the assn.'s general counsel to determine whether it could be released for publication. The Chicago meeting was told that the lawyers had approved release of the opinion, which was made under APhA's old Code of Ethics, now in the process of being revised. RX ADVERTISING PRACTICES COVERED BY APHA JUDICIAL BOARD ADVISORY OPINION In-store advertising over the Rx dept. which reads: "Are you paying high prices for your prescriptions? Bring your next Rx to (pharmacy) and save.' Window advertising which reads: "Let us price and fill your next Rx." Newspaper advertising which states: "Have (pharmacy) price and fill your next prescription . . . Compare and save." TV advertising which states: "Price and compare. . . Have (pharmacy) fill your next prescription at a lower price." Solicitation of Rxs from the MD through the use of price lists, with the suggestion that "You might wish to show this list to your patients when the occasion arises doctor, in the interests of saving them money." The use of both radio and TV commercials which state: "Are you in the dark about prescription prices? Price and compare, then bring your prescription to (pharmacy) for low, low, prices.' Offering a "free tube of tooth paste or a bottle of shampoo for permitting the pharmacist to price the next prescription." In-store advertising which presently reads: "Dear senior citizen. . . You don't have to join a plan or carry a card to get your prescription filled for less at (pharmacy). Matter of fact, you don't have to be a senior citizen. Point is, everyone gets (pharmacy's) lowest prescription prices because we believe it is our professional responsibility to provide every customer with the finest pharmaceutical service at lowest possible prices. And our prices . . we promise. are as low or lower than anywhere else including any senior citizen discount plan." The use of a "get acquainted certificate" upon which is written: "Fine professional pharmacy service, at the lowest prices in the nation. This will entitle the bearer (whose name appears above) or a member of his immediate family to a credit of up to $1 on his first prescription purchase.' An in-store sign of gigantic proportions which reads: "If we aren't filling your prescriptions, you're paying too much." An in-store sign on the Rx dept. which reads: "Are you paying too much for free Rx delivery?" PMA SUGGESTION FOR MORE DETAIL RX DRUG PRICE ADS PRODUCES JOINT NARD-APHA ACTION; WRITE PMA DEMANDING RETRACTION, IDENTICAL LETTER URGES PHARMACISTS Officers of APhA and NARD, in a joint action, are urging everybody in pharmacy to write "directly to PMA" demanding a retraction of its suggestion that pharmacists advertise Rx prices to the public and that state legal barriers to this practice be removed. Top officers of both NARD and APhA, meeting in Washington Thursday Oct. 31, drafted a joint letter on the subject. The next day, identical letters were issued by APhA and NARD-only the letter-heads and the signatures at the bottom were different. NARD's was signed by Exec Secty. Willard Simmons; APhA's was signed by Exec Director William Apple (see below for text of letter). APHA AND NARD NOV. 1 LETTERS TO PHARMACEUTICAL ASSOCIATION EXECS We were astounded by the recent PMA recommendations that pharmacists advertise Rx prices directly to the general public and that legal barriers to Rx drug price advertising be removed... To coordinate the profession's response to these PMA recommendations which disregard the best interest of the individual patient, the public health, the professions of medicine and pharmacy and the pharmaceutical industry, a group of officers of the APhA... met with officers of the NARD. . . in Washington Oct. 31. The leaders of both organizations agreed that consumer advertising of Rx drug prices is detrimental to public health and patient safety. Consumer advertising of Rx drugs and pharmaceutical services places prescription drugs on the same basis as that of commercial goods. There are many important differences between prescription drugs and commercial goods. Historically and traditionally professional practitioners do not solicit professional practice. Pharmacists render specific, individual services which the general public cannot evaluate or judge either in terms of quality or price. The profession of pharmacy strongly recommends that every individual or family choose a pharmacist to provide all of their pharmaceutical services, including non-prescribed as well as prescribed drugs. The selection of a personal pharmacist should be based on the same considerations by which MDS and dentists are selected professional reputation, services and