• long running

Sixty Day Dispensing of More than 300 Common Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme Medicines

4936
Sixty Day Dispensing of More than 300 Common Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme Medicines
Go to Deal
SupeNintendoChalmers on 12/06/2023 - 22:09 health.gov.au (7931 clicks)
Last edited 13/06/2023 - 10:41 by 1 other user

From 1 September 2023, many patients living with a chronic condition will be able to buy 2 months’ worth (60-days’) of common PBS-listed medicines for the price of a single prescription, rather than the current 1 month’s supply.

This will apply to more than 300 common medicines listed on the PBS and will be implemented in three tranches over 12 months. See PDF link here for all the medicines included

When fully implemented on 1 September 2024, the changes will mean at least 6 million Australians who need regular medicines for chronic conditions will reduce their medicine costs, some by as much as half.

The list of PBS medicines recommended by the independent Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC) as suitable includes some medicines for chronic conditions such as for:

Asthma
breast cancer
cardiovascular disease
chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)
constipation
chronic renal failure
Crohn’s disease
depression
diabetes
endometriosis
endometrial cancer
epilepsy
glaucoma and dry eyes
gout
heart failure
high cholesterol
hormonal replacement and modulation therapy
hypertension
osteoporosis
Parkinson disease
ulcerative colitis.

Benefits and cost savings
When a PBS medicine can be prescribed for 60 days patients can save:

up to $180 a year, per medicine for general patients
up to $43.80 a year, per medicine for concession card holders.

Health & Beauty Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme

Related Stores

Department of Health, Australian Government
Department of Health, Australian Government

Comments

                • opposablethumbs on 13/06/2023 - 09:18
                  +1

                  @BarginGrabber: "Genetics are taught well enough in medical school."

                  And you make this assertion based on what?
                  Name me one medical school in Australia that teaches about PRS. Most teach the basics of Mendelian genetics and not much more.

                  "You're talking about a very small minority of the population that can't prevent these conditions due to genetic factors and other factors."

                  No I am not. You're classic and outdated view is based on monogenic disease only, a very limited view of the total role of genetics in these conditions.

                  "Preventable" doesn't imply that all is down to lifestyle factors, indeed it reinforces that for many they will get better outcomes with life-long medication use, alongside modifying lifestyle factors. There are many that make lifestyle modifications and still end up on chronic medications - the course of their disease is not changed or seldom even delayed after these changes. Broad estimtate figures from WHO & CDC regarding "prevention" do not indicate it is all lifestyle factors and do not negate polygenic risk or indeed the need for chronic medication in prevention.

                  "Ridiculous statement and gives no accountability to the individual."

                  Rubbish. The assertion that it is all down to the individual, blaming them for their disease is as outdated as your limited understanding of the influence of complex genetics. Your simplistic pathophysiological analogy invoking CTE, that all lifestyle factors are somehow an assault by choice of the patient, completely neglect to take into account the polygenic factors, shown to be at play (please actually read the link I posted - a relatively current scientific statement from the American Heart Association in the high impact factor journal Circlation regarding PRS).

                  Yes lifestyle risk factors are a part, but not the whole of the picture. I agree with @try2bhelpful there needs to be a balanced view of this based on current evidence. Strident clinicians, blaming patients for conditions that are not as simple as their basic medical school genetics understanding is not helpful to those patients and an old, tired model that often actually discourages patients from acting on their condition or further engaging with medical advice.

                  • BarginGrabber on 13/06/2023 - 09:49

                    @opposablethumbs: I get your PRS point, yes it is super useful in determining what is the best patient centered care for that individual.

                    However, the question is HOW did they end up in that position to begin with?

                    What % did Polygenic traits play in that role vs lifestyle? That's my question to you.

                    Let's say you have a 20 year old and now they are 45 years old and on multiple different medications related to cardiovascular conditions.

                    If you were to guess, what % did Polygenic traits play a role vs lifestyle factors to get them to that point, not once they get these conditions.

                    • opposablethumbs on 13/06/2023 - 10:21

                      @BarginGrabber: "If you were to guess, what % did PRS play a role vs lifestyle factors?"
                      There is not sufficient data to come up with a raw number yet for the range of different genetic backgrounds represented in a population like Australia. Neither component is of marginal impact though.

