Editorial

From the desk of the editor

Welcome to the first homepage edition of i2P for 2012.
In many ways it has been a slow start to the New Year because of having to deal with the “leftovers” from 2011.
One of those items for i2P was that a third-party provider to the site did not advise of a code change to the security section in our subscribe panel, creating a range of frustrated subscribers not able to get on board.
We apologise to all those potential subscribers who were unable to register with us in the second half of 2011, but if you try once more you should have no problem.

read more
open full screen

Columns

Recent Comments

Click here to read...

Past Editions

Volume 1 Number 1
Volume 1 Number 2
Volume 1 Number 3
Volume 1 Number 4
Volume 1 Number 5
Volume 1 Number 6
Volume 1 Number 7
Volume 2 Number 1
Volume 2 Number 2
Volume 2 Number 3
Volume 2 Number 4
Volume 2 Number 5
Volume 2 Number 6
Volume 2 Number 7
Volume 2 Number 8
Volume 2 Number 9
Volume 2 Number 10
Volume 2 Number 11
Volume 3 Number 1
Volume 3 Number 2
Volume 3 Number 3
Volume 3 Number 4
Volume 3 Number 5
Volume 3 Number 6
Volume 3 Number 7
Volume 3 Number 8
Volume 3 Number 9
Volume 3 Number 10
Volume 3 Number 11
Volume 2012 Number 1

i2P Archives

Health Politics

EPublications

Click here for a list of epublications

The Ascendancy of Warwick Plunkett

• Printer-friendly version
• Send to friend
• PDF version
• Share

	Neil Johnston articles by this author...
Introducing current ideas, perspectives and issues, to the profession of pharmacy

Prior to negotiations commencing for the Fifth Community Pharmacy Agreement (5CPA) the Pharmaceutical Society of Australia (PSA) and the Pharmacy Guild of Australia agreed that the two organisations would present a unified front in their dealings with government.

open this article full screen

Source: Pharmacy News

Friday 14th May 2010

Guild disputes PSA claim

“PHARMACY Guild of Australia president Kos Sclavos is disputing claims the Pharmaceutical Society of Australia (PSA) helped to shape the Fifth Community Pharmacy Agreement.

Angered by an opinion piece by PSA president Warwick Plunkett, featured in yesterday’s Pharmacy eNews, claiming the Society had influenced the outcome for the Agreement, Mr Sclavos wrote to Guild members.

In the letter he described Mr Plunkett’s claims “false and misleading”. “In the Minister’s press release on budget night about the Agreement and the Memorandum of Understanding with Medicines Australia, she said: ‘The government appreciates the role which the Pharmacy Guild and Medicines Australia have played in constructively negotiating reforms that will result in better services for consumers, certainty for community pharmacy and the pharmaceutical industry, and a more sustainable PBS for the future’. “That says it all in terms of those who were involved in the negotiations,” he said. However speaking to Pharmacy eNews, Mr Plunkett said the PSA had gone directly to the Department of Health after negotiations with the Guild over the details of the Agreement broke down. “The end result is probably the most important, and at the end of the day we got a good result…it’s just a bit disappointing that they seek to try and suggest they were totally responsible, which I can assure you they weren’t. “When we couldn’t gain any traction with the Guild in negotiating the contents of the 24 December Agreement, we quickly put out our proposals directly to the government through the department and the items we were putting forward eventually became the main game. “I don’t think that’s very important anymore… we got a good result in the end and that was the result of their negotiation skills and savvy, as well as what the PSA has managed to put forward,” he said.”

Mark Coleman

I have been asked to comment on the sad state of affairs involving the PSA, PGA and the 5CPA.

Recent history has shown considerable antagonism between PSA and PGA objectives.
While the objectives of the organisations are sometimes very different, they are both relevant to the continued good health of the pharmacy profession.

I have often seen derogatory opinions expressed (mostly by PGA members) that the PSA is too academic and not management-oriented in its approach.

On the other hand, PSA often complains that it is not included in the design of professional services taken on by the PGA and has cause for concern in the lack of suitable outcomes.

