RCVS Council awaits DTI developments on medicines

At its meeting last June, RCVS Council agreed that a Competition Commission Working Party (CCWP) should be set up to consider the potential for, and benefits of, incorporating some of the Commission’s recommendations into the RCVS Guide to Professional Conduct, as a possible alternative to legislation.

Much work was carried out by the CCWP over the summer months and a number of proposals were drawn up for Council’s attention in October.

However, just one week before Council was to consider these proposals, the House of Commons Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs published a report of its investigations into the provision of farm veterinary services.

In it, they voiced their concern that “…neither DEFRA nor the Competition Commission appear to have obtained a clear picture of how veterinary practice income is derived…[and] that the…recommendations could lead to a reduction in the number of practices providing large animal services”.

The report stated that this could affect DEFRA’s ability to achieve the objectives of its animal health and welfare and surveillance strategies.

In the light of these serious concerns, Council agreed that it would be premature for the RCVS to implement any of the Competition Commission’s recommendations until DEFRA and others had responded to the Select Committee Report and it was clear what the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) intended to do.

Nevertheless, in supporting the sentiments of the Chief Veterinary Officer that, “It is important for the College to be on the front foot rather than the back foot”, Council agreed to prepare for a potential DTI decision to proceed with implementation of the Commission’s recommendations.

Council accepted that legislation would inevitably be inflexible and would be enforced by the Office of Fair Trading through the courts, whereas RCVS guidance, though no less effective, would leave more room for professional judgement and allow practices to accommodate the Commission’s recommendations in accordance with their usual procedures.

After lengthy discussion, Council agreed to the draft guidance in principle as a sensible and pragmatic way forward, and endorsed the CCWP’s proposal that it would be preferable to implement the recommendations through the Guide wherever possible, rather than the legislation drafted by the DTI.

The draft proposed guidance, which had been agreed with the DTI, included lifting the restrictions on publicising medicine prices, ensuring clients and others were made aware of POM prices and that a prescription could be requested in order to obtain these medicines elsewhere.

The language of the Competition Commission had been used, for example, to set out the need for notices in practice premises to display information about the latter requirements.

It was noted that RCVS had neither power nor wish to implement the recommendation that prescriptions should be provided free of charge. This would be a matter solely for legislation if introduced.

In conclusion, it was agreed that Officers, in consultation with the Chairman of Advisory Committee, should be authorised to finalise the text of any RCVS guidance to be issued to the profession should it seem appropriate to implement the Commission’s recommendations to reduce the extent of legislation under the Fair Trading Act.