Government pharmacists' service

I refer to the article discussing the pharmacy of your choice scheme (July 12). Since when are Maryanne Sant Fournier and Mario Debono in a position to state that government pharmacists do not give an adequate service to the patient? Or were these statements made in an attempt to put the government pharmacists and the service they give in a bad light while glorifying the pharmacist within the private sector?

Are Mr Debono's beliefs on the "token payment" to be taken as prophetical foretelling that medicines will no longer be free? And will this token payment Mr Debono mentions be over and above the Lm8 given by the government which will end up in the pharmacy owner's pockets? Government pharmacies are already curtailing abuses as they issue all items against a prescription and according to the patient's entitlement. They are also free from any financial conflict of interest that may be present in retail pharmacies.

Government pharmacists always give the advice required while answering any queries to the best of their abilities and to the patient's satisfaction. They are already giving a high quality service as most of the time they can contact the prescriber directly, and can consult other medical professionals in real time. Thus there is an inter-professional relationship providing a true seamless patient-centred service. In contrast privately employed pharmacists are sometimes under pressure by owners to work faster and sell rather than advise. Who can guarantee that patients collecting their medicines via POYC will be given the same treatment as the regular buying clients? The UHM was told that they will have to wait for the deck to be clear of regular customers before the POYC clients are seen to!

As regards drug interactions and dosage regimens, government pharmacists are always on the lookout as every pharmacy professional should be. Or did the private pharmacist follow a different university course?! When asked by patients if they can take medications with other medications, patients are given the attention required. To further aid in the service they provide, government pharmacists also have access to the Pharmacy Information Unit and online information systems.

If the government had invested earlier in human and financial resources, the queues mentioned would not exist. The claim that elderly and disabled people have to queue for hours is unfounded. Everyone knows that they are given priority in the queues, and the national commissions for disabled and elderly can confirm this fact.

With just a few more pharmacists in the public sector the government would better its service and drastically decrease queues. The government is planning to spend an extra Lm1,120,000 annually of taxpayers' money (as a bonus to private pharmacies) for this scheme, rising Lm140,000 annually. We believe that if a fraction of these funds are invested in the government pharmaceutical service the service quality would improve while controlling government expenditure.

The patient must judge wisely what he's being told. The picture as given in the article is all nice and rosy, almost heavenly, but what comes after the promises might be very different. The patient-centred policy both the GRTU and Chamber are lobbying for appears to be backed by a government lobbying that is vote-centred. Discussions with the UHM should have started from day one and not after the GRTU and Chamber of Pharmacists planned it all to suit their members and ultimately their pockets.