conveniences offered, location and availability of services. Pharmacists, like physicians and dentists, are willing to discuss with individual patients the charges they place on the professional services they render. The APhA and NARD officers in attendance recommended that every pharmaceutical association, college of pharmacy and board of pharmacy support these views by writing directly to the PMA demanding that PMA retract its recommendations. We urge your prompt action on this matter. The suggestion for increased advertising of retail prices for Rxs was made by PMA in its critique on the second interim report of the H-E-W Dept. Rx Drug Task Force ("The Pink Sheet" Oct. 21, page T&G 1). Angered leaders in both pharmacy organizations interpreted the sug- In a conciliatory statement on the NARD-APhA joint letter, PMA President C. Joseph Stetler said that it was not the purpose of PMA's comments on the Rx task force report "to harass pharmacy nor to diminish its professional status." Text of the NARD-APhA letter became available in Washington at noon Firday Nov. 1; PMA's statement was issued in the afternoon (for full text, see facing page). PMA PRESIDENT STETLER'S COMMENT ON APhA AND NARD LETTERS During the past year there has been considerable discussion in the Congress and in govt. agencies about drug prices and profits. In connection with this matter we have commented on several occasions about the need for more price information to be available at both the mfr. and retail level. Most assuredly our purpose in making these comments and in our critique of the report of the H-E-W Task Force on Rx Drugs is not to harass pharmacy nor to diminish its professional status. Our purpose is to find ways to avoid the intrusion of govt. into the free market, and to alleviate the concern about drug prices that has been expressed on a mounting scale by consumers, the govt., and congressional leaders. Surely more active price competition at the retail and mfr. level is preferable to legislated price control or maximum reimbursement allowances. We believe the consumer will continue to select the pharmacy from which to buy based on his assessment of numerous factors, including price. Equal or more important, however, will be professional competence and services. Stetler raised the specter of govt. controls or interference in the drug market and said that active price competition at both the mfr. and retail level is preferable to govt. price controls or maxim reimbursement allowances. Leaders in pharmacy indicated they did not regard the PMA statement as meeting the request for a retraction and there were hints that the profession might be planning other steps. Execs of pharmaceutical houses can be expected to be questioned about the PMA suggestion at the next meetings of their pharmacy advisory councils. The PMA suggestion on Rx drug advertising apparently succeeded-obviously without intention-in doing what mounting pressure inside pharmacy, including strong efforts by state assn. execs, had failed to accomplish, i.e., bring NARD and APhA into a joint meeting which produced unified action on an issue which the profession regards as important. Until the Oct. 31 meeting, NARD was widely regarded as leaning more toward the PMA side of the gap between the manufacturing group and APhA. Attending the meeting for APhA were President Max Eggleston, PresidentElect William Hennessy, Board of Trustees Chairman Dr. Lloyd Parks, House of Delegates Chairman Mary Louise Andersen, and Apple. Representing NARD were President Michael Perhach, Exec Cmte. Chairman Nick Avellone, Exec Cmte. members Leonard Rosenstein and John B. Tripeny Jr., and Simmons. Regardless of who initiated the move for the meeting, or where it was This approach to joint action on individual issues or in specific situations is much more realistic than the usual efforts to force APhA and NARD into a "one voice for pharmacy" mould. The "one voice" concept presupposes joint meetings at which the governing bodies of both organizations bargain away or compromise what they conceive to be the primary orientation of their programs in an effort to hammer out a unified position on all problems confronting pharmacy. NARD officers made it clear that this approach is not realistic in speeches at the recent NARD convention in which the function of NARD was reaffirmed as protecting the interests of retail pharmacy owners ("The Pink Sheet" Oct. 14, page 9). APhA has always regarded its primary function as protecting the interests of the profession, regardless where it is practiced. The mutual interest that brought them together for the Oct. 31 meeting apparently was