RCVS Response to DTI Medicines Consultation

Neither the public interest nor the long-term future of veterinary services would be served by the Department of Trade and Industry's suggestion that veterinary surgeons redistribute prescription-writing fees across the cost of all consultations, according to the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons.

This was one of several comments made as part of the RCVS's response to the DTI's consultation on the proposed order for prescription-only medicines (POMs).

The RCVS believes that the suggestion to cover the cost of a written prescription service for those who want it within the general consultation fee, provided that the same fee is charged to all clients, "has added insult to injury" and "seems to be encouraging the profession to be less than transparent in its charging".

Stephen Ware, MRCVS, Chairman of the RCVS Medicines Working Group, expands: "It is hard to imagine that clients who do not want a prescription, but who will be disproportionately affected, will be convinced by the DTI's assertion that the proposed changes are in the public interest.

"If, as a consequence of the resulting overall increase in charges, an animal receives less veterinary attention, the health of that animal may be jeopardised, as well as the commercial viability of the practice and, consequentially, the public's access to veterinary services."

In any event, the RCVS has no wish to implement the recommendation for a zero prescription fee, and has consistently stated that is has no power to do so.

Another area of concern in the draft order included the display of a "Top Ten" list of recently-prescribed POM products which, the College feels, would not be appropriate in all cases, for example, specialist referral practices who routinely prescribe a more limited number of medicines.  

Looking at the overlap between the Veterinary Medicines Directorate's draft Veterinary Medicines Regulations 2005 (largely designed to implement EU Directive 2004/28/EC) and the DTI's draft Order, the College stated that the notion that such price-lists should only include generic names was flawed and would not offer any meaningful information to clients, who are largely unaware of the distinction between generic and trade names.

In conclusion, the RCVS believes that the measures outlined will not meet the Competition Commission and DTI's stated aim of reducing costs to the general public. Instead the opposite may be the result, effectively increasing both veterinary fees and the cost of medicines from other sources, thus potentially reducing the general public's reliance on the profession, particularly in livestock areas.

Despite these and other misgivings outlined by the RCVS, it seems clear that the DTI is intent on implementing the Competition Commission's recommendations in full, although it has indicated that it may be happy to see implementation of some of the recommendations through the RCVS Guide to Professional Conduct.

The College considers those elements that will enable the profession to offer improved practice standards and better services to their clients and their animals could be enforced through the Guide. 

If this is agreed by RCVS Council and DTI Ministers, these items would no longer appear in the legislation.  However, those aspects upon which the College cannot or does not wish to act, for example, in relation to pricing and charges, are likely to remain in the DTI's order.

Enforcement through the Guide is preferable to implementation through an Order, as it will allow the profession to maintain its self-regulation.

To this end, RCVS Council approved proposed changes to the Guide at its October 2003 meeting in order to comply with the Competition Commission's recommendations and these were included with the RCVS response to the consultation.

However, the RCVS currently awaits feedback from the DTI regarding the status of concurrent consultation by DEFRA on the draft Veterinary Medicines Regulations, which may mean that the Competition Commission's recommendations need to be further clarified before implementation.

The proposed changes to the Guide will therefore be reviewed at the forthcoming 2 June 2005 Council meeting.