                      Debates around genetics vs environment have tended to centre around the 50/50 mark with a waver towards 60/40 and switch to 40/60 about every decade or so. If I were to speculate, which I am wont to do without solid evidence, I suspect these numbers will eventually be in the ball park.

                      The "HOW" question is also answered by this. It is not one or the other, but the complex interplay of both. Monogenic disease models, whilst useful in our early understanding of genetics are not much further advanced than the understanding of 19th Century Gregor Mendel with his breeding of peas and only account for a small percentage of the impact of genetics on health. The rapid advance of genomic technologies in the last two decades has opened us up to a treasure of data that is still being actively mined today and will continue to have great benefits in advising medical management. Whilst one change in one gene can sometimes have devastating impact on health, our understanding of the sea of ~20,000 genes and their interplay with each other and the environment, both for harmful and protective factors, is still in its infancy. Guidelines are useful consensus statements built up over years and decades, but rigid, dogmatic adherence to the idea that they are the only explanation is not helpful to patient care, in the face of buckets of emerging evidence.

                      For your 20yo, if they are likely to develop cardiovascular conditions as early as in their 40s then they are likely to have a strong familial (= genetic) component. For them, an idea of their PRS gives them some choices about how to manage their lifestyle that may slightly delay, but is unlikely to prevent their march towards medication for the further prevention benefits it will have.
                      It is also gives useful guidance on the frequency of screening, best markers to look at and age where medication introduction is likely to have greatest impact on healthspan.

                      Lastly, the whole field of pharmacogenomics also has a lot of utility in determining the likely efficacy or harm that certain medications can have for an individual based on their genetic background.

                      To paraphrase an ex-PM "Genetics does not explain everything, but it doesn't explain nothing either".

                      Thanks for your openness in seeking more understanding.

              • maverickjohn on 13/06/2023 - 10:27
                +1

                @opposablethumbs: Hey Buddy, well aware of this, our LHD is heavily involved with genetic projects including Familial Hyperlipidemia and Fabry's.
                I am not at all dismissing this as a contributing factors. and our patients are also screened for this.
                But when you are working in the sector, you will see people who are constantly dismissing the importance of lifestyle changes.
                This could potentially be linked to low health literacy. however it is a issue you just won't see unless you are working within the sector.
                If you do work in this space and i appeared patronising my sincere apologies. I just feel sometimes people don't want to learn the truth that they are damaging their bodies and just want us to fix it as it's our job.

                • opposablethumbs on 13/06/2023 - 10:45
                  +1

                  @maverickjohn: No worries.

                  I am more than appropriately qualified and experienced in this area, but choose to invoke and ask for evidence as that is what the bedrock of medicine (i.e. EBM) should be based on.

                  Yes patients do ignore advice, including those with monogenic disorders where interventions (both medical and non-medical) have clear benefits to health and longevity, but I reiterate that the narrative model where clinicians actually listen to the patient's full circumstances and respond to that in a holistic manner will always be of greater benefit than the paternalistic model that blames patients for any negative outcomes to their health, based on dogmatic application of useful but somewhat dated guidelines. I also understand how clinicians become jaded from patients that don't follow advice, however this should not mean that they tar all patients with the same brush and even allow some patients to get to the place they need to in a manner and timeframe that they can digest.

                  The parallels for current cardiovascular disease management to how oncology used to do business are striking. For a long time people used to be blamed for their own cancer. Other than a few prominent lifestyle and environmental factors like smoking, this was both not the reality nor useful for patient care. Interestingly, in countries like Australia where smoking rates have declined markedly, one of the biggest growth areas in those diagnosed with lung cancer is in early middle-age, female, lifetime non-smokers with a certain genetic background. Just like in oncology, I suspect that PRS, pharmacogenomics and greater understanding of the impact of genetic background for all patients by clinicians will play much bigger roles in future cardiovascular disease guidelines for a much greater proportion of the population impacted by these conditions.

                  And to bring it full circle to something slightly back on topic, just a reminder that patients and I are not the enemy - the Pharmacy Guild is ;-).

            • try2bhelpful on 13/06/2023 - 07:52

              @maverickjohn: I’m not denying there are lifestyle choices involved as well. My point is that it isn’t the whole answer. We need balances in life as well.

      • Zilch on 13/06/2023 - 04:09
        +2

        Do you also think people living with these conditions enjoy having to take their meds every day along with any side effects the drugs may have?

        What about individuals with genetic predispositions of the conditions that you mentioned?

