacy in Newfoundland and
Labrador. The government has imposed an agreement which will allow the chain
drugstores and mass retailers to survive while inequitably harming independent
pharmacy”.
Wednesday, April 04, 2012
The Government gets its Way and YOU PAY
Outside of the spectacle most PC MHA's displayed in the House of Assembly last week - regarding the change in generic drug pricing - we have a much more serious problem.
That session of comedy revealed an underlying weakness in our political leadership.
I will let the reader decide if stupidity, corruption, indifference, or vindictiveness is the cause.
First let's agree on a few things.
The following are the essentials of life for people in our province:
1. Food
2. Shelter/Housing
3. Energy
4. Transportation
5. Health Care - including Prescription Medications
Today we will deal with number 1.
The price of food is of primary concern to the vulnerable people of our society. Individuals and families living on fixed low incomes are challenged every day to eat - let alone eat healthy.
Every week when one shops at the supermarket one notices the increase in the price of food.
Food prices rose 4.1% on a year-over-year basis in February, following a 4.2% increase in January.
What is the response of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador? Nothing! They rely on provincial food banks to hold people over from week to week.
Supermarkets receive rebates for purchases and particular shelf space so there is money in the system to reduce the price of food.
Considering that government (taxpayers) help low to no income people and families through income assistance - in part to buy food - then one would think government would direct food manufacturers to lower the price of generic food. Example - a tin of Carnation milk (brand) compared to a tin of Our Compliments milk (generic). Price of Carnation milk $1.50 and Price of Our Compliments $1.25. Therefore the generic tin milk is priced at 83% of brand. So if the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador lowered the price to 45% of brand then the generic tin of milk would cost 68 cents. Now we're talking.
Then if Dunderdale continued on and lowered the generic milk price to 35% of brand then the price would be 53 cents a tin.
Now if a person or child does not react well to the generic milk and finds that Carnation is the only one they can consume then a special authorization would be needed from government so that they can get enough money to pay for Carnation milk.
While the special authorization is approved - Mr. Sobey could give the customer the milk until the person is approved in 4 weeks. In either case Mr. Sobey would have to wait a week to be paid for the generic milk.
The question is will Tom Marshall, Kathy Dunderdale, and Susan Sullivan ask Mr. Sobey to sharpen his pencil?
For those of you not on any form of income assistance - your price would be lowered too. The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador when regulating prices - apply that price reduction to all citizens.
Do you think the supermarkets can afford to lower their prices?
For many medical conditions - a proper and healthy diet is essential. If the person is a diabetic - incorrect food choices could mean the difference between $1500 dollars worth of drugs a year and $15,000 dollars to keep the disease in check - including otherwise unnecessary stays in the hospital or by a worsening of the disease.
So the biggest problem in Newfoundland and Labrador today is the small independent pharmacy - the same people who day after day ensure people do not go without medications? The pharmacies that have a rotating credit for customers at about $20,000 per pharmacy - the pharmacies that are there whenever they are needed. The pharmacies who have provided free essential services to the people under their care.
Meanwhile the price of generic drugs are going down through competition and are reducing the price of drugs government pays for by replacing brands.
I watched a group of MHA's who were elected to represent people - stand up an speak about something they knew nothing about. The ignorance was incredible. Unfortunately - this means the decisions made are not going to bring the stated desired result.
The government chose this time not to listen to Dr. Wade Locke or the people who are experts in pharmacy services. This time they listened to unknown sources of information but were lobbied by brand companies.
Make no mistake - the money - if any - saved on the generic price changes will be gobbled up by oil and gas giants, mass retail and grocer corporations, and brand drug houses.
Make sure you have the number for your MHA handy as changes occur. It is he or she that has caused the problem.
Changing the face of pharmacy - is not the prescription you need.
That session of comedy revealed an underlying weakness in our political leadership.
I will let the reader decide if stupidity, corruption, indifference, or vindictiveness is the cause.
First let's agree on a few things.
