Jerzy Meysztowicz, Pharmacy for Pharmacists 2.0: "We need reasonable restrictions, not fear of networks"

Contents

Jerzy Meysztowicz, a member of parliament from the Civic Coalition and vice-chairman of the Parliamentary Team for the Regulation of the Pharmaceutical Market and Medicinal Products, has been dealing with deregulation issues for years. In an interview with politykazdrowotna.com, he says directly: - AdA 2.0 was processed without consultation, and the procedure was inconsistent with the Constitution. He also draws attention to the real threats related to excessive market concentration - not only by chains, but also by wholesalers.

You emphasize that the Polish pharmacy market is one of the most overregulated. You also said at the pharmacy team meetings that the provisions of AdA 2.0 should be eliminated from legal circulation. Why?

Because the Pharmacy for Pharmacists 2.0 is a legal dud – unconstitutional , introduced without debate , consultation or analysis of the effects . These provisions were added to the act on export insurance – a completely foreign subject. The Constitutional Tribunal clearly indicated that the legislative procedure was violated – it was a parliamentary “throw-in” . But the material consequences are equally serious: AdA 2.0 limits the right to property – for example, by preventing the transfer of a pharmacy to children if they are not pharmacists, and a small network of more than 4 pharmacies cannot be sold, it must be divided. In my opinion, this is a gross violation of the Constitution.

You mentioned unforeseen situations, such as fires or floods, which put pharmacy owners in a difficult position. Is the team working on proposals for changes that would allow for better protection of entrepreneurs in such cases?

In the event of losing the ability to run a pharmacy in a given location, and for various reasons, a pharmacist who opens a new location within 500 m should operate under the current permit, only with a change of address. Those who decide to open a pharmacy in a commune where there is none should be exempt from the permit fee. This is over PLN 20,000.

I would like to draw attention to one more fact - it is not legally permissible to advertise pharmacies, unfortunately, this regulation is circumvented by visual advertising of dietary supplements, where a large manufacturer's logo appears, has the same sign as the pharmacy chain.

How do you assess the current condition of the pharmacy market in Poland? Which problems do you consider the most pressing?

One of the biggest problems is the decreasing interest in pharmaceutical studies. The lack of pharmacists and the lack of providing them with a clear development perspective within their own pharmacies. I have a very negative opinion about the increase in the number of communes where there is neither a pharmacy nor a pharmacy point, which is almost 500 communes.

However, was there not a need to introduce additional restrictions on the growth of foreign pharmacy chains?

I am not against restrictions – AdA 1.0 was quite reasonable, because it prevented situations when pharmacies opened door to door. But demonizing chains as a threat to the market is an exaggeration. After all, we have large Polish chains – ZIKO, Apteki Słoneczne, DOZ belonging to Pelion Company – these are private, domestic capital. Saying that foreign corporations will take over everything is scaring. Chains often offer trade credit, know-how and lower prices, this is normal market practice. In my opinion, it is better to have a dozen or so medium-sized chains than one or two dominant ones.

At the last meetings of the team, you said that Neuca indirectly influences the functioning of about 40 percent of the pharmacy market and over 30 percent of the wholesale market. At the meeting of the Parliamentary Team for the Regulation of the Pharmacy Market and Medicinal Products, some data was not precise enough, which is why the company denied it, talking about disinformation. How do you respond to these allegations?

The data I am citing comes from public analyses and reports. Neuca's claim that there is no wholesaler on the Polish market with almost 40% of the pharmacy market is misleading. Neuca states that it is associated with over 4,000 pharmacies under partnership agreements. The law prohibits wholesalers from owning their own pharmacies, but due to such close cooperation, it can be assumed that these pharmacies are dependent in a sense.