        How about environmental stresses and situations that may cause an individual to make poor choices?

        I'd also be interested to hear your take on psychiatric disorders being covered under PBS

        • BarginGrabber on 13/06/2023 - 04:28

          Psychiatric disorders are not even comparable

      • buckster on 13/06/2023 - 07:13
        +1

        All those conditions can occur without a bad lifestyle

      • psyclone1982 on 13/06/2023 - 17:24
        +4

        I suffer from Gout and am on permanent medication, back in February I completed 15 laps in the Maribyrnong Backyard Ultra marathon so not everyone has problems in this list because of poor health choices they have made.

  • reactor-au on 12/06/2023 - 23:13
    +12

    Looking forward to saving about 6 hrs a year waiting for chemist warehouse to dispense my drugs, geez they can be so damn slow. Here for the time saving more than the $

    • wobbie on 13/06/2023 - 00:11
      +3

      Chemist Warehouse has remained neutral on 60-day dispensing, because they know that this policy is good for their business model, more independent and small pharmacies will close and you'll be forced to drive 30 minutes and wait in a Chemist Warehouse for your medicine

      • crzy01 on 13/06/2023 - 06:01
        +3

        Many pharmacies (chains mostly) are releasing apps that allow you to upload your script and just roll in and get it. I know Amcal has one. Terry White maybe?

        • perfectlydark on 13/06/2023 - 09:00
          +1

          i wish my local did that. they dont even bother to call out the names of who is ready half the time so you are sitting around while your meds are ready and the counter ladies gossip. cant stand going to the chemist this policy cant come in soon enough

      • stringbean402 on 30/06/2023 - 17:29

        Chemist warehouse makes people wait on purpose. It’s to make sure they force you to spend as much time as possible to browse the aisles and buy a bunch of other junk.

  • Clear on 12/06/2023 - 23:17
    +12

    I'm on a medication for life and the 30 day supply lasts less than 30 days. Having a 60 day supply certainly helps to extend that by a few weeks.

    • tensionday on 13/06/2023 - 11:29

      Sounds like your prescriber should be getting a PBS authority to allow you to get your full 30 days supply if you are not getting enough. Regardless of whether 30 or s60 days supply, speak to your prescriber about this. You may be able to get the full 30 days worth if the prescriber jumps through the right hoops.

      • Clear on 13/06/2023 - 11:30

        It's pancrelipase, so sometimes you take more and sometimes you take less depending on what you're eating.

        I can certainly get a repeat quicker if required by asking the pharmacist. Less visits would be a lot easier. Especially when travelling.

        • tensionday on 13/06/2023 - 11:35
          +1

          Yep, prescriber can definitely get a PBS authority to get more for you without increasing monthly cost/frequency of repeats. It just takes them a phone call.

          Mind you, the PBS is pretty generous for Creon… if more than 200 caps/month on average you'll need the precriber to get a PBS authority.

          • Clear on 13/06/2023 - 11:37

            @tensionday: Good to know, thank you. Considering it's dropped in price in the last 6 months and I haven't come across any shortages (yet) it's certainly better than others.

            It's really more a case of adjusting the lifestyle to consume less foods requiring more Creon. I'm still very early into it.

  • try2bhelpful on 12/06/2023 - 23:18
    +9

    Absolutely a great idea. Why have people queue up every month for meds for chronic conditions. I’m on statins and the current system is ludicrous. I lose, at least, ten minutes each month waiting for the chemist to print a label for a prepackaged medicine. They don’t even ask how if you anything has changed. If I do notice something different I will talk to my GP not my pharmacist. This will save me money and my time.

    • [Deactivated] on 12/06/2023 - 23:31
      +15

      Besides who wants to discuss medical conditions in the public area of what has now become a variety store that also dispenses medicines

      • try2bhelpful on 12/06/2023 - 23:37

        That too. When I was a young teenager I was too shy to ask my mum for sanitary products when I needed them. I certainly wouldn’t be mentioning my medical history with half a chemist shop listening in. The other problem is these places are very noisy and the chemists are wearing masks. It is hard to hear what they are saying anyway.

        I do like the electronic prescriptions. If I have my phone I have my prescription.

      • Wally on 13/06/2023 - 03:00
        -3

        While we are discussing the needs for Statins in a public forum David Diamond has produced a lot of research concluding ..

        “The only person that potentially can benefit from a statin is someone that really wants to depend more on medication than a lifestyle change.”

