Feedback from special neighbourhood forum in Bootle
I attended a special meeting of the Seascale Whicham Neighbourhood forum in Bootle Station village hall this evening.
The subject of the meeting was the government's proposals on pharmacies and the possible impact on the Seascale surgery and their Bootle branch.
The meeting was attended by just over 100 local residents, not counting the councillors, doctors, PCT representative, and other guest speakers.
Doctor Barry Walker, senior partner of the local GP practice, explained that the government is proposing to ban practices from dispensing where there is another pharmacy within a mile. As there is one over the road in Seascale, this would affect them. The pharmacy at Seascale surgery raises a very significant proportion of the income of the practice, and the loss of that income would, in Dr Walker's opinion, probably make it impossible for them to continue to operate the Bootle branch surgery.
Also present at the meeting were representatives of the PCT, county and district councils. All the other speakers expressed support for Dr Walker's position and broadly agreed that the government it proposing to impose on the whole country a policy which is right for Urban areas but very wrong for rural areas like Cumbria.
As the PCT representative said, "Cumbria's different, we are not in the middle of Manchester."
I asked about the potential cumulative impact on the rural GP service of the pharmacy policy, proposals for "super-surgeries" or "polyclinics" and Alan Johnson's stated intention to abolish the minimum practice guarantee scheme which keeps many small surgeries open. Dr Walker said that he was very concerned about the potential impact of these schemes.
One very interesting point came out of a question from a local resident, who asked why we needed money from the pharmacy to provide GP services. The PCT representative confirmed that the scheme to pay for GP services does not fully take account of the extra costs of servicing sparsely populated rural areas.
The government will be launching a public consultation on the subject, possibly later this month (e.g. the peak holiday season ! Typical !)
The strong feeling at the meeting, with which I entirely agree, is that everyone should send in the strongest possible response to that consultation objecting to these proposals.
The subject of the meeting was the government's proposals on pharmacies and the possible impact on the Seascale surgery and their Bootle branch.
The meeting was attended by just over 100 local residents, not counting the councillors, doctors, PCT representative, and other guest speakers.
Doctor Barry Walker, senior partner of the local GP practice, explained that the government is proposing to ban practices from dispensing where there is another pharmacy within a mile. As there is one over the road in Seascale, this would affect them. The pharmacy at Seascale surgery raises a very significant proportion of the income of the practice, and the loss of that income would, in Dr Walker's opinion, probably make it impossible for them to continue to operate the Bootle branch surgery.
Also present at the meeting were representatives of the PCT, county and district councils. All the other speakers expressed support for Dr Walker's position and broadly agreed that the government it proposing to impose on the whole country a policy which is right for Urban areas but very wrong for rural areas like Cumbria.
As the PCT representative said, "Cumbria's different, we are not in the middle of Manchester."
I asked about the potential cumulative impact on the rural GP service of the pharmacy policy, proposals for "super-surgeries" or "polyclinics" and Alan Johnson's stated intention to abolish the minimum practice guarantee scheme which keeps many small surgeries open. Dr Walker said that he was very concerned about the potential impact of these schemes.
One very interesting point came out of a question from a local resident, who asked why we needed money from the pharmacy to provide GP services. The PCT representative confirmed that the scheme to pay for GP services does not fully take account of the extra costs of servicing sparsely populated rural areas.
The government will be launching a public consultation on the subject, possibly later this month (e.g. the peak holiday season ! Typical !)
The strong feeling at the meeting, with which I entirely agree, is that everyone should send in the strongest possible response to that consultation objecting to these proposals.
Comments