The original is signed - of course....
Dwight Ball Leadership Campaign
279 Portugal Cove Road
St John’s, NL A1B 2N8
Tel: (709) 753-1116 or 1-855-753-1116
Email: dwightballleadership@gmail.com
Website: dwightball.ca
September 4, 2013
Dear Members,
As you are aware I am seeking the position of Leader of the Liberal Party of Newfoundland and
Labrador. Since January 2012 I have been the Interim Leader and under my leadership we have
experienced unprecedented growth in our party.
Many of you are also aware that I have been a member of our profession for over thirty years and
understand the challenges you are facing as community pharmacy owners. In recent years you have
been the target of cut after cut. We’re now fearful that many of our independent pharmacies will
not be able to be financially viable in this environment.
Over the last eighteen months, I have rebuilt the Liberal Party by communicating with individuals,
associations, and small to medium size business owners. Through this open and frank dialogue not
only have we discussed many of the challenges that face our province but we’ve been able to
identify the solutions to many of these challenges.
As Premier of the province, I would continue the process that has produced the current success we
are experiencing in the Liberal Party. I believe that in many cases one solution is not the answer. For
example independent versus chain pharmacies, rural versus urban, are quite different and require
unique solutions to the complex problems. For that reason, it is extremely important that we
continue to meet with organized groups like the Council of Independent Community Pharmacy
Owners to identify individual solutions that work for your membership.
I look forward to working with your council and appreciate your support to my campaign. Together
we can set the course for the future of independent pharmacies and our province.
Sincerely,
Dwight Ball
Showing posts with label pharmacy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label pharmacy. Show all posts
Sunday, April 28, 2019
Dwight lies for votes and lies for campaign financial support
Then there's this little item he used to raise funds for his campaign.....
Yes he lied all the way through.
He used this when the Liberals were trying to pay down debt.
He used this to get money for campaign.
He used local small independent businesses for his leadership campaign and last election.
He lied to them in person - he lied to them in writing - and he lied to them when he attached these commitments to a fundraising letter.
Dwight Ball Responses
Candidate Questionnaire -2013
1. If you become Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador would you commit to
negotiating a tariff and provider agreement with the Council of Independent
Community Pharmacy Owners on behalf of its 65 local independent pharmacies?
Yes
2. Would you commit to amending the Pharmacy Act to remove mandatory
membership of all pharmacists in the Pharmacists’ Association of Newfoundland
and Labrador? (It is voluntary in other provinces) Yes, I chaired the transition
committee to create the advocacy association for pharmacists, a voluntary
association was always the intent for the new body.
3. Would you actively work with the Council of Independent Pharmacy Owners to
develop cost saving initiatives for government that improve best health outcomes?
Yes
4. Would you take action to ensure that people residing in personal/long-term
private and public care homes retain the right to choose their pharmacy or
pharmacist of choice? Yes
5. How important do you rate a local independent business sector that has 100
million of investment on the ground and provides hundreds of direct jobs –
particularly in rural communities? (1-10) 7 to 8, I answer this by asking myself
this question, what would I do to attract and sustain a 100million industry? A
100million industry would be extremely important therefore the high priority
with my government.
6. How familiar are you with issues regarding independent pharmacy? (1-10) 10
Remember when Dwight Ball? Oh the lies he told.... he tells
Dear Owner,
In December of 2007 – Pharmacy Owners had their businesses threatened by a regulatory
change in the Pharmaceutical Services Act. Please review below.
Interchangeable Drug Products Formulary
Regulations, 2007
under the
Pharmaceutical Services Act
(Filed December 20, 2007 )
Under the authority of sections 19 and 52 of the Pharmaceutical Services Act, I make the
following regulations.
Dated at St. John’s , December 20, 2007 .
Maximum price
5. (1) In accordance with section 23 of the Act, the maximum price listed for a drug
in the formulary shall not exceed the price listed for the same drug as published in the
formulary to the Ontario public drug program, plus an inventory adjustment fee set by the
minister.
(2) A guaranteed price submitted by a manufacturer under subsection 23(1) of
the Act which exceeds the price listed for that drug published in the formulary to the
Ontario public drug program does not comply with subsection 23(2) of the Act and that
price shall not, under the authority of subsection (1), be accepted by the minister as a
price at which to list the drug in the formulary.
(3) Where a guaranteed price submitted by a manufacturer is not accepted by the
minister under subsection (2), for the purpose of setting the maximum price at which a
drug may be listed in the formulary, the minister may substitute as the price for that drug
the price listed for the drug as published in the formulary to the Ontario public drug
program, plus an inventory adjustment fee.
Commencement
7. These regulations shall come into force on January 1, 2008.
2
This arbitrary change would have resulted in a loss of revenues from the dispensary
equaling as much as 25%. It also raised a real concern with respect to the power of one
Minister to control our businesses with the stroke of a pen – with or without consultation.
At that time several business owners from around the province got together and planned a
strategy to delay or reverse this extremely negative law. It was decided that we
recommend the retention of Dr. Wade Locke to complete an Activity Based Costing
(ABC) study – which would demonstrate the catastrophic economic consequences of
enacting such a regulation. The Board of PANL approved this direction and that work is
moving forward.
It was also decided to produce an enabling document for government members – to assist
in their understanding of our enterprises and how such a change in law could severely
damage our investments and deter future growth and expansion in communities around
Newfoundland and Labrador.
While this paper was being produced several of us wrote and/or met with government
MHA’s and Cabinet members to request a delay in the implementation of the new
formulary pricing, These actions were successful and we received an additional 45 days.
From there we distributed the enabling document and further requested an additional 90
days in order to put in place a policy and legislative package for the government to
consider. During this time many of us met with or telephoned government members and
specific Cabinet Ministers to further advance our concerns. This resulted in a delay of
implementation for 9 months to January 01-09.
3
A cursory calculation demonstrates that these postponements have resulted in the savings
of 20 million dollars of revenues for our business operations.
Over this three month period many of us discussed the possibility of having an advocacy
group dedicated to community pharmacy owners. This is a concept which has worked
well in other jurisdictions and one we feel would protect against negative legislation and
assist in the development of new opportunities for our enterprises.
First let me state that we continue to support PANL as an advocacy group for all
pharmacists. This initiative is to separate the business component from the profession of
pharmacy as a whole. This new organization will be dedicated to community pharmacies
– as businesses that contribute significantly to the economy of our province.
The Council of Independent Community Pharmacy Owners of Newfoundland and
Labrador (CICPONL) is being established to expand government relations to include the
portfolios of Business, Innovation Trade and Rural Renewal, Human Resources and
Employment, and Finance. Our objectives are to:
1. Seek amendments to the Pharmaceutical Services Act and the Pharmacy Act
which – if adopted would see – formulary price changes (regulatory) become the
responsibility of the Lieutenant Governor in Council (Cabinet) instead of at the
sole discretion of the Minister of Health and Community Services. In this way our
financial concerns could be appropriately addressed to the Minister of Business
and other portfolios aforementioned – before a decision was taken that would
reduce our revenues. As it stands now the Minister of Health and Community
4
Services runs our dispensary and for all intents and purposes is the only individual
who can accurately project our revenues.
