A 15% tax proposed in the PLFSS 2027 on certain payments made to pharmacy groupings is expected to have broader consequences beyond just their finances, according to Alain Grollaud, president of Federgy. Federgy argues that this tax will inevitably lead to higher fees for pharmacies, increased costs for services, or a reduction in the support services provided by these groupings. Grollaud also criticizes the new rules requiring greater transparency in contracts between pharmacies and groupings, warning that this could lead to a consolidation of the market, with fewer groupings dominating the sector. Grollaud expressed skepticism about the 15% tax on groupings, pointing out that just eight days earlier, the Prime Minister’s advisors had referred to the measure as a matter of "necessary transparency" and not a direct tax. However, he argues that the current proposal clearly functions as a tax. According to Federgy, since 94% of pharmacies are associated with a grouping in some capacity, the financial burden of this tax will ultimately fall on the pharmacists themselves, as groupings have fewer resources to absorb the cost. The economic impact of this tax is expected to be significant, with possible outcomes including higher fees for services, increased charges for certain functions currently included in the grouping's costs, or a reduction in the services available to pharmacies. The exact effects are difficult to predict due to the varying financial models of different groupings. Regardless, the loss of resources must be absorbed, and the cost will likely be passed on to pharmacies in some form. The government believes that pharmacies should pay more directly for the services they receive from groupings, which is the reasoning behind the proposed tax. This approach aims to reduce the role of intermediaries and have pharmacies fund these services more directly. However, Federgy argues that groupings do more than just negotiate commercial terms; they also play a role in training, public health initiatives, and ensuring the availability of medical supplies, such as during the Covid-19 pandemic. Federgy is challenging the government's reliance on reports by the Igas and the IGF regarding financial flows in the pharmaceutical supply chain, arguing that their methodology and figures are flawed. The group plans to propose amendments to lawmakers, though the final outcome is still uncertain. While increased transparency in financial dealings between pharmacies and groupings may be reasonable, Federgy warns that the current proposals could undermine the commercial relationships governed by competition laws and could be discriminatory in their application. The proposed tax may also reshape the landscape of pharmacy groupings, increasing the risk of market consolidation. Weaker groupings may struggle to invest or maintain their services and could either disappear or merge with larger entities. This would reduce the number of groupings and, by extension, competition in the sector. Ultimately, the cost of these changes would likely fall on the pharmacies themselves.