NPA chair, Andrew Lane, has written to all LPC chairs this week, with the following messages about the draft RSG proposals

• From the start, we saw the review as a great opportunity to deploy the community pharmacy sector’s collective resources more effectively.

• To that end, we have engaged constructively throughout, although I should remind you that the NPA was not given a place on the Review Steering Group, whereas CCA and AIM were represented. That was a major flaw in the process and also highlights an oddity in the system of pharmacy representation that still need to be resolved.

• David Wright and later the RSG have worked extremely hard to produce the draft proposals that are now being communicated to the sector. We don’t doubt the hard work and commitment with which RSG members have approached their task. It is not easy to achieve a consensus on the way forward given the wide range of views across the sector.

• There are a number of proposals we can wholeheartedly support, including the strengthening of LPC engagement with national decision-making processes.

• There are also outstanding questions and crucial detail is missing – such as a business case for shifting resources from local to national structures. From what we know so far, there is very little clarity on how PSNC (or ‘Community Pharmacy England’) will negotiate more effectively in the future, nor how local leadership will be supported to engage with integrated care systems.  More information is needed to avoid people having different interpretations of what it is they are being asked to vote for.

• The independent representatives on the RSG appear to have stood commendably firm on a key point of principle – that parity must be maintained between multiples and independent contractors within governance at local and national level. The idea of a balanced board seems to be reflected in the proposals. Nonetheless, there needs to be further progress in terms of strengthening governance including a more equitable approach to representation; independents ought to go into meetings with the same level of support as their counterparts in the multiples.

• The NPA remains concerned at the proposal to direct resources away from local support and representation, which appears to be at odds with NHS moves to devolve power and money.

• On the plus side, we support the proposed strengthening of LPC engagement with national decision-making processes.

• We urge LPCs to keep up the dialogue (between yourselves, and with the NPA and RSG) on this crucial matter before the proposals are formally submitted to contractors in April and May.

• Whatever new structures and processes emerge from this review, it will all be fruitless unless we can all coalesce around a shared vision for the future. We, as independents, believe this should be characterised by clinical services, delivered locally, and integrated with the rest of the NHS, building on the core medicines supply function but not defined by it. We are committed to working with PSNC to seek to secure this positive vision for the future of community pharmacy.