2. Seek amendments to the audit process resulting in procedural fairness and a more
accurate reflection of our receipts. Many pharmacy owners have expressed
concern over both the length and method of the process.
3. Develop government relations in a way which addresses all aspects of our
investment and growth potential. Over the coming few years the role a pharmacy
plays in continued health and wellness in our communities should expand and
provide positive investment opportunities for our businesses. This new Council
would seek to meet with Ministers at least twice a year to advance and promote
our role in delivering health and wellness objectives while achieving savings for
government.
4. Develop media relations focused on the objectives of the pharmacy as a
community partner in health and wellness and demonstrate the significance of our
enterprises in employment growth and stability – especially in rural areas –
investment and rural development – and the pharmacy’s role in finding
efficiencies in the health care system. To this end we will issue regular News
Releases and when necessary hold a News Conference – and we will appear each
year before the budget consultation committee. Last week the NLMA made public
concerns regarding the cumbersome process of special authorizations for
prescription drugs. We would in future speak directly to issues which impact our
client base directly.
5
5. Research and compile information demonstrating trends in the business of
pharmacy from all jurisdictions while developing our own for presentation to
government. This includes participation at the federal level. As pharmacies are
anticipated to expand services over the next decade to reflect the changes coming
in healthcare delivery we must be prepared to protect the investment required by
owners to achieve these transfers of responsibility.
6. Develop a mentoring program for individuals who wish to operate a pharmacy
and develop tools and common practices for those already in the business.
It is important to note that other professional sectors have already separated business
operations from their professional advocacy – most notably the Newfoundland and
Labrador Construction Association. While engineers and trades-people have their own
professional associations – if they are also business owners the NLCA speaks for them on
matters of business.
It is important that government recognize that as business owners – albeit in a regulated
profession – we will protect our investments and seek to find areas of growth while
remaining profitable. The tendency has been to restrict us to the portfolio of Health and to
ignore the other contributions we make to the economy.
In the past pharmacists for the most part were all business owners and as such one
association sufficed to advocate for improvements and growth in our sector. Today we
represent only 1/3 this number seems low of the PANL and therefore objectives have
necessarily changed to reflect that percentage. These changes have also been reflected by
the formation of associations for pharmacies operating as part of a chain.
6
Currently we have commissioned the development of a legislative and policy package to
be delivered to government by July 07-08. This action is being taken to allow
government time to review and discuss with us an alternative to the proposed formulary
changes. It will also outline other concerns aforementioned and include options for
government which would see the expansion of our services while allowing cost savings
for the Department of Health and Community Services.
A meeting to review the draft documents will be held with pharmacy owners toward the
end of June. Further details should be available of the exact date and location over the
next couple of weeks.
We are also drafting a constitution – mission statement – and membership forms as we
move forward to formalize this Council of pharmacy business owners. We look forward
to your participation and trust you will find this initiative positive for the health of your
enterprise both in the short and log-terms.
For further information please contact:
Wayne Morris
Robert Doyle
Phil O’Keefe
Dwight Ball
Acting Board of the Council
In December of 2007 – Pharmacy Owners had their businesses threatened by a regulatory
change in the Pharmaceutical Services Act. Please review below.
Interchangeable Drug Products Formulary
Regulations, 2007
under the
Pharmaceutical Services Act
(Filed December 20, 2007 )
Under the authority of sections 19 and 52 of the Pharmaceutical Services Act, I make the
following regulations.
Dated at St. John’s , December 20, 2007 .
Maximum price
5. (1) In accordance with section 23 of the Act, the maximum price listed for a drug
in the formulary shall not exceed the price listed for the same drug as published in the
formulary to the Ontario public drug program, plus an inventory adjustment fee set by the
minister.
(2) A guaranteed price submitted by a manufacturer under subsection 23(1) of
the Act which exceeds the price listed for that drug published in the formulary to the
Ontario public drug program does not comply with subsection 23(2) of the Act and that
price shall not, under the authority of subsection (1), be accepted by the minister as a
price at which to list the drug in the formulary.
(3) Where a guaranteed price submitted by a manufacturer is not accepted by the
minister under subsection (2), for the purpose of setting the maximum price at which a
drug may be listed in the formulary, the minister may substitute as the price for that drug
the price listed for the drug as published in the formulary to the Ontario public drug
program, plus an inventory adjustment fee.
Commencement
7. These regulations shall come into force on January 1, 2008.
2
This arbitrary change would have resulted in a loss of revenues from the dispensary
equaling as much as 25%. It also raised a real concern with respect to the power of one
Minister to control our businesses with the stroke of a pen – with or without consultation.
At that time several business owners from around the province got together and planned a
strategy to delay or reverse this extremely negative law. It was decided that we
recommend the retention of Dr. Wade Locke to complete an Activity Based Costing
(ABC) study – which would demonstrate the catastrophic economic consequences of
enacting such a regulation. The Board of PANL approved this direction and that work is
moving forward.
It was also decided to produce an enabling document for government members – to assist
in their understanding of our enterprises and how such a change in law could severely
damage our investments and deter future growth and expansion in communities around
Newfoundland and Labrador.
While this paper was being produced several of us wrote and/or met with government
MHA’s and Cabinet members to request a delay in the implementation of the new
formulary pricing, These actions were successful and we received an additional 45 days.
From there we distributed the enabling document and further requested an additional 90
days in order to put in place a policy and legislative package for the government to
consider. During this time many of us met with or telephoned government members and
specific Cabinet Ministers to further advance our concerns. This resulted in a delay of
implementation for 9 months to January 01-09.
3
A cursory calculation demonstrates that these postponements have resulted in the savings
of 20 million dollars of revenues for our business operations.
Over this three month period many of us discussed the possibility of having an advocacy
group dedicated to community pharmacy owners. This is a concept which has worked
well in other jurisdictions and one we feel would protect against negative legislation and
assist in the development of new opportunities for our enterprises.
First let me state that we continue to support PANL as an advocacy group for all
pharmacists. This initiative is to separate the business component from the profession of
pharmacy as a whole. This new organization will be dedicated to community pharmacies
– as businesses that contribute significantly to the economy of our province.
The Council of Independent Community Pharmacy Owners of Newfoundland and
Labrador (CICPONL) is being established to expand government relations to include the
portfolios of Business, Innovation Trade and Rural Renewal, Human Resources and
Employment, and Finance. Our objectives are to:
1. Seek amendments to the Pharmaceutical Services Act and the Pharmacy Act
which – if adopted would see – formulary price changes (regulatory) become the
responsibility of the Lieutenant Governor in Council (Cabinet) instead of at the
sole discretion of the Minister of Health and Community Services. In this way our
financial concerns could be appropriately addressed to the Minister of Business
and other portfolios aforementioned – before a decision was taken that would
reduce our revenues. As it stands now the Minister of Health and Community
4
Services runs our dispensary and for all intents and purposes is the only individual
who can accurately project our revenues.
