26th October 2012
Sector Regulation Team
Department of Health
Room 229 Richmond House
79 Whitehall
London SW1A 2NS
Securing best value for NHS patients
Response from the Guild of Healthcare Pharmacists
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to this consultation. The Guild of Healthcare Pharmacists
represents UK wide around 4,000 pharmacists including the majority of hospital pharmacists, pharmacists
employed by NHS Primary Care organisations and pharmacists employed by other public bodies such as
Prisons and the Care Quality Commission. The Guild is part of the health sector of the union Unite.
We wish to offer the following comments based on the questions put forward in the consultation paper:
1. Procurement
 With the significant changes in commissioning we feel that the expertise in procurement that


previously existed may be lost. Commissioning colleagues may appreciate greater clarity on what is
appropriate procedure. The need for detailed rules are even more important as we no longer have a
clear purchaser/provider split in that many of the new commissioners are also potential providers of
services with a vested economic interest in the outcome, and it is in the interests of patients that
formal rules are maintained and are clearly seen to be effective, transparent and rigorously
independent commissioning.
Using UK and EU legislation may not be sufficient to ensure compliance with good procurement
practice. The advice sources available to commissioners are at risk during the change and transition
period.
The approach to monitoring procurement practice of commissioners could appear disjointed. Our
concern is that no one organisation is taking a complete over view. It would be beneficial to have
standard national procurement templates for services deemed appropriate or being centrally
promoted for commissioning under the AQP or other route of service commissioning rather than
different provider requirements by each commissioner. This would reduce the burden between
providers and allow appropriate quality monitoring across commissioners and/or providers. There
appears to be no requirement for Commissioners to declare any or the scale of the direct or indirect
benefit from any contract awards that is and will remain publicly accessible.
President: David Miller
Professional Secretary: Barry Corbett
Email: [email protected]
Website: www.ghp.org.uk
1
2. Patient choice
 Although we agree that the proposed regulations should protect patient’s rights to exercise choice we
find it difficult to comment on the need for further safeguards to protect the extension of choice as
additional recommendations mentioned are not outlined in the proposals.
3. Anti-competitive conduct
 We do not agree with an ‘effects based approach’ for asserting restrictive conduct by commissioners.
The wording of this question is not helpful. There needs to be an assurance that the patient’s best
interests are at the heart of any tendering. This should be outlined in the tendering / procurement
document so all are clear. By having patient representatives review commissioning procurement
processes would enhance this.
 Whilst a register of interests is important there should also be a formal requirement to declare and
quantify any actual or potential direct or indirect benefit from each individual contract that may be
commissioned.
 In order to ensure that commissioners understand the requirements to ‘self-assess’ whether or not their
conduct falls within the rules, we feel that there needs to be clear worked real life examples.
 Procurement expertise needs to be retained within the NHS structures.
4. Conflicts of Interest
 We do not agree that the Act and draft requirements impose sufficient safeguards to ensure that
commissioners manage conflicts of interest appropriately. The wording in the consultation paper
suggests that commissioners may self-regulate this aspect. We therefore suggest that individuals are
removed from commissioning decisions where they have a conflict of interest.
5. Further comments
 The consultation paper has divided the questions on procurement and anti-competitive conduct. We
feel that there should be a statement on ‘transparency’ with a requirement that all individuals involved
in commissioning decisions should provide a publicly available full declaration of interests, and this
should include any ‘patients’ who might be involved. This additional requirement should help ensure
that EU requirements for public procurement would be followed in terms of tendering/contracting.
 We also feel that there should be external audit of processes. External audit would provide assurances
on all accounts and processes.
Barry Corbett
Professional Secretary
Guild of Healthcare Pharmacists
Heather Weaver
South East Region/Primary Care
Representative
Guild of Healthcare Pharmacists
2