Pharmacy vax claims need a pinch of salt

pharmacy vax

The success of new health services in community pharmacies should be measured by the way they integrate and communicate with the rest of primary care including general practice.

A trial in WA reported earlier this month that more than 15,000 influenza vaccinations were administered last year with no adverse effects. The Curtin University researchers declared the program a success, saying there was scope to expand pharmacist vaccination services to other vaccines and younger children.

Recently we’ve heard about the ‘success’ of pharmacy trials in several states. However, the question arises: by what measure are the trials a success?

Many of my patients tell me they’ve been vaccinated at a pharmacy but have forgotten where, when and with what exactly – and communication from the pharmacy is usually missing.

One of my frail elderly patients who came to see me for something else declined a government-funded influenza vaccination by our practice nurse because she was booked in to have a private vaccination at the pharmacy the following week, and felt she couldn’t cancel that appointment.

This goes against the argument that pharmacy vaccinations are only targeting people who don’t have a GP, or people who fall outside the national immunisation program.

Walk-in convenience at pharmacies is often mentioned as a benefit of the scheme, but the preferred model seems to be an appointment during specific pharmacy trading hours.

Narrow vision of health

Public health arguments, such as increased vaccination rates, are intuitively compelling; to a public health advocate, it doesn’t matter where vaccinations are delivered.

Most of these stand-alone models have failed to look at the impact on primary care as a whole

However, most of these stand-alone pharmacy models have failed to look at the impact on primary care as a whole, including general practice teams, at a time when primary care is supposed to be moving towards more integration and collaboration.

Other issues that have often been overlooked are clinical benefit to the public, costs to the patient and health system, and conflicts of interest within the pharmacy industry.

Data reported from Queensland immunisation trials, for example, were superficial, selective and showed elements of observer bias. The trials did not reveal evidence about the impact on vaccine-preventable disease outbreaks. There was no comparison with alternatives, such as walk-in vaccination clinics in general practice.

The impact of missed opportunities for screening and other preventive care in general practice was not looked at, and neither did the trials focus on much-needed better integration of care delivery.

Yet, there is ample evidence that increasing general practice comprehensiveness of care is associated with decreasing costs and hospitalisations. Each time a task is given to other providers, the effectiveness and safety of our current proven GP-model is eroded, and this will ultimately have consequences for the care delivered to Australian communities.

Communication, upselling and out-of-pocket costs

The trials also failed to look at whether the standard elements of privacy, documentation or GP notification were met.

Furthermore, there has been no mention of whether commercial practices have been monitored, such as using vaccinations as a means to onsell other products. As we know, the pharmacy business model relies heavily on upselling products to patients. There is a well-known conflict of interest in pharmacists delivering health services including vaccinations.

Australians already pay more out-of-pocket costs than in many other countries

One of the strengths of medication prescribing in Australia is the high degree of separation between the prescriber and the medication dispenser. It enables more objective prescribing, free of pecuniary interests and leads to better allocation of resources. This is another strong argument against moving more health services into the pharmacy environment.

However, it seems that the goal posts are shifting.

Australians already pay more out-of-pocket costs than in many other countries. It is likely that health services delivered in the commercial pharmacy environment will further increase costs to patients. For example, administration of the quadrivalent influenza vaccine by WA pharmacists came at a cost of $30-$40.

Not surprisingly, the recent Review of Pharmacy Remuneration and Regulation posed 140 thought-provoking questions about the current community pharmacy model. It is hoped that some of the issues will be resolved as a result of the review.

It is clear to me that the claimed success of pharmacy vaccinations has to be taken with a pinch of salt.

If community pharmacy is able to better integrate their services with the rest of primary care, including general practice, the resulting model has the potential to become truly successful.

If, on the other hand, the main drivers continue to be profit and sales – leading to more fragmentation and duplication – the model will fail and others may take over medication dispensing soon.

This article was originally published in Australian Doctor magazine (edited).

Follow me on Twitter: @EdwinKruysDisclaimer and disclosure notice.

4 thoughts on “Pharmacy vax claims need a pinch of salt

  1. Fragmentation of care invariably leads to worse and more costly care. We must resist this push by pharmacists and show the government the error of its ways. Unfortunately playing groups off against each other is a well trodden political path by Governments.
    Very foolish of the pharmacist to play this game.
    How will pharmacists react when corporate owners of practices push for automatic prescription dispensing machines in their waiting rooms?
    The technology is here right now and the arguments would be the same -lower costs and patient convenience….

    Like

    • You logic is faulty.

      Pharmacists providing a vaccination is not duplicating the services of a doctor.

      In addition, a vending machine cannot dispense medications, since dispensing is a clinical procedure that involves the utilisation of medication expertise and therapeutics to ensure the prescriber has not made an error or put the patient at risk. A vending machine can only “vend” without any clinical input.

      Like

I'd love to hear from you! Please leave a comment:

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s