2. Seek amendments to the audit process resulting in procedural fairness and a more
accurate reflection of our receipts. Many pharmacy owners have expressed
concern over both the length and method of the process.
3. Develop government relations in a way which addresses all aspects of our
investment and growth potential. Over the coming few years the role a pharmacy
plays in continued health and wellness in our communities should expand and
provide positive investment opportunities for our businesses. This new Council
would seek to meet with Ministers at least twice a year to advance and promote
our role in delivering health and wellness objectives while achieving savings for
government.
4. Develop media relations focused on the objectives of the pharmacy as a
community partner in health and wellness and demonstrate the significance of our
enterprises in employment growth and stability – especially in rural areas –
investment and rural development – and the pharmacy’s role in finding
efficiencies in the health care system. To this end we will issue regular News
Releases and when necessary hold a News Conference – and we will appear each
year before the budget consultation committee. Last week the NLMA made public
concerns regarding the cumbersome process of special authorizations for
prescription drugs. We would in future speak directly to issues which impact our
client base directly.
5
5. Research and compile information demonstrating trends in the business of
pharmacy from all jurisdictions while developing our own for presentation to
government. This includes participation at the federal level. As pharmacies are
anticipated to expand services over the next decade to reflect the changes coming
in healthcare delivery we must be prepared to protect the investment required by
owners to achieve these transfers of responsibility.
6. Develop a mentoring program for individuals who wish to operate a pharmacy
and develop tools and common practices for those already in the business.
It is important to note that other professional sectors have already separated business
operations from their professional advocacy – most notably the Newfoundland and
Labrador Construction Association. While engineers and trades-people have their own
professional associations – if they are also business owners the NLCA speaks for them on
matters of business.
It is important that government recognize that as business owners – albeit in a regulated
profession – we will protect our investments and seek to find areas of growth while
remaining profitable. The tendency has been to restrict us to the portfolio of Health and to
ignore the other contributions we make to the economy.
In the past pharmacists for the most part were all business owners and as such one
association sufficed to advocate for improvements and growth in our sector. Today we
represent only 1/3 this number seems low of the PANL and therefore objectives have
necessarily changed to reflect that percentage. These changes have also been reflected by
the formation of associations for pharmacies operating as part of a chain.
6
Currently we have commissioned the development of a legislative and policy package to
be delivered to government by July 07-08. This action is being taken to allow
government time to review and discuss with us an alternative to the proposed formulary
changes. It will also outline other concerns aforementioned and include options for
government which would see the expansion of our services while allowing cost savings
for the Department of Health and Community Services.
A meeting to review the draft documents will be held with pharmacy owners toward the
end of June. Further details should be available of the exact date and location over the
next couple of weeks.
We are also drafting a constitution – mission statement – and membership forms as we
move forward to formalize this Council of pharmacy business owners. We look forward
to your participation and trust you will find this initiative positive for the health of your
enterprise both in the short and log-terms.
For further information please contact:
Wayne Morris
Robert Doyle
Phil O’Keefe
Dwight Ball
Acting Board of the Council
Friday, March 16, 2018
2018 - shiny and new - filled with dirt and betrayal
2018 will be an interesting year. In some ways it's already been that.
I look forward to new challenges and some open discussion about the leadership of our Province and the lengths to which some politicians will go to cover-up their dirt.
Sometimes - we all go through times of muted thought. Sometimes we try to protect innocent people from political carnage - only to find out they too are up to their necks in it.
In Newfoundland and Labrador - getting perks from politicians means you have to do some work for them. This is the kind of work that they want to keep their hands clean while at the same time entrap (maybe should use a different word) those doing their dastardly deeds.
The perks can range from contracts to recognition of some sort. In each case it is something that the person they use - wants very badly.
Friend - 1 : a person who has a strong liking for and trust in another person. Merriam Webster's Dictionary
This is always the most difficult.
In life you have to trust sometime - but as we get older we know that trust is usually broken as lobsters crawl up that barrel.
Special friends - those who have been a part of your life for period of time - possess the ability to hurt you - if you let them. Sadly this is also a learned lesson.
There are those who remain - as few as that may be - and they are in for the long haul.
It is however a fascinating study of human nature - so to speak.
So this year shall be the year of exploring such individuals. The politicians will be easy. Others more difficult - and others will be litigation.
There are difficult subject areas to be explored.
1. Opioids and Addiction - and the real human fall-out for innocents and their families,
2. Muskrat Falls - how to keep the ball rolling even after it has been deemed a "boondoggle"
3. How to get a politician to fall in line
4. The Justice system and how it continues to be corrupt on so many levels
5. How politicians get others to do their bidding - on the dirty stuff
6. The Me Too phenomenon and what the Liberals might need to clean up
7. On the way to becoming the Premier and staying there
8. Could some of the tragic murders in our province been avoided and the fall guy or gal
9. Conflicts of Interest and how they are effectively covered-up
10. The political choices we have and whether a new choice is needed
Then there are surprises - those who you started off distrusting - actually proving to be trustworthy.
I look forward to new challenges and some open discussion about the leadership of our Province and the lengths to which some politicians will go to cover-up their dirt.
Sometimes - we all go through times of muted thought. Sometimes we try to protect innocent people from political carnage - only to find out they too are up to their necks in it.
In Newfoundland and Labrador - getting perks from politicians means you have to do some work for them. This is the kind of work that they want to keep their hands clean while at the same time entrap (maybe should use a different word) those doing their dastardly deeds.
The perks can range from contracts to recognition of some sort. In each case it is something that the person they use - wants very badly.
Friend - 1 : a person who has a strong liking for and trust in another person. Merriam Webster's Dictionary
This is always the most difficult.
In life you have to trust sometime - but as we get older we know that trust is usually broken as lobsters crawl up that barrel.
Special friends - those who have been a part of your life for period of time - possess the ability to hurt you - if you let them. Sadly this is also a learned lesson.
There are those who remain - as few as that may be - and they are in for the long haul.
It is however a fascinating study of human nature - so to speak.
So this year shall be the year of exploring such individuals. The politicians will be easy. Others more difficult - and others will be litigation.
There are difficult subject areas to be explored.
1. Opioids and Addiction - and the real human fall-out for innocents and their families,
2. Muskrat Falls - how to keep the ball rolling even after it has been deemed a "boondoggle"
3. How to get a politician to fall in line
4. The Justice system and how it continues to be corrupt on so many levels
5. How politicians get others to do their bidding - on the dirty stuff
6. The Me Too phenomenon and what the Liberals might need to clean up
7. On the way to becoming the Premier and staying there
8. Could some of the tragic murders in our province been avoided and the fall guy or gal
9. Conflicts of Interest and how they are effectively covered-up
10. The political choices we have and whether a new choice is needed
Then there are surprises - those who you started off distrusting - actually proving to be trustworthy.
Be cautious of who is holding your quarters because as soon as they get four quarters they will change them for a dollar.
Tuesday, March 04, 2014
Decision Gate 75 - Minister Sullivan
Minister Susan Sullivan was the picture of deception when performing at her News Conference on Midwifery.
