Veterinary prescription fraud

The British Veterinary Association have been cited as calling on the Veterinary Medicines Directorate to introduce more robust measures to stop prescription fraud. Unfortunately Vet Juris thinks it is going to be a very long wait.

The problem with veterinary prescriptions is that there is no mechanism in place to cancel prescriptions once they have been filled by a pharmacist. Unlike human scripts, our prescriptions are not serial numbered and they do not have to be forwarded on to a central body, for the pharmacist to receive payment and the script to be cancelled. Because of this difference, a major problem in prescription fraud has been the duplication of the document by scanning multiple times or faxing the same document to several internet pharmacies.

At The Vet we have started embossing the practice details over the signature of the prescribing vet and adding a line: “Invalid if not embossed”; thereby preventing faxing or scanning . Unfortunately, this does add a level of difficulty for the client wishing to purchase their medicines via prescription, but it is a step forward in preventing prescription fraud.

Time will tell if this system works or not; perhaps pharmacies could be mystery shopped with invalid prescriptions. What is really needed is for the VMB to stop sitting on the fence and suggesting voluntary schemes, that will never be fully complied with, and introduce a standardised and serial numbered prescription pad that can be used on a national basis.

VJ(C)2012               

A case of tail docking

Vet Juris notes with interest the case of veterinary surgeon Mr David Smith MRCVS that is reported in the Veterinary Record 2012, 170;586. Central to the case was Mr Smith’s “erroneous interpretation” of the Animal Welfare Act 2006.

Mr Smith had contacted, through a staff member, the RCVS and DEFRA to ascertain if the procedures he was proposing to carry out (the docking of 13 rottweiler puppies' tails) were permissible; Mr Smiths’ employee was told by the RCVS to direct Mr Smith to the above Act (a 74 page, 69 section document). Mr Smith is a veterinary surgeon not a lawyer, whereas, the RCVS employ lawyers for the very purpose of interpreting parliamentary legislation. Would it have been so very difficult for the RCVS to advise Mr Smith of his legal position?

Mr Smith read and misinterpreted  the Act thereby, believing it was permissible to perform the procedures. So too did the RCVS misread the Act; section 4(1)(a) states “A person commits an offence if – an act of his, or his failure to act, causes an animal to suffer”. The RCVS knew what procedure Mr Smith was contemplating and did not act, in any positive way, to stop the commission of the offence. They are, in Vet Juris’ opinion as guilty as Mr Smith and were not, therefore, competent to pass judgment in the case.

Vet Juris finds it perplexing, why the RCVS should insist that the veterinary surgeon himself should contact the College and not a member of his administrative staff. To whom was he supposed to talk, the President of the College, a council member or a member of the College’s own administrative staff? The College should get off of its high horse; they are after all paid for by the Membership. Are the College suggesting that they give one answer to administrative staff and another to veterinary surgeons? And, additionally, why the necessity to get any phone advice confirmed in writing, are the RCVS suggesting that they are liable to change their story if confronted?

VJ (C) 2012