On the PSA side the famous Charlie Benrimoj comment pertaining to “gorillas” to describe some PGA executives, the John Menadue address at last year’s PAC (that was regarded as a “stir” by the PGA) created explosive reaction.

The MoU between PSA and the RACGP also caused an over-reaction.

And now the spat over who provided the more positive influence in the 5CPA regarding the type of professional services best suited to pharmacy and the bucket of money set aside in addition to that established in December 2009.

Up until Warwick Plunkett came on the scene, the PSA had a policy of “hibernation” where activity or comment was held inside until any possibility of an argument dissipated.

The PGA has long taken advantage of that policy and used their money and the PSA passivity to drive an agenda that was very lopsided for Australian Pharmacy and Australian pharmacists.

The pharmacists of Australia (those that do not own pharmacies) have been appalled at PGA policies that detract from pharmacist development and growth, and a rift has occurred and professional divisions have occurred because of this.

You can’t divorce pharmacists from pharmacies because they provide the “core” business.
To promote one side to the exclusion of others simply does not make political or business sense.

The person who is more likely to make first contact with pharmacy patients will be a PSA member (who may also be a PGA member) and less often, a straight PGA member.

So there is no doubt in my mind that the claims made by the PSA in the above story ring true, and the PGA simply had another “knee-jerk”.

Secrecy provisions insisted on by Nicola Roxon was the main reason offered up as to why PSA was excluded from the process.

We can only ask why wasn’t the national PSA president included in the same secrecy contract?
No problems with integrity there.

The PSA claims that they contacted Nicola Roxon on a direct basis about the inadequacies of the PGA approach and funding contained in the 5CPA.
An alternative proposition was put forward and it gained an extra $300 million funding.

It is unlikely that the PSA would make false claims and then publicise them through all national media. Their statements ring true and they have gained traction.

The proposed program will integrate with other services and programs provided by community pharmacy such as Dose Administration Aids, Medicines Use Reviews and Home Medicines Reviews.
As Warwick Plunkett states:

“Overseas experience will undoubtedly be drawn upon, but the unique factors of the Australian pharmacy environment mean that no off - the-shelf program will suffice.
We have to make sure it fits the needs of Australian patients and pharmacists from the start, and that it works from the start – which means that pharmacists are encouraged to take it up from the start.”

This is genuine leadership being initiated by Warwick Plunkett and I salute him for it.

And the PSA leadership ability is what Kos Sclavos is reacting to with his temper tantrums.

With little effort he is being out-manoeuvred politically, and his claims to all of pharmacy leadership aspirations are being shown up as being rather lacklustre.

Why else would anyone send a letter to all PGA members and describe Warwick Plunkett’s claims as “false and misleading”?

Particularly given the rate and quantity of “spin” that comes out from the PGA castle.

”Methinks he dost protest too much.”

And maybe the profit aspirations that the PGA place on systems such as eRx, Mirixa etc may now have a few dents in them, causing further heartburn and maybe even a rethink by members as to the conflict of interest levels ins systems such as eRx.

It appears that much of the 5CPA funding was to be diverted towards eRx which is more a tool than a professional service.

With an MoU with the RACGP in place, the PSA would have every right to throw its weight behind Medisecure, the system that is independently funded (but endorsed by the RACGP) and automatically accepted by GP’s.
After all, PSA and RACGP are basically “sister” organisations.
Medisecure has no problem in conforming to standards and also receives the government 15c rebate. eRx is not standards-based.

Recent events illustrated that the PSA direct to government approach was the one best suited for the government funding of professional services.
The fact that these later inputs to the 5CPA became the main game, showed PGA leadership and negotiating tactics and inputs to be lacking.
Because PSA became “the main game” what does that say about the PGA?

All pharmacists should lend their support to Warwick Plunkett’s leadership – not to create divisions, but to ensure a level playing field to enable proper development of clinical pharmacy programs.

The blunting of the more corrosive of PGA policies is applauded.

Clinical Newsfeed

Click here to read more...

Research Reports

Practice Development

Information Technology

Indigenous Health

Preventive Medicine

i2P Alliance Partners