It should only take another 5 to 7 years for the process to be complete. Decision Gate 75.
The Minister says she wants to make sure they will not experience the same problems as other jurisdictions in Canada that have already completed the legislated/regulated process for midwives.
Ms. Sullivan appears to be in a contest with her Atlantic Canadian peers in a race to be the slowest to regulate and utilize midwives. The rest of the provinces - no problem - with many of them being active since the late 1990's.
Ms. Sullivan knows or ought to that there is enough information to move forward now - not when she is no longer in government. This is just a case of - we don't want to do it now - don't want to spend the money now - despite the evidence that this type of service might actually save money. Unfortunately the amount saved - would not be recognized fully between now and the next election.
When this government - including Minister Sullivan WANT to do something - no problem. Let's say they put the effort into fast-tracking midwifery as they have done with Muskrat Falls - by now 40% of births would happen at home.
When I think of the mess they have made both in Muskrat Falls and our energy system - their RUSH to get everything approved - their RUSH to sign a deal with Emera; regardless of cost - the comment by Sullivan that they want to get midwifery right is nothing but deception or ignorance.
Minister Sullivan moved ahead with the destruction of independent pharmacy based on the Ontario actions - despite the problems they had in that jurisdiction. Right now we are witnessing extreme shortages of many generic drugs - ten times more in some cases - since the slashing of revenues to pharmacies. Why are these drug shortages occurring? What is it costing us?
When it comes to decision gates - the number of gates - and the time to pass through them has little to do with best practices, good social or economic policy for the people, and or the future benefits for the province it has to do with what they (Sullivan and her colleagues) want to do and when.
I guess we are at decision gate 75 for midwives, decision gate 100 for whistle blower legislation, and decision gate 450 for pensions.
Now how about we all take a crack at how many decision gates were required for Bill 29?
We now should demand decision gates on all policies - with the pomp and glory comparable to the Muskrat Gates of Eden.
We are tired Minister - but we can't shut our eyes. Time for you and the rest of your Tory Cabinet to move on. Why wait to be booted from office - follow your "friend" Kathy and leave. Are you all still blaming that one person for communication problems and bad policy?
I can't wait for the people's Decision Gate 1 in the fall of 2015 or sooner.
It should only take another 5 to 7 years for the process to be complete. Decision Gate 75.
The Minister says she wants to make sure they will not experience the same problems as other jurisdictions in Canada that have already completed the legislated/regulated process for midwives.
Ms. Sullivan appears to be in a contest with her Atlantic Canadian peers in a race to be the slowest to regulate and utilize midwives. The rest of the provinces - no problem - with many of them being active since the late 1990's.
Ms. Sullivan knows or ought to that there is enough information to move forward now - not when she is no longer in government. This is just a case of - we don't want to do it now - don't want to spend the money now - despite the evidence that this type of service might actually save money. Unfortunately the amount saved - would not be recognized fully between now and the next election.
When this government - including Minister Sullivan WANT to do something - no problem. Let's say they put the effort into fast-tracking midwifery as they have done with Muskrat Falls - by now 40% of births would happen at home.
When I think of the mess they have made both in Muskrat Falls and our energy system - their RUSH to get everything approved - their RUSH to sign a deal with Emera; regardless of cost - the comment by Sullivan that they want to get midwifery right is nothing but deception or ignorance.
Minister Sullivan moved ahead with the destruction of independent pharmacy based on the Ontario actions - despite the problems they had in that jurisdiction. Right now we are witnessing extreme shortages of many generic drugs - ten times more in some cases - since the slashing of revenues to pharmacies. Why are these drug shortages occurring? What is it costing us?
When it comes to decision gates - the number of gates - and the time to pass through them has little to do with best practices, good social or economic policy for the people, and or the future benefits for the province it has to do with what they (Sullivan and her colleagues) want to do and when.
I guess we are at decision gate 75 for midwives, decision gate 100 for whistle blower legislation, and decision gate 450 for pensions.
Now how about we all take a crack at how many decision gates were required for Bill 29?
We now should demand decision gates on all policies - with the pomp and glory comparable to the Muskrat Gates of Eden.
We are tired Minister - but we can't shut our eyes. Time for you and the rest of your Tory Cabinet to move on. Why wait to be booted from office - follow your "friend" Kathy and leave. Are you all still blaming that one person for communication problems and bad policy?
I can't wait for the people's Decision Gate 1 in the fall of 2015 or sooner.
Wednesday, November 27, 2013
A PC Interim Leader on the way
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.
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.
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.
Tuesday, December 04, 2012
Prestigious National Award for NL Business Owners
 | ||||
| CICPO Wins Prestigious National Lifetime Achievement Award |
Read the full story: PRESS HERE
Wednesday, June 20, 2012
VOCM - Open-Line - Slander 101
On Monday caller "Bob" to VOCM openline - hosted by Randy Simms - decided it was perfectly acceptable to make false statements about me.
"Bob" had called - as he usually does - to defend the Tories on one issue or another.
"Bob" also discussed - as he usually does - how he is unique and how his whole life he was made to feel abnormal.
That's what makes his continued attack on me so bizarre. It's as if he will punish me by doing to me what he claims was done to him.
In either case - on Monday - "Bob" once again crossed the line and as usual VOCM allowed it to be broadcast. VOCM failed to use the technology they employ to prevent such occurrences (delayed broadcast).
Audio of the Call can be found at the end of this post.
I will let the reader of this blog determine how or why I became relevant to what "Bob" was talking about. For now let's look at what "Bob" said about me.
"Don't you think that the debate over the Muskrat Falls has been beaten to death? Roger Grimes never had to go through that and the only opposition he had was Sue Dyer and he gave her a job and then he gave her a pharmacy, probably for her loyalty, I think."
I was not hired by Roger Grimes to defend any proposed deal regarding the development of the Lower Churchill. When I was hired it was Voisey's Bay that was the contentious issue and is a project that the Tories have benefited from politically ever since. The second part regarding Roger Grimes giving me a pharmacy for my loyalty is not a matter for interpretation. I do not and have never owned any part of a pharmacy.
Further my involvement in pharmacy began in 2008 as the Executive Director of the Council of Independent Community Pharmacy Owners. Roger Grimes has not been Premier since 2003. To suggest that I was given a pharmacy for my loyalty is a slanderous statement. It - one - is not in any way factual and - two - suggests that I was rewarded in some unethical way for loyalty to a politician or a political party.
What did Randy do? Well he laughed and then through an employee of VOCM on twitter suggested I call in.
This equally was despicable.
I am not employed by government and am not an elected official. I am a private citizen who engages in public discourse on matters of public interest.
I deal with policy and political issues and when I state somebody owns one asset or another - they do. When I state they hold a particular Board position or another - they do.
This blatant attempt to disparage me - based on completely false statements - by "Bob" and then allowed to be broadcast by Randy Simms and VOCM - will only serve to make other people afraid to make any public comments. This will make others feel they have no right to criticize the policies created and promoted by elected officials - for fear that partisans may call and make false statements about them.
Is this the point? If not I fail to see why this type of behavior continues to be allowed by a publicly traded company.