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=inwfSkSGvQw

        Maybe ask your doctor to do a Lipid Panel test to include an apoB : apoA1 ratio analysis to get a clearer appreciation of CVD risk

        • try2bhelpful on 13/06/2023 - 10:53
          +2

          Sorry but when you get a statement like
          “The only person that potentially can benefit from a statin is someone that really wants to depend more on medication than a lifestyle change.” I call bunkum. Can we, also, stop putting up random YouTube content instead of medical studies.

          So this person thinks all cholesterol problems can be sorted out by.”lifestyle” changes. Honestly? Also it depends on how much of a lifestyle change they expect people to make.

  • Jackson on 12/06/2023 - 23:19

    Time to get a chronic condition to keep up my supply if the chronic

  • node modules on 12/06/2023 - 23:19
    -1

    Any pharmacists dare to speak against this?

    • Salty Pretzel on 13/06/2023 - 00:27
      +2

      Pharmacy owners are definitely not happy about this

    • node modules on 13/06/2023 - 12:45

      Got downvoted by a minority pharmacy guild member

  • gheygan on 12/06/2023 - 23:29
    +29

    If a pharmacy can't dispense 60 days of medication for a patient with chronic disease (when nearly every other comparable country already does & in many instances dispense 90 days or more) and remain profitable then they should go out of business. Why should vulnerable patients be propping them up by being dragged in every month for no other reason but for the pharmacist to charge the government (i.e. us, the taxpayer!) another dispense fee? Aren't these people liberal? Don't they believe in small government and free market economics? Oh… only until that doesn't work for them, then they're all commies. Right… Give me a break!

    Also, as Pauline would say: please explain the near constant medicine shortages we've been facing (largely as a result of the pandemic & disrupted supply chains) for literally years now? I guess it's the same as the pharmacists that have had to close as a result of this policy according the the Guild? A policy that hasn't even passed the Parliament yet…

    The Guild doesn't represent most community pharmacies/pharmacists. They also make donations to PHON and are very cosy with the LNP to the extent their President is being touted as the next federal candidate for Capricornia by the current LNP member.

    Oh, and also, the government has committed to reinvesting ever single dollar saved in community pharmacy and have said there'd be a list of medicines in short supply which would not be eligible for 60 days dispensing if that threatened a shortage. Sure, hold them to account on those two things but stop playing vulnerable Aussies for your own financial and political gain.

    They've trashed their reputation with most everyday Aussies for a decade at least with this campaign. What an own goal!

    • Tommyaka on 12/06/2023 - 23:53
      +2

      To be fair, "small government and free economics" would be the pharmacies buying the medicine and charging patients however much they please. My understanding is that pharmacies don't make any revenue from the sale of the medicine, they instead receive dispensary fees from Government.

    • Milkywayss on 13/06/2023 - 10:35
      +1

      Don’t forget that LNP member Warren Entsch gave the Pharmacy Guild president Trent Twomey’s wife a $2.4 million federal grant to expand her pharmacy empire

  • baggyred on 12/06/2023 - 23:40
    +3

    Pharmacists were out in force a few weeks ago in Canberra - very worried about their hip pockets

    • Clear on 13/06/2023 - 07:53
      +10

      The pharmacist guild* No one likes them and they don't represent pharmacy as a whole.

      • moar bargains on 13/06/2023 - 13:12
        +4

        Lol Pharmacist Guild circa 2018: 'Medical certificates from pharmacies' is a fantastic idea! Stop all those doctors from profiteering from people who just need a day off work for a cold.
        PG in 2023: Being able to get 2 months of prescriptions at one time is the worst idea ever! It's really going to hit our bottom line put people in danger of, er, something terrible!

  • kaleidoscope on 12/06/2023 - 23:41

    constipation

    Didnt know this is a chronic condition..

    • muwu on 12/06/2023 - 23:43
      +4

      It certainly can be.

      • try2bhelpful on 12/06/2023 - 23:44
        +1

        Don’t you work it out with a pencil, or is that only mathematicians? I will see myself out.

      • kaleidoscope on 13/06/2023 - 07:31

        hmm… just looked it up, i think its by the definition of having less than 3 bms per week for longer than 3 months 🤷‍♂️.

        If i go past even 1 week i’d usually sort it out with diet change 😬🤓

        • Clear on 13/06/2023 - 07:54
          +1

          Assuming a diet change can fix it.

