Pharmacy World & Science

, Volume 32, Issue 4, pp 488–495 | Cite as

Exploring the impact of evolving health policy on independent pharmacy ownership in England

  • W. GidmanEmail author
Research Article


Objective To study the impact of policy and contractual changes on community pharmacy ownership in England. Setting North West of England. Method Twenty nine male pharmacists were interviewed between September 2007 and February. 2008. The study involved semi-structured face to face interviews with theoretically sampled respondents. Data were analysed using the constant comparative method. Main outcome measure English community pharmacists’ opinions and experiences. Results Practice ownership attracted some respondents to pharmacy as a career. Respondents considered that a combination of legislative and policy changes in combination with contractual alterations had decreased the profitability of independent pharmacy businesses. Additionally, it seemed that community pharmacy corporate groups were able to out bid individual pharmacists for community pharmacy businesses. A proportion of respondents had sold community pharmacy businesses recently, in some cases in response to contractual and policy changes. Some considered that the declining proportion of independent pharmacies was likely to limit patient choice as well as affecting the profession. Some felt this made pharmacy a less attractive career choice. Conclusion It seems that recent policy and contractual changes have favoured the multiple community pharmacy sector in England, resulting in a declining proportion of independent community pharmacies. Policy makers must consider the far reaching consequences of this for pharmacists, the profession and patient choice.


Community pharmacy Deregulation Independent community pharmacist Pharmacy contract Pharmacy workforce Primary care United Kingdom 



I would like to thank all participants who gave up time to be interviewed for their contribution to this study.


This study was funded by the University of Central Lancashire, Preston.

Conflict of interests statement

The author has no conflicts of interest to declare.


  1. 1.
    Kanavos P, Tater D, Taylor D. Regulating pharmaceutical distribution and retail pharmacy in Europe. Maidenhead: Open University Press; 2004.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Vogler S, Arts D, Habl C. Community pharmacy in Europe—lessons from deregulation case studies. 2006. Accessed 12 Feb 2009.
  3. 3.
    MacArthur D. European pharmaceutical distribution: key players, challenges and future strategies. 2007. Accessed 12 Feb 2010.
  4. 4.
    Anell A. Deregulating the pharmacy market: the case of Iceland and Norway. Health Policy. 2004;75(1):9–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Schmidt R, Pioche E. Community pharmacies under pressure. Int J Retail Distrib Manag. 2004;32(7):354–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    PSNC. Control of entry. 2009. Accessed 15 Nov 2009.
  7. 7.
    Mohammed J, Marriot J, Langley C, Wilson K. Community pharmacists perceptions on the loss of resale price maintenance. Int J Pharm Pract. 2002;10:R44.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    The Pharmaceutical Journal. Resale price maintenance at an end. Pharm J. 2001;266:666–7.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Creyer E, Hrsistodoulakis I, Cole C. Changing a drug from Rx to OTC status: the consumer behavior and public policy implications of switch drugs. J Prod Brand Manag. 2001;10(1):52–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hao Chan X, Wuliji T. Global pharmacy workforce and migration report—a call to action. 2006. Accessed 12 Feb 2009.
  11. 11.
    van Mil JW, Schulz M. A review of pharmaceutical care in community pharmacy in Europe. Harv Health Policy Rev. 2006;7(1):155–68.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bond CM. Evolution and change in community pharmacy. 2003. Accessed 12 Feb 2009.
  13. 13.
    Department of Health. Pharmacy in England. Building on strengths—delivering the future. 2008. Accessed 12 Feb 2009.
  14. 14.
    Department of Health. Choosing health through pharmacy. 2005. Accessed 12 Feb 2010.
  15. 15.
    Department of Health. A vision for pharmacy in the new NHS. London: DoH; 2003.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Department of Health. Pharmacy in the future—implementing the NHS plan: a programme for pharmacy. London: DoH; 2000.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Department of Health. Contractual framework for community pharmacy. 2009. Accessed 29 Jul 2009.
  18. 18.
    Kendall J, Sibbald B, Ashcroft D, Bradley F, Elvey R, Hassell K, et al. Role and uptake of local pharmaceutical services contracts in commissioning community pharmacy services. Pharm J. 2005;274:454–7.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    NHS—The Information Centre. General pharmaceutical services in England and Wales 1998–99 to 2007–08. 2008. Accessed 25 Nov 2008.
  20. 20.
    Blenkinsopp A, Bond CM, Celino G, Inch J, Gray N. National evaluation of the new pharmacy contract. 2008. Accessed 29 Jul 2009.
  21. 21.
    Verdict Research Limited. UK retail pharmacy market 2006. 2006. Accessed 15 Nov 2009.
  22. 22.
    Hoffman J. SEMPORA market survey: the UK pharmacy market. 2008. Accessed 16 Nov 2009.
  23. 23.
    Key Note Publications Ltd. Retail chemists & drugstores market report. 2008. Accessed 16 Nov 2009.
  24. 24.
    Gidman W, Hassell K, Day J, Payne K. The impact of increasing workloads and role expansion on female community pharmacists in the United Kingdom. Res Soc Adm Pharm. 2006;3(3):285–302.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Gidman W, Hassell K, Day J, Payne K. Does community pharmacy offer women family friendly working conditions and equal opportunities? The accounts of female community pharmacists over the age of 30. Int J Pharm Pract. 2007;15:53–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Gidman W, Hassell K, Day J, Payne K. Let’s get practical: does it pay for female community pharmacists to work? Pharm J. 2007;278(7454):645–9.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Gidman W, Day J, Hassell K, Payne K. Delivering healthcare through community pharmacy: factors affecting female pharmacists’ workforce participation. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2009;14(3):141–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Green J, Britten N. Qualitative research and evidence based medicine. Br Med J. 1998;316:1230–40.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Pope C. Qualitative research: reaching the parts other methods can not reach: an introduction to qualitative methods. Br Med J. 1995;311:42–5.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Strauss A, Corbin J. Basics of qualitative research: techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. 2nd ed. London: Sage; 1998.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Hassell K, Seston E, Eden M. Pharmacy workforce census 2005: main findings. 2006. Accessed 19 Mar 2007.
  32. 32.
    Bush J, Langley CA, Wilson KA. The corporatization of community pharmacy: implications for service provision, the public health function, and pharmacy’s claims to professional status in the United Kingdom. RSAP. 2009;5(4):305–18.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Curia. Ownership and operation of pharmacies can be restricted to pharmacists alone. 2009. Accessed 26 Nov 2009.
  34. 34.
    Nuffield Committee of Inquiry into Pharmacy. Pharmacy: a report to the Nuffield Foundation. London: The Nuffield Foundation; 1986.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Scottish Government. The right medicine—pharmaceutical care in Scotland. 2002. Accessed 1 Mar 2010.
  36. 36.
    Bellingham C. Introducing the new Scottish contract. Pharm J. 2005;275:637.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
  38. 38.
    The Pharmaceutical Journal. Marketing scheme lifts sales for UniChem. Pharm J. 2003;270:467.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Strathclyde Institute of Pharmacy and Biomedical Sciences, John Arbuthnott BuildingUniversity of StrathclydeGlasgowScotland, UK

Personalised recommendations