Audio Clip PRESS HERE
"Bob" had called - as he usually does - to defend the Tories on one issue or another.
"Bob" also discussed - as he usually does - how he is unique and how his whole life he was made to feel abnormal.
That's what makes his continued attack on me so bizarre. It's as if he will punish me by doing to me what he claims was done to him.
In either case - on Monday - "Bob" once again crossed the line and as usual VOCM allowed it to be broadcast. VOCM failed to use the technology they employ to prevent such occurrences (delayed broadcast).
Audio of the Call can be found at the end of this post.
I will let the reader of this blog determine how or why I became relevant to what "Bob" was talking about. For now let's look at what "Bob" said about me.
"Don't you think that the debate over the Muskrat Falls has been beaten to death? Roger Grimes never had to go through that and the only opposition he had was Sue Dyer and he gave her a job and then he gave her a pharmacy, probably for her loyalty, I think."
I was not hired by Roger Grimes to defend any proposed deal regarding the development of the Lower Churchill. When I was hired it was Voisey's Bay that was the contentious issue and is a project that the Tories have benefited from politically ever since. The second part regarding Roger Grimes giving me a pharmacy for my loyalty is not a matter for interpretation. I do not and have never owned any part of a pharmacy.
Further my involvement in pharmacy began in 2008 as the Executive Director of the Council of Independent Community Pharmacy Owners. Roger Grimes has not been Premier since 2003. To suggest that I was given a pharmacy for my loyalty is a slanderous statement. It - one - is not in any way factual and - two - suggests that I was rewarded in some unethical way for loyalty to a politician or a political party.
What did Randy do? Well he laughed and then through an employee of VOCM on twitter suggested I call in.
This equally was despicable.
I am not employed by government and am not an elected official. I am a private citizen who engages in public discourse on matters of public interest.
I deal with policy and political issues and when I state somebody owns one asset or another - they do. When I state they hold a particular Board position or another - they do.
This blatant attempt to disparage me - based on completely false statements - by "Bob" and then allowed to be broadcast by Randy Simms and VOCM - will only serve to make other people afraid to make any public comments. This will make others feel they have no right to criticize the policies created and promoted by elected officials - for fear that partisans may call and make false statements about them.
Is this the point? If not I fail to see why this type of behavior continues to be allowed by a publicly traded company.
Audio Clip PRESS HERE
Wednesday, June 13, 2012
Good Morning MHA's - NEW POLL HEALTH - NL Dead Last
Good Morning to our MHA's - and after another long night of debate let me give you some Carnation Breakfast to wake you up.
Secondly - I better get this information out before Steve Kent shuts down the House or perhaps all documents are barred by Bill 29.
So Vickie Kaminski is headlined in the Telegram today "Best way to gain confidence is performing well".
Read this NEWS
If you live in Saskatchewan, chances are you’re pretty satisfied with health care. In Newfoundland — not so much.
And in Ontario, you’re happy with family doctors, but much like the other provinces, you feel emergency services could use some work.
A new poll exclusive to the Star shows wide-ranging satisfaction with health care across the provinces, with Saskatchewan, Manitoba and New Brunswick scoring highest, and Nova Scotia and Newfoundland falling behind.
In Saskatchewan, 26 per cent of respondents were “very satisfied” with health care, and in Manitoba and New Brunswick it was 25 per cent.
In Newfoundland, only 10 per cent were very satisfied, followed by 13 per cent in Nova Scotia.
“Saskatchewan, which is sort of the birth place of medicare, has the highest satisfaction ratings with health care,” said Lorne Bozinoff, president of Forum Research, which conducted the poll.
“Then it varies considerably across the country.”
Bozinoff attributed the low overall score in Newfoundland to a shortage of specialists, such as cardiologists and pediatricians, and poor ratings for laboratories, possibly due to lack of access.
“That’s probably driving the dissatisfaction, the low satisfaction numbers, in Newfoundland overall,” he said.
A total of 75 per cent of respondents in Manitoba, 72 per cent in New Brunswick and 71 per cent in Saskatchewan were either very satisfied or satisfied with health care. In Ontario it was 66 per cent.
The survey found Ontario is above average for satisfaction with family doctors, specialists, diagnostic labs and hospitals, but fell behind the average on pharmacists and dentists.
The most highly rated health-care service in the survey was pharmacists, with an average of 63 per cent of respondents saying they were “very satisfied.” In Quebec, it’s 71 per cent, but in Ontario it’s 58 per cent.
The lowest satisfaction ratings went to walk-in clinics and emergency room services, which scored a national average of 21 per cent and 14 per cent, respectively.
Emergency services were the poorest received across the country. In Ontario 17 per cent of respondents were very satisfied with the emergency room, while Saskatchewan was the only province to top one-fifth of respondents. Newfoundland, Quebec and Manitoba ranked lowest at 9 per cent.
Hospitals scored highest in Prince Edward Island at 31 per cent, followed by Ontario and Saskatchewan with 26 per cent each. Newfoundland was last at 8 per cent.
Satisfaction with walk-in clinics was also highest in P.E.I. at 28 per cent, followed by Nova Scotia and New Brunswick at 24 per cent.
Family doctors were best received in Ontario and Saskatchewan, with 40 per cent of respondents very satisfied. The lowest scores go to P.E.I. at 29 per cent, and Newfoundland and Alberta at 32 per cent each.
In general, the survey found Canadians over 65 were more satisfied with hospital services, walk-in clinics, family doctors, pharmacy services, dentists and emergency services.
The poll results are based on an interactive voice response telephone survey of 3,932 randomly selected residents aged 18 or older across Canada. It was conducted on May 30-31st, 2012.
Results based on the total sample are considered accurate, plus or minus 1.56 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.
Secondly - I better get this information out before Steve Kent shuts down the House or perhaps all documents are barred by Bill 29.
So Vickie Kaminski is headlined in the Telegram today "Best way to gain confidence is performing well".
Read this NEWS
If you live in Saskatchewan, chances are you’re pretty satisfied with health care. In Newfoundland — not so much.
And in Ontario, you’re happy with family doctors, but much like the other provinces, you feel emergency services could use some work.
A new poll exclusive to the Star shows wide-ranging satisfaction with health care across the provinces, with Saskatchewan, Manitoba and New Brunswick scoring highest, and Nova Scotia and Newfoundland falling behind.
In Saskatchewan, 26 per cent of respondents were “very satisfied” with health care, and in Manitoba and New Brunswick it was 25 per cent.
In Newfoundland, only 10 per cent were very satisfied, followed by 13 per cent in Nova Scotia.
“Saskatchewan, which is sort of the birth place of medicare, has the highest satisfaction ratings with health care,” said Lorne Bozinoff, president of Forum Research, which conducted the poll.
“Then it varies considerably across the country.”
Bozinoff attributed the low overall score in Newfoundland to a shortage of specialists, such as cardiologists and pediatricians, and poor ratings for laboratories, possibly due to lack of access.
“That’s probably driving the dissatisfaction, the low satisfaction numbers, in Newfoundland overall,” he said.