the growing threat of chain competition. CPhA Seeks To Broaden Calif. Rx Ad Ban in light of the Va. federal court ruling against Revco holding that pharmacy boards can outlaw Rx advertising by retailers "(The Pink Sheet" Nov. 3, page T & G-7). Calif. already prohibits promoting "discounts" or "lower than average" prices for Rxs, but the pharmacy law amendment to be proposed by the Calif. Pharmaceutical Assn. (CPHA) would bar non-price ads as well. In line with the Va. Revco decision, the assn. is not seeking to ban Rx discounting, only Rx advertising, CPhA officials told "The Pink Sheet." Unlike the Va. statute, which was aimed at curbing discount drug chain advertising, the proposed Calif. legislation is intended to block mail-order Rx promoting, CPhA said. In a parallel effort, the state pharmacy board is now holding hearings on a proposed reg to stop mail order Rx sales altogether. The board's plan has run into heavy consumer opposition, however, and the CHhA-sponsored amendment is regarded by some as a back-up strategy geared to achieve the same end. REV CO Suit Fails To Overturn Va. Anti-Rx Ad Law but federal court rules that the state's ban on Rx discounting is "invalid." The decision, believed to be the first federal ruling on state Rx advertising laws, was delivered by a threejudge panel in Lynchburg, Va., Oct. 29. Because of the dual nature of the decision, both Revco and the Va. Board of Pharmacy-defendant in the chain's action-claimed victory. The impact of the landmark ruling is expected to be felt in 11 other states with anti-Rx ad laws: Calif., Conn., La., Md., Neb., Nev., NJ, NY, ND, Okla., and Pa. In upholding the portion of the 1968 Va. law empowering the pharmacy board to revoke the licenses of pharmacists who advertise Rx prices, the panel termed the ad ban "a constitutional exercise of the state's police power." The statute "is not invalidated because Revco's pharmacists, whose licenses are subjected to revocation, do not control the corporation's advertising and pricing policy" as the chain argued, "nor does the fact that pharmacists may advertise free Rx deliveries, or free coffee while awaiting the filling of Rxs render the prohibition of advertising prices invalid," the court said. Striking down the section of the law banning Rx discounting, the panel said that since "neither the Board of Pharmacy nor any other state agency had determined the retail price of Rx drugs which must be maintained without discount," revocation of a pharmacist's license for price-cutting "would be arbitrary and capricious." The court, however, ruled out price fixing as an argument against anti-Rx discounting laws by adding: "We accept the major premise implicit in the defendant's argument-Rx drugs are so intimately related to the public health that the state can fix the prices at which they are sold without violating the due process clause of the 14th Amendment." A major link in Revco's unsuccessful argument against the provision was that pharmacists do not rank equally with other professionals, the court said. Charging that the chain sought to sidestep legal precedents "by urging us to hold that pharmacy is not a profession," the judges cited state educational requirements for pharmacists, and upheld a 1967 Va. legislature declaration stating that: "The practice of pharmacy . . . is a professional practice affecting the public health, safety and welfare and is subject to regulation and control in the public interest." Revco President Sidney Dworkin said in a press release that "the company's position concerning the professionalism of pharmacy has been grossly distorted" in the court ruling. He added that Revco "has never, and will never, directly or indirectly infer that any pharmacist is anything less than a professional." NEW HAMPSHIRE BOARD LISTS "NO SELF-SERVICE" O-T-Cs PURPOSE OF RULING IS TO SEE THAT PHARMACISTS HAVE DIRECT CONTROL OVER SALES OF ITEMS The New Hampshire Board of Pharmacy has issued a list of more than 50 overthe-counter products which can no longer be sold on a self-service basis in New Hampshire. According to board secretary Elmer Roentsch, the purpose of the ruling is to see that the pharmacists have direct control over the sale of these items. Mr. Roentsch explained that the rule does not prohibit the sale of the restricted products by clerks. No Plans: He said that, at present, the board has no plans to require the sale by Rx Men only of these items. He said that the action has been taken under a provision of the New Hampshire pharmacy law which defines, in general terms, the conditions under which drugs may be sold in the state. He noted that, although