REF: SHA/19876 APPEAL AGAINST NHS COMMISSIONING BOARD 1 Trevelyan Square Boar Lane ("NHS ENGLAND") DECISION TO REFUSE AN Leeds APPLICATION BY ASIM BHATTI LTD FOR INCLUSION LS1 6AE IN THE PHARMACEUTICAL LIST OFFERING UNFORESEEN BENEFITS UNDER REGULATION 18 AT Tel: 0113 86 65500 HALIFAX ROAD, A646 THE PROPERTY BETWEEN Fax: 0207 821 0029 ROOMFIELD STREET AND MAJOR STREET, Email: [email protected] TODMORDEN OL14 (BEST ESTIMATE) 1 Outcome 1.1 The Pharmacy Appeals Committee (“Committee”), appointed by NHS Resolution, quashes the decision of NHS England and redetermines the application. 1.2 The Committee determined that the application should be refused. REF: SHA/19877 APPEAL AGAINST NHS COMMISSIONING BOARD ("NHS ENGLAND") DECISION TO REFUSE AN APPLICATION BY MS ASHA KHAN FOR INCLUSION IN THE PHARMACEUTICAL LIST OFFERING UNFORESEEN BENEFITS UNDER REGULATION 18 ON HALIFAX ROAD, A646 BETWEEN ROOMFIELD STREET AND MAJOR STREET, TODMORDEN (BEST ESTIMATE) 1 Outcome 1.1 The Pharmacy Appeals Committee (“Committee”), appointed by NHS Resolution, quashes the decision of NHS England and redetermines the application. 1.2 The Committee determined that the application should be refused. NHS Resolution is the operating name of NHS Litigation Authority – we were established in 1995 as a Special Health Authority and are a not-for-profit part of the NHS. Our purpose is to provide expertise to the NHS on resolving concerns fairly, share learning for improvement and preserve resources for patient care. To find out how we use personal information, please read our privacy statement at www.nhsla.com/Pages/PrivacyPolicy.aspx REF: SHA/19876 APPEAL AGAINST NHS COMMISSIONING BOARD ("NHS 1 Trevelyan Square ENGLAND") DECISION TO REFUSE AN APPLICATION BY Boar Lane Leeds ASIM BHATTI LTD FOR INCLUSION IN THE LS1 6AE PHARMACEUTICAL LIST OFFERING UNFORESEEN BENEFITS UNDER REGULATION 18 AT HALIFAX ROAD, Tel: 0113 86 65500 A646 THE PROPERTY BETWEEN ROOMFIELD STREET Fax: 0207 821 0029 AND MAJOR STREET, TODMORDEN OL14 (BEST Email: [email protected] ESTIMATE) REF: SHA/19877 APPEAL AGAINST NHS COMMISSIONING BOARD ("NHS ENGLAND") DECISION TO REFUSE AN APPLICATION BY MS ASHA KHAN FOR INCLUSION IN THE PHARMACEUTICAL LIST OFFERING UNFORESEEN BENEFITS UNDER REGULATION 18 ON HALIFAX ROAD, A646 BETWEEN ROOMFIELD STREET AND MAJOR STREET, TODMORDEN (BEST ESTIMATE) 1 A summary of the applications, decisions, appeals, representations and observations are attached at Annex A, Annex B and Annex C. 2 Preliminary Consideration and Site Visit 2.1 The Pharmacy Appeals Committee (“Committee”) appointed by NHS Resolution had before it the papers considered by NHS England, together with a plan of the area showing existing pharmacies and doctors’ surgeries and the location of the proposed pharmacy. 2.2 It also had before it the responses to NHS Resolution’s own statutory consultations. 2.3 The Committee held an oral hearing to determine the applications. This took place on 28th September, 2018 at Todmorden Town Hall. The Committee comprised of Mr A Tomlinson (chair), Mr P McGorry and Mrs C Dorking. 2.4 Asim Bhatti Limited was represented by John Devlin accompanied by Asim Bhatti and Asha Khan who attended in person was represented by Susan Hunneyball. Gillian Sealy from NHS England observed the hearing. 2.5 Before the hearing started the Committee undertook a site visit. 2.6 The site visit started at the venue for the hearing, the Town Hall in the centre of Todmorden. The town was observed to be linear in development, along the level valley floor. Most of the shops and other facilities were close to the Town Hall by an important road junction, including the market, some banks, car parks, the train and bus stations and several shops. 2.7 Many car parks were seen to be free to use and all the pavements in the centre were in good condition with dropped kerbs at junctions. During the site visit a number of mobility scooters were seen travelling throughout the town centre area. 2.8 The Committee walked east along Halifax Road as far as the bridge over the River Calder observing all the roadway designated as the “best estimate” area by the applicants. The road was seen to be fronted by shops, cafes, a theatre and other commercial buildings although as the river was approached there were more houses 1 and a few buildings were seen to be in poor condition and unoccupied. Beyond the bridge there were no facilities likely to attract town centre pedestrians. 2.9 The Committee noted a large and busy Lidl supermarket next to the health centre. Further east along Halifax Road on the other side of the centre another, larger Lidl supermarket was nearing completion and the Committee assumed that it would replace the current store. 