A total of 75 per cent of respondents in Manitoba, 72 per cent in New Brunswick and 71 per cent in Saskatchewan were either very satisfied or satisfied with health care. In Ontario it was 66 per cent.
The survey found Ontario is above average for satisfaction with family doctors, specialists, diagnostic labs and hospitals, but fell behind the average on pharmacists and dentists.
The most highly rated health-care service in the survey was pharmacists, with an average of 63 per cent of respondents saying they were “very satisfied.” In Quebec, it’s 71 per cent, but in Ontario it’s 58 per cent.
The lowest satisfaction ratings went to walk-in clinics and emergency room services, which scored a national average of 21 per cent and 14 per cent, respectively.
Emergency services were the poorest received across the country. In Ontario 17 per cent of respondents were very satisfied with the emergency room, while Saskatchewan was the only province to top one-fifth of respondents. Newfoundland, Quebec and Manitoba ranked lowest at 9 per cent.
Hospitals scored highest in Prince Edward Island at 31 per cent, followed by Ontario and Saskatchewan with 26 per cent each. Newfoundland was last at 8 per cent.
Satisfaction with walk-in clinics was also highest in P.E.I. at 28 per cent, followed by Nova Scotia and New Brunswick at 24 per cent.
Family doctors were best received in Ontario and Saskatchewan, with 40 per cent of respondents very satisfied. The lowest scores go to P.E.I. at 29 per cent, and Newfoundland and Alberta at 32 per cent each.
In general, the survey found Canadians over 65 were more satisfied with hospital services, walk-in clinics, family doctors, pharmacy services, dentists and emergency services.
The poll results are based on an interactive voice response telephone survey of 3,932 randomly selected residents aged 18 or older across Canada. It was conducted on May 30-31st, 2012.
Results based on the total sample are considered accurate, plus or minus 1.56 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.
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.
Monday, May 14, 2012
Dunderdale Mentality Revealed after CBC Investigation
The CBC investigative report on Search and Rescue protocols employed during the search for Burton Winters may have ultimately revealed a mentality endemic to the Dunderdale administration.
CBC reports today that the Dunderdale government is only now looking for copies of the military audio recordings - despite the government's claim they completed a review of the failed search and rescue.
One must wonder if that detail is something Kathy Dunderdale did not want to face if a meeting scheduled with Burton's grandmother and former search and rescue coordinator Clarence Peddle - proceeded.
The Dunderdale administration believes that it has ALL the information on ALL decisions despite the loud and clear voices of competent citizens on many issues - that they do not.
The Dunderdale government has claimed to have done its "review" and "due diligence"on an number of files:
1. Fishery
2. Muskrat Falls
3. Pharmacy
4. Paper Mills/Industry
5. Health
If the above examples are held alongside the province's review of the Burton Winters failed search and rescue - one might conclude that Dunderdale and company do not want ALL the information.
One might also conclude that Dunderdale is deliberately keeping at bay experts in all these areas if those experts are not under the direct control of government.
This is an extremely dangerous mindset and one that raises the question - WHY?
Ordinary citizens, the media, and organizations must continue questioning the Dunderdale government in order to prevent catastrophic errors made by people who are too ignorant, arrogant, or complicit to make the best choices for our future.
CBC reports today that the Dunderdale government is only now looking for copies of the military audio recordings - despite the government's claim they completed a review of the failed search and rescue.
One must wonder if that detail is something Kathy Dunderdale did not want to face if a meeting scheduled with Burton's grandmother and former search and rescue coordinator Clarence Peddle - proceeded.
The Dunderdale administration believes that it has ALL the information on ALL decisions despite the loud and clear voices of competent citizens on many issues - that they do not.
The Dunderdale government has claimed to have done its "review" and "due diligence"on an number of files:
1. Fishery
2. Muskrat Falls
3. Pharmacy
4. Paper Mills/Industry
5. Health
If the above examples are held alongside the province's review of the Burton Winters failed search and rescue - one might conclude that Dunderdale and company do not want ALL the information.
One might also conclude that Dunderdale is deliberately keeping at bay experts in all these areas if those experts are not under the direct control of government.
This is an extremely dangerous mindset and one that raises the question - WHY?
Ordinary citizens, the media, and organizations must continue questioning the Dunderdale government in order to prevent catastrophic errors made by people who are too ignorant, arrogant, or complicit to make the best choices for our future.
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 |
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.
Saturday, March 24, 2012
Loblaw's - Dunderdale Government - What's Up?
Loblaw's just announced that it will be "buying" Zellers prescription files from 95 locations from across the country - excluding Quebec and British Columbia. The deal is worth 35 million dollars. This move is a result of the Target acquisition of Zellers.
First of all these are individual patient files and individuals in Canada have the right to CHOOSE the pharmacy they wish to deal with. Secondly - I would hope that each of these patients will be contacted to see if they WANT their prescription transferred to Loblaws.
Of course this is just a tip of the iceberg and what's hidden beneath is very cynical.
Most of you are aware that provinces in Canada are making legislative moves to lower generic drug prices through regulation. On the surface this appears like a good thing for the consumer - but is it?
To date the greatest impact of these changes have been to devalue - marginalize - and make vulnerable independent pharmacies in the country. For the record - independent pharmacies are the most trusted pharmacy model and are renowned for personalized care and for the willingness to move into or establish in areas that do not have massive populations.
The Shopper's Drug Mart's - Loblaw's - and Lawton's of our marketplace are all waiting for these independents to become vulnerable so that they can consolidate the marketplace. The comments below found in the Canadian Business publication confirms this for the non-believer.
TORONTO - Shoppers Drug Mart Corp. (TSX:SC) is bracing for a profit squeeze from more reforms to generic drug sales next year, but also plans to seize the opportunity to buy out independent pharmacies that are even more vulnerable.
"It's the company that's absolutely best positioned to take advantage of opportunities that are going to (result) from drug reform and other macro trends in the Canadian market," Domenic Pilla, the new president and CEO of Shoppers told analysts on a conference call Wednesday.
Brad Lukow, Shoppers chief financial officer said the full impact of drug reform on Shoppers earnings has not yet been felt.
Legislative reform has yet to take place in a number of provinces, and a second phase will be implemented in Ontario and B.C. in April.
The new changes will expand the cheaper prescription regulations to cover all patients purchasing pills, either out of pocket or using insurance plans.
"That's the negative," he explained. "The positive is, we firmly believe there will be a strong opportunity delivered by drug reform that will allow us in a greater way to be a consolidator of the marketplace."
_________________________________________________________
This consolidation or any consolidation may be good for business but may not be good for the consumer - the patient. Once all the "consolidations" are complete what will we be left with? Well in rural areas - the reliance will be on drugs being delivered by mail - without a pharmacist or pharmacy you can visit in person. In inner-city neighbourhoods where many vulnerable individuals live - transportation will become a problem and worse the ability to make special arrangements for credit or to get the personalized service of help with compliance or accessibility forms will disappear.
Of course once the mass retailers get control of the pharmacy marketplace - prices will go up - way up. Let's take Loblaw's or Sobeys the consolidators of the food marketplace - have they achieved lowering the prices of your food?
