The Sejm adopted an amendment to the Pharmaceutical Law Act. Work on it lasted since last autumn. They were initiated by a parliamentary team for the regulation of the pharmaceutical market, and therefore the draft was included in the Sejm as a deputies' document, not governmental, but from the very beginning it was supported by the Ministry of Health.
The Act introduces some basic changes. It assumes that new pharmacies will be able to be set up in these communes, and that there are at least 3,000 residents in existing pharmacies (demographic criterion). At the same time, the story says that new pharmacies can be located at a distance of at least 500 meters from existing outlets, which is to reverse the trend of their accumulation only in the centers of large cities (geographical criterion). There is also a reservation in the Act that the demographic criterion does not apply in the case when the pharmacist intends to open a new pharmacy at a distance of at least one kilometer from the existing facilities.
A separate issue is the so-called pharmacy for the pharmacist - this term does not, however, reflect the essence of the change introduced in the regulations. In fact, she says that new pharmacies will be open only to pharmacists or companies formed by pharmacists, hence it would be worth talking about a new pharmacy for the pharmacist.
The bill is now waiting for consideration by the Senate, and then, when it is also adopted by the upper house of parliament, for the signature of the president.
A small, important amendment
The amendment to Pharmaceutical Law, although the debate on it was long and turbulent, is in fact a very short document, which does not mean that it is of little importance. It is just the opposite - the amendment deals with the fundamental issue, it is a response to some pathological phenomena occurring on the pharmacy market. It is also a forerunner before a major amendment to the Pharmaceutical Law announced by the Ministry of Health. It is to allow for the peaceful process of these further changes, partially freeze the market, so that there is no further crosslinking, which is illegal and second - unfavorable for this market and for patients. An alternative to a small amendment, which was often emphasized by Krzysztof Łanda, former deputy minister of health, it would be a tough moratorium on opening any pharmacies. It should be assumed that the Ministry was ready to reach for this solution if the law in the Sejm did not pass.
Already existing - no changes
For existing pharmacies, the Act is neutral - they will continue to function as before, unless their owners decide otherwise or will lose their authorization to act by decision of pharmaceutical supervision due to exceeding the anti-concentration regulations or participation in the reversed sales chain.
The amendment, when it comes into force, will also not affect such issues as the range of products available in pharmacies - the Act does not touch such matters; they are to be the object of further work, the aforementioned large amendment.
No more doors in the door
For pharmacists, the fact that no one will open a new pharmacy, the proverbial door to the door, and the language of the rules - at a distance of 500 meters may be of primary importance. This will stabilize the position of pharmacies already operating, give them fears of unfair competition, using dumped prices or breaking the ban on advertising pharmacies, to squeeze in the awareness of potential patients as cheaper or better than others. Of course, because the restrictions introduced by the Act will only apply to emerging pharmacies, the amendment will not affect the situation of entities operating under excessive competition today.
There is also no reason to suppose that the amendment will affect the situation of pharmacists, pharmacy technicians and other persons employed in pharmacies, that they will threaten them with losing their job; in most branches for financial reasons, the number of employees has long been adapted to market realities, speaking in a business language - rationalized.
The amendment may cause, though - of course - it does not have to be that entities that were considering opening another own pharmacy, away from the most populous transport routes of cities and shopping centers. It may be tempt by greater market stabilization and greater certainty of tomorrow. Of course, it will no longer be pharmacies, but pharmacists or their companies.
Why should they grow?
Among the risks that the adopted amendment to the Pharmaceutical Law would bring about, its opponents mentioned the increase in the prices of medicines. During the many months of discussing it, however, they did not provide any evidence to support this thesis. All the more there is no independent analysis that would confirm this possibility.
Therefore, a more credible and justifiable scenario seems to be a different scenario - since there are no changes to existing institutions, no earthquake on the pharmacy market will be. Nothing will cause a sudden and sudden fall of a large number of pharmacies, so the availability of medicines for patients will not deteriorate, nor will their prices increase.
This is also supported by a logical analysis of the opponents' argument, in the opinion of which the amendment, laying the dam further monopolizing the pharmacy market, is beneficial for the pharmaceutical wholesaler. According to this thesis, wholesalers dealing with a more fragmented market, with many small but weak recipients, will be able to raise prices of products they deliver, which would also mean higher prices for patients. If it could really happen, all wholesale entities would be in favor of the amendment. The great resistance of part of the wholesalers, lobbying against the amendment proves that the scenario according to which the prices of drugs after the amendment will increase is simply unrealistic. It should also be remembered that many individual pharmacies are currently shopping in wholesalers as part of purchasing groups, which improves their negotiating position.