  • [Deactivated] on 12/06/2023 - 23:45
    +20

    Amazingly obscene that professionals are so wedded to the teat of corporate welfare - what a country where even the rich professionals with extensive education (subsidised by the government) now need to be on the gravy train for life. Socialist when it suits, and libertarian, free market capitalists with the next breath, then add a little humanitarian community interest - to hide their self-interest.

    Don't forget these self-serving chameleons did alright through covid with increased business and covid injection payments.

    Pharmacists creating inefficiencies to profit from subsidized medicine.

    • moar bargains on 13/06/2023 - 13:13
      +3

      Lol yep. Pharmacist Guild circa 2018: 'Medical certificates from pharmacies' is a fantastic idea! Stop all those doctors from profiteering from people who just need a day off work for a cold.
      PG in 2023: Being able to get 2 months of prescriptions at one time is the worst idea ever! It's really going to hit our bottom line put people in danger of, er, something terrible!

    • maverickjohn on 13/06/2023 - 13:18
      -2

      Just have a look back at your comment and think how unfortunate the patients and pharmacists in the regional areas of this country are going to be. Not everyone is your big city highly profiteering pharmacy.
      The areas where these pharmacy close are going to affect patients significantly as well. As their next pharmacy location could be hours away.

  • ArjaytheGuy on 12/06/2023 - 23:55
    +4

    Probably worth OP pointing out that people will need to get new prescriptions written for the 60 day supply, it's not just as though pharmacists dan start putting through regular PBS scripts under new codes.

  • CyberMurning on 12/06/2023 - 23:59
    +1

    Im confused.. so doctor will give me 6 repeats instead of 3, but i still pay them at the same price for each script, right?

    • SmoothCactus on 13/06/2023 - 00:25
      +3

      No. You will get 3 repeats instead of 6, but for each dispense you get double the amount, but you don’t pay double the amount.

      You will pay for one months supply, but get two months now.

      • Skp27 on 13/06/2023 - 06:14

        Just for the curiosity…if someone pays for one month supply and get the two months…then who is bearing the Costs? Government?

        • SpainKing on 13/06/2023 - 06:27

          If you pay for one month supply I'm pretty sure they give you a one month supply. I don't believe it forces all these medicines to be prescribed on a 60 day basis if that's deemed unnecessary

          • Hendot on 13/06/2023 - 07:24
            +3

            @SpainKing: You will have noticed Albo saying this is good for consumers who will get cheaper meds, lower cost of living.

            Instead of paying $30 for 1 months supply, you pay $30 for 2 months supply.

            Under the PBS, a $400 medication is $30. Soon it will be $800 for $30.

            • SpainKing on 13/06/2023 - 07:59
              +1

              @Hendot: I thought it was just that you wouldn't have to pay two dispensary fees? You're telling me they doubled the quantity of medication they give out for the same price? I can see why pharmacists would be upset if that were the case. Surprised the manufacturers haven't kicked up a fuss about how they need to supply twice the amount for no additional pay

              • Hendot on 13/06/2023 - 08:14
                +2

                @SpainKing: Manufactures don’t care. The government covers the difference under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS).

                Part of the $30 you pay for your meds goes to the pharmacist as a dispensing fee. The rest goes to the actual cost of the medication. Then the government pays the remainder of the cost.

        • charzy on 13/06/2023 - 08:12
          -4

          The pharmacy bears 100% of the cost. Government pays nothing.

          • Hendot on 13/06/2023 - 08:17
            +1

            @charzy: This is completely wrong.

            Under the PBS, the government subsidises the cost of medicine for most medical conditions. Most of the listed medicines are dispensed by pharmacists, and used by patients at home.

            https://m.pbs.gov.au/about-the-pbs.html

            • charzy on 13/06/2023 - 08:52

              @Hendot: @Hendot This is under the context of the sixty day dispensing and the question is who is bearing the cost of savings.
              The government doesn't pay for the second dispensing fee, the customer doesn't so it's the pharmacy that bears the cost.

              • Hendot on 13/06/2023 - 08:58
                +3

                @charzy: But the pharmacist does half the work.
                The pharmacist gets a dispensing fee each time they dispense a medication.

