§ Mr. Hickmetasked the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) pursuant to his reply of 4 April, Official Report, column 768, what were the names of the drugs in respect of which manufacturers gave the top 10 highest discounts in 1983; what was the cost of prescribing those drugs to the National Health Service per dispensing doctor and per ordinary general practitioner in 1983; and what was the cost in the last year before discounts were introduced;
(2) what steps his Department is taking to ensure that dispensing doctors account for all discounts they receive as from 1 April from drugs manufacturers and wholesalers.
§ Mr. Kenneth ClarkeI shall let my hon. Friend have replies as soon as possible.
§ Mr. Hickmetasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what steps his Department takes to ensure that dispensing chemists dispense the actual drugs which doctors prescribe; and if he will make a statement.
§ Mr, Kenneth ClarkeFamily practitioner committees participate in the National Health Service drug testing scheme. This scheme, which is based on sampling of dispensed prescriptions, fulfils FPCs' statutory responsibility under regulation 29 of the National Health Service (General Medical and Pharmaceutical) regulations 1974 for checking that the quantity and quality of drugs and appliances which have been dispensed by the pharmacist are as prescribed by the doctor.
219W
§ Mr. Hickmetasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what steps his Department takes to ensure that dispensing doctors dispense the actual drugs which they prescribe; and if he will make a statement.
§ Mr. Kenneth ClarkeNone.
§ Mr. Hickmetasked the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) pursuant to his reply of 4 April, Official Report, column 768, if he will itemise the cost to the National Health Service of those items described as distribution and administration costs of companies operating within the pharmaceutical price regulation scheme; and if he will make a statement;
(2) if, since 1979, there has been an audit carried out by his Department of the costs and expenses of any company supplying drugs to the National Health Service within the pharmaceutical price regulation scheme; and if he will make a statement;
(3) pursuant to his reply of 4 April, Official Report, column 768, what scrutiny by auditors and other persons his Department makes of sales promotion expenditure claimed by companies within the pharmaceutical price regulation scheme; and if he will make a statement.
§ Mr. Kenneth ClarkeI do not have a further breakdown of the expenses given in my reply to my hon. Friend on 28 February at column273.
The financial returns received annually from the companies are certified by the independent accountants and reconciled to the statutory accounts. They are scrutinised by our officials, including accountants as necessary, in the light of our knowledge of the company and of the underlying costs and profits in the pharmaceutical industry. We can and do challenge items in the returns, including sales promotion, distribution and administration costs, and where necessary ask companies to provide further explanation and substantiation. Where appropriate, our accountants visit companies to discuss any points of doubt or difficulty.
§ Mr. Hickmetasked the Secretary of State for Social Services, pursuant to his reply of 4 April, Official Report, column 768, what was the value of costs and how many were disallowed by his Department which had been claimed by companies within the pharmaceutical price regulation scheme for 1982, 1983 and 1984, respectively; and what scrutiny was carried out of such companies' financial returns and by how many people in his Department.
§ Mr. Kenneth ClarkeWe could provide information on costs disallowed only at disproportionate cost. On the question of staff scrutinising company financial returns, I refer my hon. Friend to my reply to my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) on 4 February at columns454–5.
§ Mr. Hickmetasked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many larger companies supplied drugs to the National Health Service under the pharmaceutical price regulation scheme in 1982, 1983 and 1984, respectively; and if he will identify them by name.
§ Mr. Kenneth ClarkeIn 1983 the 68 pharmaceutical companies fully within the pharmaceutical price regulation scheme were Abbott Laboratories Ltd., Astra Pharmaceutical Ltd., Armour Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., Ayerst Laboratories Ltd., Bayer UK Ltd., Beecham Pharmaceutical UK Division, Berk Pharmaceuticals Ltd.,220W Boehringer Ingelheim Ltd., Boots Company plc, Bristol-Myers Pharmaceuticals, Brocades Ltd., Ciba-Geigy Pharmaceutical Division, A. H. Cox & Co. Ltd., Cyanamid of Great Britain Ltd., Duphar Laboratories Ltd., Norwich Eaton Ltd., Farmitalia Carlo Erba Ltd., Fisons Pharmaceuticals plc, Geistlich Sons Ltd., Glaxo Laboratories Ltd., Hoechst UK Ltd., ICI Pharmaceuticals plc, Janssen Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Kabivitruni Ltd., Thomas Kerfoot and Co. Ltd., Kirby Warrick Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Leo Laboratories Ltd., Lilly Industries Ltd., Lipha Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Lundbeck Ltd., Macarthys Laboratories Ltd., May and Baker Ltd., MCP Pharmaceuticals Ltd., E. Merck Ltd., Merck Sharp & Dohme Ltd., Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Miles Laboratories Ltd., 3M Health Care Ltd., Napp Laboratories Ltd., Nicholas Laboratories Ltd., Nordisk-UK, Norgine Ltd., Novo Laboratories, Organon Laboratories Ltd., Ortho-Cilag Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Pharmacia GB Ltd., Pharmax Ltd., Pfizer Ltd., Reckitt and Colman, A. H. Robins and Co. Ltd., Roche Products Ltd., Roussel Laboratories, Sandoz Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi (UK) Ltd., Schering Chemicals Ltd., Searle Pharmaceuticals, Servier Laboratories Ltd., Smith Kline and French Laboratories Ltd., Smith and Nephew Laboratories, E. R. Squibb and Sons Ltd., Syntex Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Travenol Laboratories Ltd., Upjohn Ltd., Warner-Lambert (UK) Ltd., Wellcome Foundation Ltd., Winthrop Laboratories, Wyeth Laboratories, Zyma (UK) Ltd.
There is little change from year to year.
§ Mr. Hickmetasked the Secretary of State for Social Services, pursuant to his reply of 4 April, Official Report, column 768, upon what grounds and by what criteria his Department decides that financial returns submitted by companies within the pharmaceutical price regulation scheme are reasonable or excessive; and if he will make a statement.
§ Mr. Kenneth ClarkeApart from sales promotion expenditure, which is limited by a formula common to all companies, it is not possible to define precise criteria by which other adjustments to financial returns are made. We make much use of national and international statistical comparisons, but our adjustments depend on a knowledge of the pharmaceutical industry and individual company circumstances and are a matter for judgment and negotiation.
§ Mr. Hickmetasked the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) what was the highest amount by which a larger company within the pharmaceutical price regulation scheme exceeded the sales promotion limit in 1982, 1983 and 1984;
(2) pursuant to his reply of 4 April, Official Report, column 768, by how much in total the 51 companies exceeded their sales promotion limit under the pharmaceutical price regulation scheme in 1982; and what were the figures for 1983 and 1984.
§ Mr. Kenneth ClarkeIn 1982, the latest year for which information is available, the 51 companies exceeded their sales promotion limit in total by approximately £33 million and the largest excess by an individual company was just over £2½ million.
§ Mr. Hickmetasked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many persons are employed in his 221W Department on a full-time basis to scrutinise the operation of the pharmaceutical price regulation scheme and the claims made thereunder by individual companies; and if he will make a statement.
§ Mr. Kenneth ClarkeI refer my hon. Friend to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) on 4 February at columns454–5.