Rushport secures relocation of two pharmacies to local health centres after oral hearing
Welcome to our Blog. Your one stop shop to keep up to date with all the latest goings on.
Just click on a news story headline or picture to read more about it.
Who does more to improve the quality of pharmacy services, the GPhC, CQC or HMRC?
A recent tax case shold be of interest to all pharmacies who dispense private prescriptions and especially those who are linked to online doctor consultations
Successfully opposing pharmacy applications
Rushport acts for local contractors in two areas to successfully oppose new pharmacy applications
Distance Selling Pharmacies and Some Predictions for the Future
Rushport acts for a number of well known multiple pharmacy operators as well as new entrants to the market to secure new distance selling pharmacy contracts.
New Pharmacy Contract for Ashford
Rushport secures a new pharmacy contract in Ashford after an oral hearing despite a similar application being refused at a previous hearing.
Relocation of London pharmacy to Medical Centre
Rushport secures permission for our client to relocate their pharmacy to a medical centre in east London
Multiple Pharmacy Relocations Approved After an Oral Hearing
Acting for Chemicare (Coventry) Limited, Rushport has successfully overturned the decision of NHS England to refuse two relocation applications submitted in respect of the same pharmacy, for two different addresses.
New Pharmacy Contract Approval in Braintree under Regulation 18
Acting on behalf of Borno Chemists Limited we have secured permission to open a new pharmacy at a medical centre in Braintree and successfully defended against another contractor's application to open at the same site.
Important changes proposed for 100 hour pharmacies and distance selling pharmacies.
Defending Against a Contract Application by Local Doctors
In February we were instructed by a large multiple pharmacy operator to represent them at an oral hearing in the north west and defend against an application that had been submitted by a group of local doctors who also had dispensing rights at their local medical centre and also operated the next nearest medical centre. As our client's pharmacy was the only one for several miles, the doctors argued that the issue of choice should be given considerable weight. They also argued that they would provide innovative services and that it was difficult for patients to access the existing pharmacy due to both its location and its hours of opening. In addition, the doctors also had a local councillor who arrived at the hearing to give evidence about what local people had told him about pharmacy services.
The hearing was a long one as the doctors had significant amounts of evidence and we wanted to challenge most of it. We submitted that the doctor's application lacked credibility and was also inconsistent. We also argued that despite the doctor's claim that they would give up their dispensing rights if the pharmacy was permitted to open. this was highly unlikely to happen in the circumstances of this case.
We were able to show that the evidence from the local councillor was inaccurate and that he had failed to disclose any negative comments that had been made by local people. In addition, the services that were being described as innovative were either not relevant under the Regulations or were already being provided. The Committee accepted our submission that the existing pharmacy was well located for local people (unlike the doctor's surgery) and whilst the doctors were offering longer opening hours we were able to show that few, if any, patients used the existing 100 hour pharmacy located a few miles away.
For any Committee to be able to decide on applications like this they require evidence that is credible and reliable. There is no point in simply disagreeing with what an applicant has said if you have nothing to back it up and whilst the burden of proof is on the applicant, no objector should simply hope that they fail to meet the burden of proof. The case presented by the doctors and their representatives was well thought through and a lot of work had gone in to it, but inconsistencies and lack of evidence to support statements made in the early stages of the application process meant that is was difficult to accept what the applicant was claiming.
The Committee refused the application.