Pharmacist warned after wrongly claiming payment for mother’s fentanyl

Jeffrey Reaney, registration number 2317, submitted 15 requests for payment for dispensing the fentanyl patch Mezolar when it was not actually supplied, the Pharmaceutical Society of Northern Ireland’s (PSNI) fitness-to-practise (FtP) committee heard last month (September 7 and 8).

Mr Reaney, who was superintendent of VE Reaney Chemist Ltd at the time, “incorrectly” received £411.54 in payment for dispensing fentanyl between April 2017 and May 2018 against prescriptions issued for his mother, according to the hearing document.

But the committee heard that while the pharmacy claimed that the item Mezolar was supplied 15 times, it was not actually dispensed because the patient had been moved off fentanyl in April 2017 and onto Butec.

“Administrative error”?

The regulator accepted that there was “no evidence of dishonesty”, no risk of repetition and that Mr Reaney had cooperated with the regulator when the events “came to light”.

But the committee found that despite Mr Reaney knowing that fentanyl had been discontinued for his mother, he did not inform the GP “effectively” to amend the prescription in “a fundamental and systemic failure of management and control”.

And it said that it did “not accept” that the incorrect submissions for payment were an “administrative error”.

“Intimately involved in his mother’s care”

Despite the patient’s GP informing Mr Reaney that his mother would be moved off fentanyl and onto only Butec instead on April 10 2017, prescriptions for fentanyl continued to be received by the pharmacy for dispensing after that date, the committee heard.

A pharmacy inspector had noticed that 15 “apparent supplies” of fentanyl were “not accounted for” in the pharmacy’s controlled drug registers, according to the hearing document.

While only Butec was dispensed after April 10 2017, prescriptions received after that date contained Butec and fentanyl, while some contained only fentanyl, it said.

The committee found that the pharmacy had “clearly identified” that the patient should only receive Butec and not fentanyl.

And Mr Reaney himself said that the medication was “clearly known to him as he was intimately involved in his mother’s care”.

But the committee found that while “insufficient” purchases of fentanyl had been made from wholesalers to support the apparent supplies, the prescriptions that included “additional dispensing costs claimed for dispensing services not undertaken” were submitted to the Business Services Organisation (BSO).

It concluded that Mr Reaney had “claimed for reimbursement for medicines that he had not in fact dispensed”.

“No evidence of dishonesty”

The committee considered mitigating factors including that Mr Reaney had enjoyed “an otherwise unblemished, lengthy career” as a pharmacist since 1985, had apologised for his actions and had demonstrated “considerable insight” into his misconduct.

It also found that there was “no evidence of dishonesty”, no actual harm to the patient and that Mr Reaney took “remedial steps” such as fully reimbursing the BSO for the prescriptions.

“I am truly sorry for placing myself in such a predicament at the end of [my] career in a profession that I cherish,” Mr Reaney said in a written statement.

“Substantive breach of integrity”

Nevertheless, the committee found that Mr Reaney “minimised” his role in the affair, showing a “tendency to place blame on the GP practice”, and that his conduct represented a “substantive breach of integrity”.

It said that while the amount of money incorrectly claimed was “relatively modest”, this did not “diminish” the misconduct – which occurred “over a prolonged period” of approximately a year.

The committee also found that Mr Reaney had “breached some of” the pharmacy profession’s fundamental principles.

These included effective control and management of medicines and breaching an injunction not to treat “anyone with whom you have a close personal relationship except for minor ailments or in an emergency”, it said.

Warning only “workable” sanction

Mr Reaney “admitted” misconduct and the committee determined that his fitness to practise “is currently impaired”, according to the hearing document.

However, Mr Reaney sold his pharmacy business at the end of 2021 and indicated to the committee that he intended apply to remove his name from the PSNI’s register after the hearing.

The committee found that “any conditions that it may impose” would not be “workable” in these circumstances and determined that issuing a warning to Mr Reaney would be the “most appropriate and proportionate” sanction.

Read the determination in full here.