The following are the essentials of life for people in our province:
1. Food
2. Shelter/Housing
3. Energy
4. Transportation
5. Health Care - including Prescription Medications
Today we will deal with number 1.
The price of food is of primary concern to the vulnerable people of our society. Individuals and families living on fixed low incomes are challenged every day to eat - let alone eat healthy.
Every week when one shops at the supermarket one notices the increase in the price of food.
Food prices rose 4.1% on a year-over-year basis in February, following a 4.2% increase in January.
What is the response of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador? Nothing! They rely on provincial food banks to hold people over from week to week.
Supermarkets receive rebates for purchases and particular shelf space so there is money in the system to reduce the price of food.
Considering that government (taxpayers) help low to no income people and families through income assistance - in part to buy food - then one would think government would direct food manufacturers to lower the price of generic food. Example - a tin of Carnation milk (brand) compared to a tin of Our Compliments milk (generic). Price of Carnation milk $1.50 and Price of Our Compliments $1.25. Therefore the generic tin milk is priced at 83% of brand. So if the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador lowered the price to 45% of brand then the generic tin of milk would cost 68 cents. Now we're talking.
Then if Dunderdale continued on and lowered the generic milk price to 35% of brand then the price would be 53 cents a tin.
Now if a person or child does not react well to the generic milk and finds that Carnation is the only one they can consume then a special authorization would be needed from government so that they can get enough money to pay for Carnation milk.
While the special authorization is approved - Mr. Sobey could give the customer the milk until the person is approved in 4 weeks. In either case Mr. Sobey would have to wait a week to be paid for the generic milk.
The question is will Tom Marshall, Kathy Dunderdale, and Susan Sullivan ask Mr. Sobey to sharpen his pencil?
For those of you not on any form of income assistance - your price would be lowered too. The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador when regulating prices - apply that price reduction to all citizens.
Do you think the supermarkets can afford to lower their prices?
For many medical conditions - a proper and healthy diet is essential. If the person is a diabetic - incorrect food choices could mean the difference between $1500 dollars worth of drugs a year and $15,000 dollars to keep the disease in check - including otherwise unnecessary stays in the hospital or by a worsening of the disease.
So the biggest problem in Newfoundland and Labrador today is the small independent pharmacy - the same people who day after day ensure people do not go without medications? The pharmacies that have a rotating credit for customers at about $20,000 per pharmacy - the pharmacies that are there whenever they are needed. The pharmacies who have provided free essential services to the people under their care.
Meanwhile the price of generic drugs are going down through competition and are reducing the price of drugs government pays for by replacing brands.
I watched a group of MHA's who were elected to represent people - stand up an speak about something they knew nothing about. The ignorance was incredible. Unfortunately - this means the decisions made are not going to bring the stated desired result.
The government chose this time not to listen to Dr. Wade Locke or the people who are experts in pharmacy services. This time they listened to unknown sources of information but were lobbied by brand companies.
Make no mistake - the money - if any - saved on the generic price changes will be gobbled up by oil and gas giants, mass retail and grocer corporations, and brand drug houses.
Make sure you have the number for your MHA handy as changes occur. It is he or she that has caused the problem.
Changing the face of pharmacy - is not the prescription you need.
Friday, March 30, 2012
Lobbyists and Dunderdale - Who Pays the Price?
What the Generic Giveth the Brand Taketh Away
On the heels of the Dunderdale's government decision to lower prices of generic drugs - two brand houses are reaching in and taking that money back.
As of April 02-12 Pfizer (Brand Company) has raised the prices of 40 some drugs.
As of April 01-12 Merck Canada (Brand Company) has done the same with about the same number.
Joining them in price increases on April 01-12 are: Brand Companies - Novartis, Purdue, Abbott, Axcan, NovoNordisk, Jannsen-Ortho and Astra.
Many of the Pfizer drugs that will go up in price next week are drugs commonly needed by seniors and others with chronic illness.
With money to spare in the provinces treasury anticipated by changes to generic pricing - the Brand Drugs are taking advantage and getting more cash.
Unfortunately the Brand Houses do not fund independent pharmacies through rebates so now we lose money and have nothing going back into community health services.