                • charzy on 13/06/2023 - 09:05

                  @Hendot: @Hendot So if there's half the work, then pharmacies will fire half their pharmacists as there's half the work needed.
                  The other thing to consider is that the dispensing fees are used to cover all services that pharmacies provide free of charge that are NOT subsidized.
                  Half the pharmacists mean either cutting out services or start charging for free services to justify having the second pharmacist.
                  We won't see the full effect however until it's rolled out but It's no joke when they say staff will be fired.

                  • Skp27 on 13/06/2023 - 09:36
                    +1

                    @charzy: In that scenario….don’t be surprise if pharmacists start charging for consultations..

              • Nom on 13/06/2023 - 08:58
                +2

                @charzy: There is no second dispensing fee though - they're giving you the whole two months in a single dispensing.
                There's no additional cost to the pharmacy - they're still getting paid for dispensing.

                But there's going to be a loss in that they're only going to be doing half as much dispensing…

                • charzy on 13/06/2023 - 09:08

                  @Nom: @Nom
                  Loss is synonymous with cost in this scenario; it's loss of total revenue.

                  • Nom on 13/06/2023 - 09:46
                    +1

                    @charzy: That's the key - it's revenue that the general public now gets to keep in their pockets.

                    The second dispensing only existed because of the 1-month rule - it was literally just paying the pharmacy twice for dispensing that they could have done once 🤷🏼‍♂️ If the pharmacy sector shrinks a bit as a result, then that's a small price to pay for the overall gain.

      • JohnHowardsEyebrows on 13/06/2023 - 08:46
        +1

        I thought it was more that you get one doctor's prescription (saving you consultation fees), and you get 2 months dispensed, which won't cost the same as 1 month, but will mean the pharmacy only gets one sale, and somehow the government is reducing their margin for the same quantity of drugs, such that they're (rightly) only getting one dispensing fee for double the drugs?

        • charzy on 13/06/2023 - 08:57

          Doctor's will not give you a yearly prescription (i.e. 6 repeats for 2xmonths) as it's in their guidelines to see you every 6 months for chronic conditions so there's no saving in consultation fees there.
          You will go to the pharmacy 6/year rather than 12/year and pay for 6 lots of scripts (assuming you reach co-payment) rather than 12.

          • Naigrabzo on 13/06/2023 - 10:38

            @charzy: I think there should be some exeptions to that as well.

  • Cheapskate Paul on 13/06/2023 - 00:03
    -3

    Supermarkets should be allowed to have in-store pharmacies, like in the U.S. and U.K. That would really increase competition and drive prices down.

    • samfisher5986 on 13/06/2023 - 00:22

      IGA can have an in-store pharmacy, not sure if that means others can't.

      • Naigrabzo on 13/06/2023 - 10:37

        Guild will stop ya.

    • Big L on 13/06/2023 - 11:28
      +2

      Australia has a duopoly in supermarkets unlike the US or UK, so it's not the same thing. It wouldn't drive prices down as it's not a competitive industry for prescriptions as they're covered on the PBS. This is the last thing consumers need or want.

  • s26f84 on 13/06/2023 - 00:05
    +1

    Wish medicines were free as they are in NZ. We have to pay for doctors now as rarely find doctors doing bulk billing! However, thanks for reducing statins and blood thinners :)

    • Eeples on 13/06/2023 - 13:08

      Not all medicines in NZ are free.

      However, the usual $5 prescription charge will end July 1, 2023.

    • chocolatelover on 13/06/2023 - 13:16

      Be thankful you're only paying $30 for something that may cost thousands!!!!

    • esosite on 13/06/2023 - 14:59

      Careful what you wish for, NZ have hardly any of the new medications compared to Australia. Free if you want treatment that's 5 years out of date of current guidelines (that's an exaggeration, but they are missing a lot of our treatments AFAIK)

      • Westpac on 13/06/2023 - 19:59

        What medicines are they missing for example?

  • SmoothCactus on 13/06/2023 - 00:23
    +9

    Real shame I can’t see all the pharmacists sooking about their profit margins being shaved down.

    Oh no your profits are more important than the millions of people that will benefit from this exponentially more than any loss in revenue. But the 87 year old who has to come in that can barely walk to get the same medication he’s been getting for 26 years! He’s not important!

    Better start paying misleading posters about how this is bad for patients and the government is being a big bad meanie!

