Concerns Raised Over Pharmacy Reform and Potential Systemic Disruption

At the recent assembly of the Brandenburg State Chamber of Pharmacists, significant apprehensions were voiced regarding proposed changes to the country's pharmacy laws. The current draft of the Pharmacy Supply Advancement Act (ApoVWG) has become the subject of intense debate within the pharmaceutical sector, with stakeholders warning of far-reaching consequences for both pharmacies and patient care.

The reform plan, as outlined in the draft legislation, is seen as a deviation from prior political agreements and commitments. Critics from the pharmacy profession argue that rather than strengthening the sector, the proposed measures would place additional financial and operational burdens on pharmacy owners. According to expert analysis, the new legislation introduces several points of contention:

• Lack of Financial Support: The reform does not provide for an increase in the fixed remuneration for pharmacies, a long-standing demand of the sector. Instead, it is expected to increase operational costs without additional compensation.
• Structural Changes to Pharmacy Ownership: The traditional model of independently owned pharmacies is at risk. The proposed changes would allow for a dilution of the owner-centric structure and potentially enable non-pharmacist ownership over time.
• Increased Social Obligations: Pharmacies would be required to take on more community-based responsibilities, such as extended roles in public health, without corresponding increases in funding or support.

One of the most controversial elements is the new provision regarding the delegation of pharmacy management to pharmaceutical technical assistants (PTAs). The draft law suggests that PTAs, after undergoing 650 hours of further training over two years, could temporarily manage pharmacies. Many in the pharmaceutical community contend that this level of training does not equate to the expertise and knowledge provided by a four-year pharmacy degree program. There is concern that this measure could undermine the quality and safety of pharmaceutical services offered to patients.

The draft legislation also proposes to liberalize the establishment of branch pharmacies, extending the validity of operating licenses from five to ten years. Additionally, these branch locations would not be required to offer compounding services or participate in emergency out-of-hours service. Critics argue that these changes could lead to a proliferation of 'light' pharmacies, which focus on a narrower range of services and may not uphold the same standards as traditional pharmacies.

Further, the sector faces a shortage of qualified pharmacists to assume leadership roles, raising questions about who will be available to manage new branch pharmacies. This shortage could result in increased reliance on less qualified staff, which many believe would negatively affect service quality and patient safety.

There is also concern about the potential erosion of the ban on non-pharmacist ownership. Should the proposed reforms pass without significant revisions, industry representatives warn that the longstanding restriction on corporate or external ownership of pharmacies could be weakened or ultimately abolished. Such a development would represent a fundamental shift in the structure of the German pharmacy system and could have lasting implications for the industry and public health.

As the legislative process continues, stakeholders in the pharmacy sector are calling for greater engagement at both state and federal political levels to advocate for amendments to the proposed law. The objective is to ensure that any reforms protect the integrity of pharmacy services, maintain high standards of patient care, and provide adequate financial and operational support for pharmacy professionals.