Taoiseach Bertie Ahern today has said pharmacists are unfairly using recovering addicts as leverage in a dispute which could lead to some methadone users returning to heroin.
Answering questions from Labour Party leader Eamon Gilmore in the Dáil this morning, Mr Ahern said pharmacists had "no justification whatever" for withdrawing from the methadone dispensing scheme.
Taoiseach, Bertie Ahern
Around 140 pharmacies opted out the scheme on Monday in a dispute that came to a head over a plan to reduce margins on drugs dispensed to medical card holders from December.
Pharmacists have also been complaining for some time about the lack of HSE support for security measures they say are needed on premises where methadone is dispensed.
But Mr Ahern said: "There is no justification whatever for bringing recovering drug addicts into a dispute no matter whether it's called a commercial dispute or an industrial relations dispute. It's nothing to do with people who are doing their best to recover from an addiction problem ... it's a very unfair way to fight this dispute."
The HSE has put in place alternative arrangements for methadone users but experts say it is inevitable that some will return to heroin use because they cannot access their new dispensary.
"In the light of that, the action of 140 pharmacists to withdraw services from approximately 3,000 methadone patients - it's totally wrong and the same applies to threats to withdraw from dispensing drugs to Medical Card holders," Mr Ahern said.
He also supported the Health Service Executive's (HSE) contention that under competition law, it could not negotiate with pharmacists as this would in effect recognise them as a cartel.
And he urged them to continue with discussions through a forum chaired by senior counsel Bill Shipsey.
Mr Gilmore questioned the validity of the claim that the Competition Act 2002 precluded the HSE from negotiating with pharmacists.
Over the past year, the HSE negotiated with GPs and dentists and other State bodies had negotiated fees with the Bar Council, the Law Society and vets, Mr Gilmore said.
"How is that the Competition Act, which doesn't seem to have any problem in preventing negotiations between, if you like, the sole traders in other professions has suddenly arisen in respect of the pharmacists alone?" Mr Gilmore asked.
He said the Act was not intended to give rise to this situation and the amendment should be intruded if the anomaly really exists.
"If any State agency comes to any group of professional or any businesses and says we're going to cut your fees, we're going to cut you margins, we're going to cut them in half; no matter what the merits of that might be, they'd at least want to talk about it," Mr Gilmore said.
The lives of recovering addicts were "thrown into chaos" because the Government had failed to provide pharmacists with a means of resolving difficulties despite being aware for over of their concerns for a year.
The HSE had "unilaterally decided to cut the margins" endangering the viability of small community pharmacies, Mr Gilmore added.
"Some pharmacists tell me that the extent of that cut is that in some cases in respect of some drugs, they're now required to dispense at either below cost or certainly on a very low margin and that the consequence of this long term will be to put at risk the kind of independent local pharmacy that we're all familiar with."