    • perfectlydark on 13/06/2023 - 09:06
      +7

      literally the worst messaging behind the pharmacists campaign, they are advocating to make things more inconvenient and more expensive for the consumer for the sole reason: they want more money.
      absolute own goal

  • GarryRJ on 13/06/2023 - 04:28
    +2

    wish they would of done something about the medical cannabis, my mother has been on it now for a few years and it is not cheap i am okay with buying her it as I work but anyone who is on the list knows the prices are very costly compared to other country's it just upsetting as its the government trying to make money off us people.

  • PainToad on 13/06/2023 - 05:24
    +5

    This is convenient and good news, but not a bargain.

  • hutcho on 13/06/2023 - 06:18
    -8

    Great "deal" guys!

  • ialam99 on 13/06/2023 - 06:40

    This is good news for my mum as we can get all her prescriptions once every 60 days instead of once every 30 days so essentially half the trips to the pharmacy each year. However it doesn't mean we save any more on the overall costs. As the others have said, this isn't really a "deal", more a notice for people with illnesses that require regular medication.

    • Hendot on 13/06/2023 - 07:26
      +3

      A 60 day supply will cost the same as a 30 day supply. Effectively half price.

      • ialam99 on 13/06/2023 - 19:03

        Fair call, i missed that bit.

  • kiriakoz on 13/06/2023 - 06:54
    +14

    This shows how much people have been brainwashed by their media. Even when the Labor party does some good during a cost of living crisis, it’s seen as being bad. I get that some pharmacies are worse off but if you’re relying on this fee to stay afloat, you’re not doing very well to begin with.

    • Springfield on 13/06/2023 - 07:00
      -8

      Labor party have exacerbated the cost-of-living crisis did not improve it. Immigration has many negative effects. They are giving cheap meds to so you can learn to live with bad policy.

      • donkcat on 13/06/2023 - 07:16
        +3

        How do u propose we deal with the boomer aged care cliff coming without immigration?

        • [Deactivated] on 13/06/2023 - 07:44

          Cats and boxed wine

          • try2bhelpful on 13/06/2023 - 07:48

            @[Deactivated]: Boxed wine? Why do you think we’ve stuffed all that money into Super?

            • [Deactivated] on 16/06/2023 - 20:15
              -1

              @try2bhelpful: Exactly, there is no solution without immigration the aging would have to pay old school boomer wages for basic work; that is an annual wage equivalent to a 30% of a house - instead successive govs will pander, and dilute the work-value of the youth - to keep the old comfy. Honestly I understand why the Zoomers don't give a (profanity) about working in a rigged system.

              But hey I like the joke and that is the system.

      • kiriakoz on 13/06/2023 - 07:24
        +1

        Net migration has gone down since Labor came into power, what are you on? I'm not even pro Labor, I'm just anti right wing media.

    • Naigrabzo on 13/06/2023 - 10:37

      MORE PERFUMES!

    • R4 on 13/06/2023 - 14:33
      +1

      I agree. I'm no fan of Albanese and his merry band of socialists and their destructive policies but this is a good policy.

      • try2bhelpful on 13/06/2023 - 14:48
        +1

        Dear God you guys don’t know what socialists are.

        • R4 on 13/06/2023 - 15:13
          -1

          I most certainly do.

          Socialism, like most political and economic systems, has many shades - and what he have in government in Australia today is one of those shades.

          • try2bhelpful on 13/06/2023 - 18:43
            +6

            @R4: It isn’t anywhere near a shade of socialism. Especially not in the imputation you are making. In fact the way the LNP voters are more beneficiaries of socialism than the ALP voters. Look at where tax payer money is really going to.

  • zruins on 13/06/2023 - 07:05

    prescribed hormone replacement but bloodtests aint bad enough to get it covered by pbs, feels bad man.

    • reactor-au on 13/06/2023 - 07:58

      TRT?

      • zruins on 13/06/2023 - 10:29

        Yeah.

        • reactor-au on 13/06/2023 - 10:36

          I feel for you man, it's easier to get TRT as trans male than a biological male. Blows my mind.

          • zruins on 14/06/2023 - 02:33

            @reactor-au: I got it prescribed it's just in Australia you need absurdly low serum concentrations of testosterone to be covered by the PBS. I pay $44 a month for 200mg a week of testosterone, that's the full price. It would be substantially cheaper for me to just purchase illegally.

            • reactor-au on 14/06/2023 - 08:29

              @zruins: $44 per month is what the dispensing fee would be even with PBS. How would it be cheaper?

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join