2.10 A number of small new residential developments were seen behind the housing fronting Halifax Road. 2.11 The health centre was observed to be a large multi storey modern building served by its own large car park where parking is free but limited to a 90 minute stay. Although the entrance door was raised above the car park with several steps leading up to the door there are ramps to allow access by wheelchairs. 2.12 The centre is occupied by two medical practices occupying different floors and there is a spacious entrance hall with a reception area. To the left of the entrance door there is a reasonably spacious Boots pharmacy to which access is gained from the entrance hall of the centre. The pharmacy offers a wide range of traditional pharmacy products for sale. The Committee noticed 6 chairs within the pharmacy for patients waiting for service. 2.13 The Committee also noticed that the door leading from the pharmacy directly to the area in front of the centre’s entrance doors was locked but the Committee assumed that it would be unlocked at times when the health centre was closed but the pharmacy was open. 2.14 A sign on the main entrance doors to the health centre indicated that one of the medical practices was open from 8.00 am to 6.30 pm Monday to Wednesday and Friday and 7.00 am to 7.30 pm on Thursday. The Committee obtained from the pharmacy a practice leaflet giving details of the pharmacy’s opening hours which were stated to be 8.00 am to 7.30 pm Monday to Friday and 9.00 am to 13.00 pm on Saturday and Sunday. 2.15 Signs at the front of the health centre also advertised a walk in centre on the second floor of the building which was open from 8.00 am to 8.00 pm each Saturday and Sunday and bank holidays. Access to this centre was gained from a door in a corner of the pharmacy. The Committee assumed that visitors entered through the door into the pharmacy which was locked at the time of the visit. 2.16 The Committee then observed the Todmorden Pharmacy, a distance selling pharmacy on Halifax Road opposite the health centre. A prominent sign advertises the pharmacy which offered a few products on display for sale to visitors. 2.17 The Committee walked back the short distance into the town centre and noted the Boots pharmacy on Bridge Street, a traditional high street pharmacy with a ramp leading into the store and automatic doors. A sign advertised that the opening hours were 9.00 am to 5.30 pm Monday/Friday and 9.00 am to 5.00 pm on Saturday. The Committee obtained a practice leaflet for this pharmacy. 3 A summary of the above observations was provided to those in attendance. They were invited to comment upon them or indicate if any of the observations appeared to be inaccurate. Such comments as were made appear in the submissions section below. 4 Oral Hearing Submissions 4.1 The Chair indicated that there was no need to address the Committee on regulation 31. He confirmed that the two applications would be considered together and in 2 relation to each other. He also indicated that the Committee would be considering the 2018 Calderdale PNA for the purposes of regulation 22. 4.2 Mr J Devlin (representing Asim Bhatti Limited) 4.2.1 He gave details of the timeline for the application which was submitted in August 2016 and should have been completed in December, 2016. The other applicant had a considerable advantage in submitting her application due to the procedural issues. 4.2.2 During the course of the consideration of his client’s application an internet pharmacy had opened whereas at the point the unforeseen benefits had been identified no other contracts had been envisaged. 4.2.3 The application offered 69.5 core hours over 7 days. Boots had increased their hours but he stressed that it was only their supplemental hours, not core. It had been their application that had triggered the increase in hours, not any change in the doctors’ hours. 4.2.4 His client had identified clear gaps in opening hours, especially on Saturday and Sunday and this would give patients visiting the walk in service better access. 4.2.5 With regards to choice there were two issues to consider, the hours mentioned above and the quality of service at Boots. He referred to the letter from the MP, the letters from patients and the petition. 4.2.6 He suggested that Boots were too busy, there were long waits for service, they did not offer deliveries, the staff made errors and other pharmacies were too far away. 4.2.7 A substantial number of people had asked for more choice. 4.2.8 He gave details of how the survey had been undertaken and referred to the complaints on NHS Choices.