At the outset of the meeting, it was agreed that this and future PSI Council meetings would take place in the presence of an AI transcription tool, allowing for more accurate recording of the minutes. The various Committee meetings will also benefit from artificial intelligence, with updated Terms of Reference for each committee granted approval by Council throughout the meeting.
Opening the meeting proper, Registrar Joanne Kissane offered an update on the Common Conditions Service, with the public consultation for both the draft guidelines and draft education and training rules having taken place. Ms Kissane noted that they had sought feedback from both the public and pharmacists, in addition to other key stakeholders via a range of methods including targeted emails, their summer newsletter, the PSI website and social media, as well as the HPRA Patient Forum and the Community Pharmacy Expansion Implementation Oversight Group. These efforts resulted in what Ms Kissane called a “reasonable response”, with 133 responses received online and five surveys submitted via email, while 19 pharmacists attended the panel workshop that was held.
Outlining some key findings, she said there was a high level of agreement on all questions, “and it was a positive response overall”. Most respondents agreed that the draft guidelines were helpful to pharmacists, while 62.8 per cent agreed that the draft rules were proportionate.
Following the feedback, the draft guidelines were “significantly amended to enhance clarity and conciseness”, the Registrar noted, and “the document structure and legislative requirements were clarified”. The common condition HSE clinical protocols have since been finalised and while they await final legislation, will be implemented in a number of weeks. Unfortunately, she told the meeting, the continuation of the contraception service will be slightly delayed; “other key enablers need to be put in place, but the intention is to launch it as early as possible in 2026.”
The Strategic Financing Review was also before Council for its consideration and discussion, and Ms Kissane told members that since the last Council meeting, a considerable body of work had been carried out as they complete and begin to implement its findings. The PSI has met with the Department of Health regarding the Review, and it will be discussed by the Audit and Risk committee in October before going to public consultation.
Before moving on, Ms Kissane took a moment to note the passing of Pat O’Mahony, who was Chair of the Ministerial Expert Taskforce to Support the Expansion of the Role of Pharmacy. She highlighted his contribution in “shaping Irish health policy and pharmacy practice as leader of the Taskforce”, which she said will be remembered as a “pivotal moment” for pharmacy in Ireland.
An update on the Service Plan for 2025 showed that while 14 projects are ongoing and thus labelled green, one is still red, namely Phase 3 of the Business Transformation Programme. Ms Kissane explained that they are engaging external consultants on this matter and while there was no update as of yet, the hope is that there will be one by the next Council meeting in December.
The report to Council from the Regulatory and Professional Policy Committee was delivered by its Chair Richard Hammond. He first sought approval of the consultation report on the proposed changes to the RPB Registration Rules to support the operation of a delineated operating model. Responses were effectively positive; he told the meeting, “roughly twice as many people as didn’t, thought the rules were proportionate and adequate”.
Mr Hammond also sought approval of the proposed RPB Registration Rules to conserve requirements of current rules (SI 495 of 2008) and to support a delineated operating model and revocation of current rules. Council member Ann McGarry queried whether the rules were specific enough in citing a two-hour limit for pharmacist absences, and whether it should be clarified that this is not to be utilised for “ad hoc pharmacist absences”. There were also concerns raised about the dispensing of GSL products during this absence, with a query that the rules may not have addressed the “competition aspect” thoroughly enough.
The PSI’s Damhnait Gaughan noted that pharmacies can “choose” to operate this model; they don’t have to, but it allows those pharmacies who do not wish to shut for lunch the opportunity for adequate cover. Paula Barry Walsh said while there was “clearly strong support” for the delineated model, public awareness and communication will be key and this must be supported by the PSI.
Ms Kissane noted that the PSI website will be updated to reflect the new rules, and while it is a “major change in practice for pharmacists”, they will be working hard to prepare registrants and the public for this change.
Áine Mac Grory asked if the rules could specify that the two-hour period is to be used for rest, and not working in another pharmacy; Ms Kissane said they could not mandate that but can make it clear in the guidance document that it is intended to facilitate a pharmacist rest period. Both requests were approved by Council.
“Ms Kissane said the ultimate goal is that patients are not surprised by the final price and endeavouring to do that means it must be pre-empted via clear display of prescription and service charges, although obviously the volume or quantity of medicine may impact the final price.”
A request for approval of a consultation report on draft PSI guidance in support of pricing transparency in pharmacies was also sought by Mr Hammond, as well as a request for Council’s approval of draft PSI Guidance to support transparency of medicines pricing and fees for pharmacy services. Mr Hammond reminded the Council that this had come on foot of a “Ministerial initiative”. Public consultation had garnered 183 responses, and the report had been amended to reflect this feedback, mainly in terms of clarity.