When we had a local bread maker the Loblaw's and Sobeys of our marketplace offered 59 cent bread - now that that local manufacturer is gone and the jobs with it - how much is your bread?
If one looks closely at the Loblaw's - Zellers story they will notice the revelation of the new marketing strategy of the retail giant.
First of all these are individual patient files and individuals in Canada have the right to CHOOSE the pharmacy they wish to deal with. Secondly - I would hope that each of these patients will be contacted to see if they WANT their prescription transferred to Loblaws.
Of course this is just a tip of the iceberg and what's hidden beneath is very cynical.
Most of you are aware that provinces in Canada are making legislative moves to lower generic drug prices through regulation. On the surface this appears like a good thing for the consumer - but is it?
To date the greatest impact of these changes have been to devalue - marginalize - and make vulnerable independent pharmacies in the country. For the record - independent pharmacies are the most trusted pharmacy model and are renowned for personalized care and for the willingness to move into or establish in areas that do not have massive populations.
The Shopper's Drug Mart's - Loblaw's - and Lawton's of our marketplace are all waiting for these independents to become vulnerable so that they can consolidate the marketplace. The comments below found in the Canadian Business publication confirms this for the non-believer.
TORONTO - Shoppers Drug Mart Corp. (TSX:SC) is bracing for a profit squeeze from more reforms to generic drug sales next year, but also plans to seize the opportunity to buy out independent pharmacies that are even more vulnerable.
"It's the company that's absolutely best positioned to take advantage of opportunities that are going to (result) from drug reform and other macro trends in the Canadian market," Domenic Pilla, the new president and CEO of Shoppers told analysts on a conference call Wednesday.
Brad Lukow, Shoppers chief financial officer said the full impact of drug reform on Shoppers earnings has not yet been felt.
Legislative reform has yet to take place in a number of provinces, and a second phase will be implemented in Ontario and B.C. in April.
The new changes will expand the cheaper prescription regulations to cover all patients purchasing pills, either out of pocket or using insurance plans.
"That's the negative," he explained. "The positive is, we firmly believe there will be a strong opportunity delivered by drug reform that will allow us in a greater way to be a consolidator of the marketplace."
_________________________________________________________
This consolidation or any consolidation may be good for business but may not be good for the consumer - the patient. Once all the "consolidations" are complete what will we be left with? Well in rural areas - the reliance will be on drugs being delivered by mail - without a pharmacist or pharmacy you can visit in person. In inner-city neighbourhoods where many vulnerable individuals live - transportation will become a problem and worse the ability to make special arrangements for credit or to get the personalized service of help with compliance or accessibility forms will disappear.
Of course once the mass retailers get control of the pharmacy marketplace - prices will go up - way up. Let's take Loblaw's or Sobeys the consolidators of the food marketplace - have they achieved lowering the prices of your food?
When we had a local bread maker the Loblaw's and Sobeys of our marketplace offered 59 cent bread - now that that local manufacturer is gone and the jobs with it - how much is your bread?
If one looks closely at the Loblaw's - Zellers story they will notice the revelation of the new marketing strategy of the retail giant.
"Our goal is to be the number one
nutrition and health destination in Canada," said Michael Lovsin, Loblaw
senior vice-president, health and wellness.
"We
feed more Canadians than any other grocery retailer in the country and
with this comes responsibility to help them make healthier food and
lifestyle choices. Our pharmacy business plays an important role in this
effort."
________________________________________________________
So the deal is come to us and you can eat well and buy our drugs.
If that is the claim - then Loblaw's will not hesitate to allow governments to regulate the food prices - as they are doing with prescription drugs to ensure that Newfoundlanders and Labradoians have the cheapest prices for food in the country right? They will not hesitate to reveal manufacturer rebates for groceries and give them up to ensure that all people can AFFORD healthy food - right?
This grocery giant as with mass retailers like Shopper's and Lawtons rely on their front store - the cosmetics, the groceries, the paper goods for 50% or more of their revenues whereas an independent relies 90% on the dispensary for revenues. The more they get price reductions for drugs the more food, televisions, and makeup they sell.
Ultimately they are using your health care as a loss leader. Governments are showing either extreme ignorance or are knowingly complicit to accommodate the wishes of the stock markets.
At a time when our population is aging and the need for disease management escalates - programs designed to deliver medication and disease management will suffer the loss of these independent pharmacies and the collaborative care practices they have developed.
The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has ignored the advice of 65 local pharmacy owners and the advice of Dr. Wade Locke - that before any radical changes are made to generic drug pricing - a thorough review of the potential consequences should be completed and a made in Newfoundland and Labrador solution is developed.
On April Fools Day once again - Newfoundland and Labrador will jump headfirst into Upper Canadian based policy that will destroy our front-line health services - destroy local business - and once again throw rural Newfoundland and Labrador under the bus.
Newfoundland and Labrador pharmacy owners will not allow this decimation and will fight to protect the health care rights for the people they serve.
Patients in other areas of the country and in the USA are fighting the Walmart and Walgreen type presence and have supported a model of care that has been in our province for 100 years.
These chains and retailers have only been here for 30 or so years and have done their best to lobby government to do their predatory work for them. To the credit of our people - they continue to stand behind their local pharmacy and the superior services and commitment to patient/community - they have always provided. The question is where does your MHA sit?
Next up - the mysterious NDP position that ultimately supports multinationals and turns away from rural local business and professionals - to the detriment of your health care.
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
How about $800,000 a month? Next Up Crestor - Where's the Minister?
It is now widely believed that the generic version of Crestor (another cholesterol drug) will be available for the market by April 2012. Great for the health care budget.
Crestor was the the most costly drug in Canada last year coming it at $875,000,000.
Newfoundland and Labrador's portion of this was over $19 million.
When the generic is released it will cost approximately half of this amount or over $800,000 a month savings.
If we continue down the same path used for introducing new generics - we will waste over 3 million dollars.
Just imagine the savings.
Now this is a heads-up to the Minister of Health, the Minister of Finance, and the government.
Will they now deal with this problem?
Will the media or Opposition parties ask the questions?
Crestor was the the most costly drug in Canada last year coming it at $875,000,000.
Newfoundland and Labrador's portion of this was over $19 million.
When the generic is released it will cost approximately half of this amount or over $800,000 a month savings.
If we continue down the same path used for introducing new generics - we will waste over 3 million dollars.
Just imagine the savings.
Now this is a heads-up to the Minister of Health, the Minister of Finance, and the government.
Will they now deal with this problem?
Will the media or Opposition parties ask the questions?
More $$$$ lost from Health Care - Secret Committee
Another half million dollars down the tube as Newfoundland and Labrador takes 40 days longer to list new generic.
In this case Lipitor - a brand drug to help control cholesterol - came off patent protection in May 2010 - and should have been on our formulary by July 1 of 2010. Atorvastatin the generic version did not make our formulary until August 11 2010. This 41 day delay cost us close to half a million dollars.
