We know what happened in Ontario!
Here's what happened in BC !
http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2010/07/09/bc-generic-drug-costs.html
---------------------------------------------
B.C. slashes generic drug costs
Joins Ont., Que., Alberta in cutting prices
Last Updated: Friday, July 9, 2010 3:33 PM ET Comments95Recommend52
CBC News
B.C. will slash the cost of some generic prescription drugs under a new deal reached with pharmacists. (CBC)
The price of generic prescription drugs in B.C. will drop by almost 50 per cent under a new deal reached with drug stores and pharmacists, according the Health Minister Kevin Falcon.
"Quite simply, we were paying too much for some of the most popular drugs for high blood pressure, heartburn, depression, epilepsy and cholesterol," said Falcon on Friday morning. "Change was needed if we want to keep drug costs sustainable and redirect the money to cover new drugs and provide better services."
Under the deal, the cost of generic prescription drugs will drop from 65 per cent of the brand name cost to 35 per cent.
Just as Ontario did when it moved to slash generic prices this spring, B.C. will achieve the savings by scaling back the rebates pharmacists get from generic drug manufacturers for selling their drugs, which can run as high as 60 to 70 per cent of the dollar value of the drug.
Ontario eliminated those rebates completely (B.C. is merely reducing them) and mandated that generics cost no more than 25 per cent of the brand drug, down from 50 per cent, effective July 1.
The new prices in B.C. will apply only to drugs covered by PharmaCare but will be available to employee and union drug plans and customers who pay for drugs out of pocket.
Ontario has made the deepest cuts to generic drug prices, but Alberta and Quebec have also recently reached similar cost-cutting deals with the industry.
The B.C. deal is expected to save the government about $170 million a year in PharmaCare purchases while union- and employer-sponsored drug plans and individuals buying their own drugs are expected to save another $210 million per year.
The deal, which will be phased in over three years, will also increase dispensing fees for pharmacists to help them cover the decline in revenue from the reduced prices.
The province spends more than $900 million a year on prescription drugs through the PharmaCare program, with generic drugs accounting for nearly $300 million of that amount.
PharmaCare covers some of the cost of prescription drugs for British Columbians who fall into a specified income bracket.Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2010/07/09/bc-generic-drug-costs.html#ixzz0uBdXgQ00
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
RESULTS FROM EGM
160 BC Pharmacists met up to discuss about the regulation of phamracists!
Here is what they talked about!
------------------------------------------------------
UPDATE ON THE EXTRAORDINARY GENERAL MEETING JULY 13, 2010
Thank you for standing up for our profession! Thank you for speaking out on behalf of our patients!
Over 160 pharmacists attended the Extraordinary General Meeting (EGM) on July 13, 2010. Many pharmacists voiced their concerns and questioned the regulation of pharmacy technicians. Disappointingly, the College Board left most questions unanswered.
Two Board members, Bev Harris and Doug Kipp resigned to speak freely about their concerns against regulation. Pharmacists spoke overwhelmingly against regulation concerned with how public safety and their careers would be affected. This was confirmed by a vote with over 85% of Pharmacists in favour of a resolution not to regulate pharmacy technicians.
Below are some highlights from the meeting:
Liability:
The College Board was asked to provide every pharmacist in B.C. with a letter signed by the registrar and a legal counsellor that exonerates Pharmacists from liability for errors made by regulated pharmacy technicians in both provincial and federal courts.
Many pharmacists assume that we will not be liable for errors made by regulated pharmacy technicians because regulated pharmacy technicians will carry their own liability insurance. But liability will be determined in a court of law. During the meeting, the College Board stated that regulated pharmacy technicians would be liable for their own work. But they have never stated that pharmacists will NOT be liable for the work of regulated pharmacy technicians. The bottom line is that regulated pharmacy technicians will work unsupervised yet pharmacists will still be liable for their errors.
Public Safety and Certification:
The College mandate is to serve and protect the public. Yet their creation of a new health profession of individuals with as little as on-the-job training up to a maximum of 8 months of education receiving verbal prescriptions and performing the final check does not ensure public safety. During the EGM, a couple of Pharmacists pointed out that they must be involved in every step of dispensing from start to finish. That no separation exists between technical and cognitive—both are required to ensure that a prescription is filled correctly and must be completed in its entirety by a pharmacist to ensure public safety.
Why has the Board chosen not to certify? Making pharmacy technicians certified non-registrants is no doubt a better way to enhance public safety--it standardizes the education of pharmacy technicians and allows pharmacists to supervise and to continue to be involved in every task.
