• 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 (7943 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

  • Tunder on 13/06/2023 - 07:55
    +1

    I'm a pharmacist ask me anything, unless it is about your health which you should ask your health care team.

    • Naigrabzo on 13/06/2023 - 10:36
      +1

      GUILD my man. GUILD!

    • Jessie Ryder on 13/06/2023 - 12:28
      +1

      @Tunder Ok, why does the guide not have consumers best interest at the forefront.

      • Tunder on 13/06/2023 - 12:57

        I am not the Pharmacy Guild so I cannot speak to them only that the Guild represent the interest of pharmacy owners and this change to the way that medicine is dispensed in Australia has the potential to impact pharmacy business viability.

        Is there a specific issue you have with the Guilds position?

        The Consumers Health Forum is the advocate for the consumers best interest - https://chf.org.au/

    • tensionday on 13/06/2023 - 18:18

      How often do you pick up on serious issues that the GP/specialist has missed that could have landed a patient in hospital? A lot of people saying you guys are just putting labels on boxes, is that true?

      • Clear on 14/06/2023 - 00:02
        +2

        It's pretty common. E.g. switching from a large dose of medication to another that could have interactions. Or those who drug shop and the GP hasn't bothered to lookup previous prescriptions in the state database (not every state has this). Reading my 'MyHR' has shown some pretty major issues that doctors and specialists have missed.

      • Tunder on 14/06/2023 - 10:06
        +2

        If your asking do i justify my existence I would say that I can. I personally never put labels on boxes i trust my incredible dispense techs to do that. I prefer to be speaking with my patients and providing them with vaccines or health advice that an overworked healthcare system is unable to provide at the fee or speed i provide them, free and within 20 mins.

        I don't believe Health is so binary that you are either healthy or in hospital but I lile to think that after the many consults i have had with my patients about their health and their choices I have made an impact to steer them further from that worst case hosptialisation event. I still have a lot more work to do for my conmunity but that is why I turn up each day.

        We have great doctors in the area I work so errors of that magnitude are few. Most of my work these days is in tracking down medication for patients or consulting with doctors about what would be appropriate to change to.

    • Milkywayss on 14/06/2023 - 07:24

      What are your thoughts on the guild and Trent twomey’s views in general?

      3 years ago at the pharmacy guild yearly conference he said he wants “every pharmacist to be able prescribe every medication, for every condition”. I’ve still not found a pharmacist who believes this is a good idea?

      The guy seems mad on political power and has Warren Entsch won over with his huge donations.

      • Tunder on 14/06/2023 - 10:38
        +1

        I beleive the Guild are doing their job to best represent their contituents and generate discourse to ensure politicals decisions that impact the lives of many are given appropriate air time.

        I do not beleive a pharmacist should be involved in prescribing for complex cases or in cases where timeliness to treatment is not an important predictor of treatment success.

        I do beleive that we have a role to play in issues that our overworked health system is unable to adress in a timely mannor. A recent example would be the treatment of cold sores. Historically you had to go to a doctor, get a script, find a pharmacy, get it dispensed all within the 48 hour window that that medication is effective for. In circumstances like this where the treatment guidelines are clear and time is important, I do believe pharmacists should be able to work more directly with patients and refer to prescribers when the case falls outside guidelines.

        Trent, I beleive, is playing the role required of him in modern media.

        • dangerdanger on 19/06/2023 - 19:57
          +1

          Ok, thanks I'll take up that offer of asking you anything.

          Do you believe Trent should speak for 'Society's benefit' when talking about Pharmacists prescribing? When in another light - the benefit to Society of 60-day dispensing, suddenly it's not about 'Society's benefit' but about Pharmacy Guild members' financial viability (no matter that it puts employees at risk of loss of income and jobs)?

          Do you think Trent's financial interests should be publically outed? Notably all Pharmacies he personally owns, or part-owns?

          Do you think Trent's name-calling comments regarding other professions, is in itself unprofessional?

          Do you believe Pharmacy employees are more valuable than GP practice employees?
          —> GPs have their income targeted by the Pharmacy Guild moves, and govt with lack of MBS indexing = their employees at risk.
          —> Pharmacies have their income targeted by the govt = their employees at risk.

