Should pharmacy ownership take priority over liberalisation of pharmacies? A feature article last month titled European Law Report: For Pharmacists Only, indicated that the ownership and operation of pharmacies, according to the European Court of Justice, can be restricted to pharmacists only.
In view of the Pharmacy of Your Choice Scheme, we have thousands of Maltese people who are already collecting their free medicines from private non-pharmacist owned pharmacies, whereas others have already submitted their application forms. This merits some serious thinking, I guess.
The same article says, "pharmacists, when employees and not self-employed, could find it difficult to oppose instructions given by the non-pharmacist employer".
One can never generalise but yes, it is of paramount importance that the employed pharmacist is free to exert his/her professional duties and responsibilities.
So, as long as the employed pharmacist is not forced to do this or that by his/her employer, there's nothing wrong in private pharmacies being owned by non-pharmacists.
One has to remember that not every pharmacist has enough investment to own a pharmacy full-time.
Owning a pharmacy also means no leave or sick leave, and hundreds of expensive medicines and other products having to be bought and sold before they expire. Not all pharmacists are therefore ready for such a great commitment.
On the other hand, several other pharmacists also seek employment in private pharmacies solely as a part-time job to boost their income.
What will happen to this category of pharmacists (whether employed on full or part-time basis) if all pharmacies become pharmacist-owned? Please, for those who intend to reply, don't mention the few cases here and there where pharmacists have to employ other pharmacists.
What bothers me, however, is that a good number of employed pharmacists, whether on full or part-time basis, are paid a pittance.
This, in my humble opinion, is abuse and should stop. This fact, although often denied by owners, is also felt by the owners themselves when they desperately start phoning scores of pharmacists to work for them when they need one. These pharmacy owners should realise that if they start offering better remuneration rates, it would be much easier for them to recruit pharmacists.
I feel that UĦM, the union which represents employed pharmacists, has never given due attention to this category of pharmacists who unlike their counterparts (government pharmacists), are afraid to voice their concerns.
The union should negotiate with the relevant authorities, the minimum permitted remuneration rates as per law for both full and part-time pharmacists and pharmacy technicians alike.
Now, whether a pharmacist with less than five years of experience should receive the same pay as the other who has over 10 years experience is also subject to debate.
Moreover, an employed pharmacists, is often required to collect the doctors/specialists' fees.
This may feel like quite a downgrading job for most pharmacists as no other professional should have to run after the money of another professional! Without a doubt, this also means that the pharmacist has to shoulder extra monetary responsibilities.
The article also fails to mention the long overdue problem of frozen permits hindering the opening of new pharmacies. I once read a statement on a newspaper saying that there are more frozen applications for the establishment of new pharmacies than for the existing ones!
Therefore, as this sector remains unliberalised, it is pointless discussing who should own a private pharmacy at this stage. Is competition healthy or not for the consumers?