Cognitive Functions and Expanded Roles of Community Pharmacists
The College cannot guarantee that pharmacy technician regulation will lead to extra time for cognitive functions. The College cannot prevent chain drug stores from using regulated pharmacy technicians to cut pharmacist hours and decrease pharmacist wages. Chain drug stores will replace you with regulated technicians.
At the end of the meeting, a Pharmacist motioned to have a referendum sent to all Pharmacists across BC to vote on the regulation of technicians. The Board Chair, Randy Konrad, refused the referendum. A webinar was also requested prior to the EGM to enable Pharmacists across BC to partake in the meeting but the request was ignored.
Legality:
The Health Profession Act states that only the health services minister or the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council can designate a new health profession.
Federal Food & Drugs and Controlled Drugs & Substances Acts regulations designate the taking of verbal prescriptions of controlled drugs and narcotics by pharmacists only. It also states that “A pharmacist may transfer to another pharmacist a prescription for a schedule F Drug” –ie any prescription medications. (C.01.041.1)
The College of Pharmacists has no jurisdiction for creating a new health profession. Furthermore, you will be breaking the federal law if you allow a technician to perform functions proposed by the College of Pharmacists.
We call on the College Board to honour the vote from the EGM resolution and withdraw its initiative to regulate technicians and instead retain the present legislation and/or certify technicians.
Here is what they talked about!
------------------------------------------------------
UPDATE ON THE EXTRAORDINARY GENERAL MEETING JULY 13, 2010
Thank you for standing up for our profession! Thank you for speaking out on behalf of our patients!
Over 160 pharmacists attended the Extraordinary General Meeting (EGM) on July 13, 2010. Many pharmacists voiced their concerns and questioned the regulation of pharmacy technicians. Disappointingly, the College Board left most questions unanswered.
Two Board members, Bev Harris and Doug Kipp resigned to speak freely about their concerns against regulation. Pharmacists spoke overwhelmingly against regulation concerned with how public safety and their careers would be affected. This was confirmed by a vote with over 85% of Pharmacists in favour of a resolution not to regulate pharmacy technicians.
Below are some highlights from the meeting:
Liability:
The College Board was asked to provide every pharmacist in B.C. with a letter signed by the registrar and a legal counsellor that exonerates Pharmacists from liability for errors made by regulated pharmacy technicians in both provincial and federal courts.
Many pharmacists assume that we will not be liable for errors made by regulated pharmacy technicians because regulated pharmacy technicians will carry their own liability insurance. But liability will be determined in a court of law. During the meeting, the College Board stated that regulated pharmacy technicians would be liable for their own work. But they have never stated that pharmacists will NOT be liable for the work of regulated pharmacy technicians. The bottom line is that regulated pharmacy technicians will work unsupervised yet pharmacists will still be liable for their errors.
Public Safety and Certification:
The College mandate is to serve and protect the public. Yet their creation of a new health profession of individuals with as little as on-the-job training up to a maximum of 8 months of education receiving verbal prescriptions and performing the final check does not ensure public safety. During the EGM, a couple of Pharmacists pointed out that they must be involved in every step of dispensing from start to finish. That no separation exists between technical and cognitive—both are required to ensure that a prescription is filled correctly and must be completed in its entirety by a pharmacist to ensure public safety.
Why has the Board chosen not to certify? Making pharmacy technicians certified non-registrants is no doubt a better way to enhance public safety--it standardizes the education of pharmacy technicians and allows pharmacists to supervise and to continue to be involved in every task.
Cognitive Functions and Expanded Roles of Community Pharmacists
The College cannot guarantee that pharmacy technician regulation will lead to extra time for cognitive functions. The College cannot prevent chain drug stores from using regulated pharmacy technicians to cut pharmacist hours and decrease pharmacist wages. Chain drug stores will replace you with regulated technicians.
At the end of the meeting, a Pharmacist motioned to have a referendum sent to all Pharmacists across BC to vote on the regulation of technicians. The Board Chair, Randy Konrad, refused the referendum. A webinar was also requested prior to the EGM to enable Pharmacists across BC to partake in the meeting but the request was ignored.
Legality:
The Health Profession Act states that only the health services minister or the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council can designate a new health profession.
Federal Food & Drugs and Controlled Drugs & Substances Acts regulations designate the taking of verbal prescriptions of controlled drugs and narcotics by pharmacists only. It also states that “A pharmacist may transfer to another pharmacist a prescription for a schedule F Drug” –ie any prescription medications. (C.01.041.1)
The College of Pharmacists has no jurisdiction for creating a new health profession. Furthermore, you will be breaking the federal law if you allow a technician to perform functions proposed by the College of Pharmacists.
We call on the College Board to honour the vote from the EGM resolution and withdraw its initiative to regulate technicians and instead retain the present legislation and/or certify technicians.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