See also:

• 

It is worth mentioning that the recently established organization of 10 largest wholesalers, Polska Dystrybucja Farmaceutyczna (PLDF), controls over 70% of the wholesale market, and in sales to hospitals it is almost 75% of the market. Neuca's total share in the pharmacy market was 37.4%, as the company itself reports in its reports [Neuca's annual report for 2024, page 10 - editor's note]. The share in the wholesale market is about 30%: "The growing number of packages sold and the calm on the market were conducive to achieving our strategic goals. The Group's market share in 2024 was 29.5%, and in the strategic area of ​​independent pharmacies 37.4%. In 2024, Neuca achieved a high average annual value of the Net Promoter Score recommendation index of 70 points, compared to 69 points a year earlier". In addition, the aforementioned PLDF has 95% of all available drugs in its offer. These are facts.

You can read more about the allegations against Neuki and the company's appeal to stop disinformation here.

See also:

• 

Neuca is diverting attention from the real threat of disrupting the security of the drug distribution chain in Poland. Currently, there are no legal safeguards in the event of a takeover of one of these entities. The company does not inform that in 2023, a majority stake in this company was the subject of a transaction between a Cypriot entity and the Polish company ASI. In the event of control being taken over by an entity hostile to Poland, millions of patients may be deprived of access to life-saving and health-saving medicines.

Neuca still believes there are no pharmacies…

This is technically true, as I mentioned earlier, you don't have to be the owner of pharmacies to have them under control, partner programs and contractual links are enough. These pharmacies are dependent not only on Neuki in terms of supplies (wholesale) - if in partnership agreements they are obliged to buy up to 80% of medicines - they must install the Neuki application and use it. Pharmacies are also dependent in terms of assortment - they are required to use it in accordance with the "Operational Manual"; in terms of marketing - Neuca makes pharmacies an offer of joint campaigns and it is it that decides on promotions. The formal lack of ownership is a smokescreen, because in such a case, a similar action to Neuki is an organized model of corporate domination over smaller partners - individual pharmacies.

Are there any good aspects of cooperation between pharmacies and Neuka?

It is impossible not to notice that Neuca tries to take care of its partners through training, bonuses, IT care and securing access to sometimes deficit assortment. The most strongly controlled by Neuca are pharmacies operating under the "Świat Zdrowia" and "Partner+" brands. In total, 4,140 pharmacies participate in the company's programs. For comparison, the chains are DOZ, which has 1,500 pharmacies, Dr. Max - about 550 pharmacies, Gemini - 320 pharmacies and ZIKO - 120 pharmacies.

Some warn that AdA 2.0 cannot simply disappear, because it will result in a return to chaos. What can be proposed instead? In your opinion, is there a chance of reaching a compromise between the different stakeholder groups of the pharmacy market?

A compromise is always the right solution. In my opinion, a good solution would be a fair percentage barrier to market concentration (defining the percentage share of the chain in the pharmacy market, similarly to what was organized in Italy). Just not 1%, because that is absurd – no one will invest with such a limit. 10–15% – that would provide space for development, but protect against monopolization. And it is not just about chains – wholesalers must also be subject to such restrictions. Affiliate programs with pharmacies de facto create “hidden networks”. They are more dangerous today than classic franchise networks.

At the pharmacy team meeting, critical voices were raised about franchising. Rightly so?

I disagree. Hard and soft franchises are two different models. But both make sense. They give pharmacists access to negotiated prices, central purchases, and joint marketing. If they are well-designed, an entrepreneur can gain independence without losing it and operate in a chain of pharmacies. Let's not go crazy. The problem is not the franchise, but the system that perpetuates fragmentation and makes small businesses dependent on a single wholesaler.

What do you think can end the disputes and divisions in the pharmaceutical community?

I believe that a compromise must be found – between large and small. We have proposed the aforementioned changes to the regulations on transferring permits, so as not to penalize pharmacists for often having to change the location of their pharmacy. This is elementary justice. We must also conduct a full review of the effects of AdA 2.0 and create a new law on its basis – consulted with the industry and pharmacists, fair. Without this, the conflict will only deepen.