The brand drug companies are the strongest lobbyists in the country and yes they lobby our government.
This is a direct attack on local independent companies by our government and a gift for Shoppers Drug Mart and Brand companies.
On the heels of the Dunderdale's government decision to lower prices of generic drugs - two brand houses are reaching in and taking that money back.
As of April 02-12 Pfizer (Brand Company) has raised the prices of 40 some drugs.
As of April 01-12 Merck Canada (Brand Company) has done the same with about the same number.
Joining them in price increases on April 01-12 are: Brand Companies - Novartis, Purdue, Abbott, Axcan, NovoNordisk, Jannsen-Ortho and Astra.
Many of the Pfizer drugs that will go up in price next week are drugs commonly needed by seniors and others with chronic illness.
With money to spare in the provinces treasury anticipated by changes to generic pricing - the Brand Drugs are taking advantage and getting more cash.
Unfortunately the Brand Houses do not fund independent pharmacies through rebates so now we lose money and have nothing going back into community health services.
The brand drug companies are the strongest lobbyists in the country and yes they lobby our government.
This is a direct attack on local independent companies by our government and a gift for Shoppers Drug Mart and Brand companies.
Shoppers CEO predicts DOOM for Independents
The Newfoundland and Labrador government is about to serve a central Canadian company - local businesses on a platter.
With 100 million local dollars invested in the provincial economy - independent pharmacies have been told by their government that they don't matter.
As witnessed in the House of Assembly - PC Cabinet members and backbenchers chided these local owners with calls to show their T-4's and state where they take vacations.
The general assertion of government is that independents are filling their pockets with rebates.
Despite the lies and misleading statements by these politicians - Shoppers Drug Mart's CEO is backing up what the independent stores have been warning against.
In the Globe and Mail yesterday Domenic Pilla spells it out clearly for all to see.
With 100 million local dollars invested in the provincial economy - independent pharmacies have been told by their government that they don't matter.
As witnessed in the House of Assembly - PC Cabinet members and backbenchers chided these local owners with calls to show their T-4's and state where they take vacations.
The general assertion of government is that independents are filling their pockets with rebates.
Despite the lies and misleading statements by these politicians - Shoppers Drug Mart's CEO is backing up what the independent stores have been warning against.
In the Globe and Mail yesterday Domenic Pilla spells it out clearly for all to see.
“We are facing the
single worst commercial environment that the drug sector has ever faced … But
who is in the absolute best position in Canada to weather that – in some cases
to take advantage of that? It’s Shoppers Drug Mart.”
He said that as
the country’s largest drugstore chain, Shoppers is best positioned to navigate
the road ahead, with economies of scale to help it lower its costs.
And he wants to
buy competitors as reduced government reimbursements start to squeeze smaller
rivals, he said. “That’s a freight train accident waiting to happen. How it
will happen and how quickly it will happen ... is something that is still to be
told.”
His estimated that
Shoppers pharmacies probably could add another 30 per cent more prescription
files without having to invest in fixed costs. “That would make acquisitions
for us very accretive.”
Newfoundland and Labrador's Minister of Innovation, Business and Rural Development might want to look long and hard in the mirror today - as he personally participated in the likely destruction of local investors.
As Shoppers talks about chewing up local businesses - it does so while saying they don't have to invest a cent in fixed assets. The government of Newfoundland and Labrador is clearly stating their position on local business and investment.
To top it all off the monies lost to the treasury - particularly monies needed for health - will far outweigh any potential savings to the government from their new generic drug pricing model.
Further the services provided by these independents - that will be lost from the policy will cost the government tens of millions more.
Particularly puzzling is the government's insistence that these independents sit at a table with Shoppers employees and come to a common position. What might that be? We the independents agree to turn over our investments to you as cheaply as we can?
The buffoonery in the House of Assembly underscores the actual ignorance or complicit behavior that will in the end ruin local business, diminish front-line health services, and drive the costs of those services through the roof.
Bravo - why not stand in your place and take a bow.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)