Copy of email received today from the PDA

So Lloyds Pharmacy and Bupa have already have their interpretations of the RP regulations brought into question by the RPSGB (PJ Online article below)

http://www.pjonline.com/news/pda_claims_rp_rules_are_being_interpreted_unfairly

I guess that this was always going to happen with any new working practices but it will be interesting to see how the RPSGB respond. The problems have been highlighted by the PDA who suggest that the Society may have changed the RP guidelines in favour of the multiples. I hope that this was not done intentionally and that the multiples wouldn’t “place” people on the council to make sure their commercial interests are represented ahead of the professional interests of their employee pharmacists. Maybe I’m being niave  to think they wouldn’t as their main objective is to maximise shareholder (or owner) return. Linking this to the recent European Court Ruling

http://www.pjonline.com/forum/pharmacy_ownership_0

The PDA have shown that they are acting in the interest of the individual pharmacist. Is this an example of how a leopard never changes it’s spots and that the new PLB will still put bricks-and-mortar pharmacies ahead of flesh-and-blood pharmacist as it always seems to have done. I hope it isn’t because if it is, why should i join it?