More interesting in this case - it may very well have been delayed until December of 2010 - if the Council of Independent Community Pharmacy Owners did not directly advise the Department of Finance of this problem.
That would have cost close to 2 million dollars.
Since that time the situation has not been corrected and we continue to lose millions of dollars.
This is the second example of wastage.
Where are the questions?
Where is the media?
These numbers can be independently verified.
Why are drugs available in our hospitals but not available at the retail pharmacy?
Here is another half million for surgeries to remove excess skin or quicker MRI's.
In this case Lipitor - a brand drug to help control cholesterol - came off patent protection in May 2010 - and should have been on our formulary by July 1 of 2010. Atorvastatin the generic version did not make our formulary until August 11 2010. This 41 day delay cost us close to half a million dollars.
More interesting in this case - it may very well have been delayed until December of 2010 - if the Council of Independent Community Pharmacy Owners did not directly advise the Department of Finance of this problem.
That would have cost close to 2 million dollars.
Since that time the situation has not been corrected and we continue to lose millions of dollars.
This is the second example of wastage.
Where are the questions?
Where is the media?
These numbers can be independently verified.
Why are drugs available in our hospitals but not available at the retail pharmacy?
Here is another half million for surgeries to remove excess skin or quicker MRI's.
Monday, March 12, 2012
Minister Sullivan should Answer or Resign $$$$ wasted!
Sue's Blog featured two posts on the "secret committee" of government responsible for advising the Minister of Health regarding new listings of generics on our formulary.
Please read Press Here Part 1 and Press Here Part 2
Further to these posts - I would like to inform the people of Newfoundland and Labrador that we have lost almost 1 million dollars more from January - April of 2012.
Many of you are familiar with Plavix - a drug that helps to prevent future risks of heart attacks and strokes.
In Canada it is estimated that the introduction of the generic form of Plavix would save Canadians and provincial drug plans hundreds of millions a year.
The sales of Plavix are estimated to be 300 million a year - Newfoundland and Labrador's portion is 6.6 million.
The cost of Plavix versus the cost of the generic equivalent is about double.
The generic version was approved by Health Canada, December 2011 and was listed by several provinces by January 2012.
4 months will have passed before Newfoundland and Labrador gets the benefit of the new generic. That means that we will have spent $1,650,000 when we could have spent $822,500 if the generic was listed in a timely manner.
Why would people in Nova Scotia or Ontario get timely access when we do not?
Why are we wasting hundreds of thousands of dollars in health care when we have people crying out for surgery to remove access skin - or waiting on cardiac surgeries?
Over the next few days I will list a dozen more examples of extreme waste in our system.
When will the Opposition parties demand answers?
When will the media ask questions?
What is going on in this secret committee? Will government release the minutes of their deliberations?
Remember now this is only one drug. Imagine what dollars have been and continue to be wasted.
The Auditor General needs to be called in. Investigation needed.
Please read Press Here Part 1 and Press Here Part 2
Further to these posts - I would like to inform the people of Newfoundland and Labrador that we have lost almost 1 million dollars more from January - April of 2012.
Many of you are familiar with Plavix - a drug that helps to prevent future risks of heart attacks and strokes.
In Canada it is estimated that the introduction of the generic form of Plavix would save Canadians and provincial drug plans hundreds of millions a year.
The sales of Plavix are estimated to be 300 million a year - Newfoundland and Labrador's portion is 6.6 million.
The cost of Plavix versus the cost of the generic equivalent is about double.
The generic version was approved by Health Canada, December 2011 and was listed by several provinces by January 2012.
4 months will have passed before Newfoundland and Labrador gets the benefit of the new generic. That means that we will have spent $1,650,000 when we could have spent $822,500 if the generic was listed in a timely manner.
Why would people in Nova Scotia or Ontario get timely access when we do not?
Why are we wasting hundreds of thousands of dollars in health care when we have people crying out for surgery to remove access skin - or waiting on cardiac surgeries?
Over the next few days I will list a dozen more examples of extreme waste in our system.
When will the Opposition parties demand answers?
When will the media ask questions?
What is going on in this secret committee? Will government release the minutes of their deliberations?
Remember now this is only one drug. Imagine what dollars have been and continue to be wasted.
The Auditor General needs to be called in. Investigation needed.
Thursday, March 08, 2012
Will Dunderdale, Ball, or Michael investigate? $$$$ LOST!
We have now entered a time-frame industry people like to call the Patent Cliff.
Over the next 5 years residents of Newfoundland and Labrador as with all other jurisdictions in Canada and the USA should experience an extreme reduction in the price of essential commonly prescribed medications.
As these new generics enter the marketplace - our government should act immediately to replace the brand drugs on our formulary. This will save us tens of millions of dollars.
Unfortunately we still have a secret committee determining when our tax dollars will be used wisely.
If you can buy the drug in New Brunswick, Alberta, or Ontario - why not here in our province?
Why are our hospitals permitted to dispense drugs that our retail pharmacies cannot?
Why does our government pay brand prices when savings of 40 per cent and more are available?
Sue's Blog will layout some of the financial losses our government has allowed of our essential health care dollars.
We also need to discuss and understand if there are any potential conflicts within the secret committee that answers only to the Minister - and NOT the House of Assembly. We need to know if any member of the committee has any dealings with the drug companies - outside of the committee - and whether those dealings are commercial in nature.
Is it possible that any committee members - who have the power of recommendation to the Minister of Health - could use that power in commercial dealings?
Do the Brand Drug Houses lobby any of the committee members - in any way whatsoever?
You see something is not right here. We are losing tens of millions of dollars and nothing is being done about it. Sound Familiar?
Open and Transparent - right? Public Accounts - spending our money wisely right?
Where is the investigative journalism? Where are the NDP members on this - they are the champions of health care right?
Over the next 5 years residents of Newfoundland and Labrador as with all other jurisdictions in Canada and the USA should experience an extreme reduction in the price of essential commonly prescribed medications.
As these new generics enter the marketplace - our government should act immediately to replace the brand drugs on our formulary. This will save us tens of millions of dollars.
Unfortunately we still have a secret committee determining when our tax dollars will be used wisely.
If you can buy the drug in New Brunswick, Alberta, or Ontario - why not here in our province?
Why are our hospitals permitted to dispense drugs that our retail pharmacies cannot?
Why does our government pay brand prices when savings of 40 per cent and more are available?
Sue's Blog will layout some of the financial losses our government has allowed of our essential health care dollars.
We also need to discuss and understand if there are any potential conflicts within the secret committee that answers only to the Minister - and NOT the House of Assembly. We need to know if any member of the committee has any dealings with the drug companies - outside of the committee - and whether those dealings are commercial in nature.
Is it possible that any committee members - who have the power of recommendation to the Minister of Health - could use that power in commercial dealings?
Do the Brand Drug Houses lobby any of the committee members - in any way whatsoever?
You see something is not right here. We are losing tens of millions of dollars and nothing is being done about it. Sound Familiar?
Open and Transparent - right? Public Accounts - spending our money wisely right?
Where is the investigative journalism? Where are the NDP members on this - they are the champions of health care right?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)