the section of the law in question was enacted in the 1930s, it has not been enforced. Late in 1965, the New Hampshire board ruled that the same o-t-cs involved in last fortnight's action could no longer be sold in food stores and other outlets. Complaints: It is understood that the no self-service regulation resulted from complaints by grocery interests that the barring of o-t-cs in food outlets doesn't make much sense if, in drug stores, patrons can buy these same products without any supervision. Following is a list of the products involved: Ammoniated ointment Allerest tablets Anahist, Super Anahist Bradosol Bromo Quinine tabs Contac capsules C-3 tablets Dristan tablets Doan's pills Dormin capsules Empirin compound Hills Cascara Quinine Micrin lozenges Marezine tablets Novahistine elizir Nervine tablets MINNESOTA RX MEN AGAIN ASK DRUG RESTRICTION STATE ASSOCIATION WILL SEEK COMPROMISE WITH FOOD STORE MEN TO END 10-YEAR BATTLE Minnesota pharmacists will soon begin still another campaign in their decadelong battle to convince the state legislature that some over-the-counter drugs should be restricted to sale by RxMen. All previous attempts to gain this objective have been foiled because of strong opposition of Minn food store interests. Spearheading the new drive will be the Minnesota Pharmaceutical Assn. According to its new secretary, Donald Dee, talks are now going on with the food retailers in an effort to draft a bill which will be acceptable to them, as well as to Pharmacy. Similar: Mr. Dee said that, in all probability, the bill that is introduced will be similar to the measure considered but never brought to a vote-during the last Minnesota legislative session. Essentially, this bill sought to give the Minnesota Board of Health the authority to restrict the sale of o-t-c drugs in any one of 5 different categories. However, the board would not have been able to take such action without holding hearings on each drug to be restricted. Fed Up: Mr. Dee said that, by now, all the parties on both sides in this legislation are fed up with fighting about it, and that some sort of compromise can probably be worked out in the upcoming session. Mail-Order Rrs: Massachusetts state court has entered final decree in state pharmaceutical assn.'s case against Federal Rx Service Inc., of Madrid, Iowa. Decree rules that the Iowa mail-order firm's solicitation in Mass.-by direct mailings, salesmen, ads or any other means-of orders to fill Rxs is "illegal under the statutes of Mass." The methods used to implement or enforce the order will be interesting. APhA Legal Div. Director Robert Steeves reports that the Mass. assn. has asked "APhA assistance in the further proceedings in the case." [From Drug Topics, May 25, 1970] SIMMONS TELLS AUSSIES OEO HURTS U.S. DRUGSTORES SYDNEY, AUSTRALIA-Willard B. Simmons, Executive Secretary of The National Association of Retail Druggists, in Chicago, Ill., charged that policies of the U.S. Office of Economic Opportunity are working hardships on the poor and have put privately-owned drugstores out of business. Mr. Simmons made the statement in an address at the opening of the 1970 International Conference of the Pharmacy Guild of Australia. Explaining the role of independent retail pharmacies in federal programs, Mr. Simmons said the law has not always been followed in operating the Office of Economic Opportunity's neighborhood health centers. He said that although the law requires the utilization of local pharmacies for medications for the indigent, some of the centers "stock drugs and hire pharmacists to dispense the prescription." "We have protested this tactic on several counts," Mr. Simmons explained. "First it denies the patients the fundamental right of freedom of choice of their pharmacy. It forces them, in many instances, to travel long distances from their homes to the center to have prescriptions filled, rather than being able to patronize a pharmacy in their neighborhood, Further, it denies them, in most instances, ready access to pharmacists for additional advice, cautions, or for supplementary drug needs. Finally, it deprives local pharmacists, many of them operating in deprived neighborhoods and providing employment for local people of much needed prescription volume. "These OEO-operated dispensaries already have put some local pharmacies out of business, eliminating a source of employment for local residents and obliterating a source of tax revenue for federal, state and metropolitan governments. "The towering irony is that private pharmacies' own taxes have been used by an agency of government to put them out of business." Mr. Simmons said The |