Ms Mac Grory commented that while patients have a right to seek the price of a product they are purchasing, the word “advance” concerns her, as given the limitations of the current software, seeking an advance price could cause a complete interruption in workflow. It also may not be possible to give a very specific breakdown of pricing if the medicine is not currently in stock.
In response, Ms Kissane said the ultimate goal is that patients are not surprised by the final price and endeavouring to do that means it must be pre-empted via clear display of prescription and service charges, although obviously the volume or quantity of medicine may impact the final price. “There is no expectation that you could provide an exact price,” she stated, adding that while other jurisdictions such as France expect this, it will not be the case here as it would be “impossible”. PSI President Denis O’Driscoll said it was up to each individual provider to decide the appropriate minimum or maximum range for their fees, and this should adequately cover most instances, even if the range is broad.
Pharmacist member Margaret Donnelly noted that, for her, the important word is not just “advance” but “on request” and she appreciates that there are concerns that some pharmacies are not providing this information when asked. Richard Hammond said they are trying to “balance the inconvenience of the pharmacist with the entitlement of the patient to know the price in advance . . . there will be learnings as we go but we cannot have ‘price by ambush’,” he said. “It is entirely reasonable that the patient would know what they are getting into in advance — the purpose of the exercise is that the patient is empowered while balancing that inconvenience.”
Pharmacist member Emily Kelly expressed her opinion that this is “good guidance and good for the consumer and patient . . . every patient should be entitled to know the price”. This was echoed by Council member Cyril Sullivan.
Paula Barry Walsh said, “This is guidance, and no guidance covers 100 per cent of everything but it covers 85-90 per cent of everything.” She has never had a problem giving a price in advance, she said, noting that a patient might switch from one brand of inhaler to another to save money. Both requests were approved by Council.
Mr Hammond was also requesting approval of the consultation report on draft rules and draft guidelines for the Common Conditions Service; a request for approval of draft Guidelines for the Common Conditions Service and contraception service; in addition to a request for approval of draft PSI (Education and training required to prescribe medicinal products in accordance with the common conditions and the continuation of contraception services) rules 2025.
Mr Hammond expressed his belief that while they are still awaiting the final legislation, given the periodic nature of the PSI Council meetings, it is best to approve it today. Mr O’Driscoll agreed, noting the “exciting” nature of the move, and it was approved by Council.
The Council also considered the application for first-time recognition and approval of an MPharm Programme at South Eastern Technological University (SETU). Mr Hammond noted that the RPP agrees with this and submits the report for approval with recommendation. The programme will be accredited for a period of five years.
The Registrar then asked if she could take a moment to acknowledge the volume of work that has gone through the RPP committee; “It has been a crazy summer . . . but this is such an exciting day — pharmacists are going to be able to prescribe for eight common conditions.” This, she said, will have a significant impact for the public but also pharmacists, who have been seeking this expansion of scope for many years; “It is a day to celebrate and it will be a transformative move.”
Ann McGarry then offered an update from the Performance and Resources Committee and requested approval from Council of the management accounts up to 30 June 2025 as well as the high-level forecast to year end. She noted that the PSI, as expected, is running a deficit at the end of June — while its income is on budget, expenditure is five per cent behind budget. This is largely due to timing and issues like high salaries for temporary staff, Ms McGarry explained. By the end of the year, the PSI expects to be some seven per cent behind budget and some projects must be funded from reserves; “The overall position is that we are behind budget for the year and including the strategic projects we are expected to be €1 million behind.”
Peter Dennehy pointed out that PSI is “pretty unique in the public service in that we have such reserves . . . this is not usually the case”. He asked whether it is feasible for the Department of Health and ultimately the State to carry the cost of that, rather than using their own reserves or asking registrants to cover that cost. Ms Kissane explained that they have already begun the conversation with the Department as to how they will be funded into the future — they obtained additional funding from the Department in 2025 but there is no guarantee that it will be maintained. “We have already issued a request for 2026 for additional funding, but it remains to be seen if that will be granted,” she said, adding that most regulators are “funded by the professions they regulate”.
Requests for approval from Council of the Climate Action Roadmap 2025 and the Environmental Policy were also granted, as was a request for approval of the PSI Information Security Manual for Council, Advisory and Disciplinary Committees.
The Special Purposes Committee report was outlined by President Denis O’Driscoll, who then sought approval for a large number of appointments to disciplinary committees and their respective reserve panels, as well as appointments of PSI Council members to advisory committees.
With that, the public meeting closed. The next PSI Council Meeting will take place on 11 December.
Danielle Barron
PSI
Highlighted Articles