          Do you believe it's fair for Pharmacists to own GP practices, but it's illegal for Doctors to own Pharmacies? Who does this benefit, apart from Pharmacists?

          Notwithstanding the stock-costs involved, do you think it strange that Pharmacists can now diagnose-and-prescribe-and-dispense (albeit a limited number of conditions), and yet Doctors cannot dispense?

          If each Pharmacy is going to 'lose' $150k, does that mean the Govt (and the tax payer) are propping up each pharmacy by the tune of at least $150k (probably much more than this)?

          Does Trent speak for you? If not, and the PSA may be more representive of you, then why is the PSA not fighting the Guild?

          Do you think the shelves of Nature's own, horny goat weed etc etc, should remain in Pharmacies (knowing you probably don't own one so it's not up to you)? Do you think these naturopathic treatments and shelves of discount perfumes, denigrate your tertiary degree and expertise?

          • Tunder on 21/06/2023 - 15:39

            @dangerdanger: I think you don't really care what I think but I am glad you are asking these kinds of questions as I believe the point of all of this is to be asking questions. The calamity I see is when government changes the state of play in industry without a consultation process.

            In this instance the announcement was made and the industry was told to deal with it and just like what is happening now in the Opioid substitution therapy program the industry is scrambling to make sense of and deliver on a policy that was dumped on them in the eleventh hour.

            Do you believe it's fair for Pharmacists to own GP practices, but it's illegal for Doctors to own Pharmacies? Who does this benefit, apart from Pharmacists? - Pharmacists can own GP practices but cannot influence GPs to send their patients to a chosen pharmacy, this is called channeling and is illegal. There are safeguards in place to prevent what I believe you are getting at with this question that a pharmacist has input into the prescribing and dispensing process.

            Notwithstanding the stock-costs involved, do you think it strange that Pharmacists can now diagnose-and-prescribe-and-dispense (albeit a limited number of conditions), and yet Doctors cannot dispense? - Doctors can dispense in circumstances where it is necessary? Also as stated above I believe prescribing and dispensing should be separate, except in simple cases that are time sensitive where the patient stands to benefit from immediate and convenient treatment. What is the point of requiring a script for Ventolin if you are having an asthma attack?

            • dangerdanger on 21/06/2023 - 16:57
              +1

              @Tunder: Actually, I care a lot about what you think. I have Pharmacists in my extended family.

              I suspect Pharmacists (and Trent/Guild) were not consulted directly, as no doubt they would oppose any suggestion of a cut in profits.

              this is called channeling and is illegal

              No, I'm talking about out-right ownership of a medical practice, and pharmacies. Doctors can't go out and buy up pharmacies (a la CWH), but pharmacist can indeed buy over a chain of medical practices. Why should this restriction be in place?

              Doctors can dispense in circumstances where it is necessary?

              We're not talking about doctors bag supplies, but let's use your ventolin idea. Doctors can't buy dozens of ventolin boxes and sell them : that would be dispensing. That is illegal for Doctors.

              But maybe most Doctors are glad they don't dispense. Looking after retail is a PITA. Keeping stock is a PITA. Nevertheless, the lack of option to dispense if they wanted, it's unusual.

              Also as stated above I believe prescribing and dispensing should be separate, except in simple cases that are time sensitive where the patient stands to benefit from immediate and convenient treatment

              … So ok for pharmacists to prescribe-and-dispense, but doctors can't / shouldn't do any more than prescribe. Got it.

              How about the comments re: Trent's financial interests? Why some employees are more important than others? Does the PSA or the Guild speak for the pharmacists? Note that I don't expect your response re: the Guild. Seems like all pharmacists are very careful not to speak ill of their overlords, or the Guild who represent their overlords.

              How do you feel about so much floor space of the average pharmacy, devoted to naturopathic or unproven remedies? Perfumes? Do you think your uni degree and expertise should be devoted to sales of such items?

              I feel for your situation if you are just an employee and not the Guild / owner of a chemist. This is going to hit you hard. Rough times ahead. In hindsight, one wonders why the employee pharmacists (who outnumber owners) did not speak up earlier through the PSA.

            • dangerdanger on 21/06/2023 - 22:18

              @Tunder: I just realised your comment :

              where the patient stands to benefit from immediate and convenient treatment

              So… 60 day dispensing is… where the patient stands to benefit from immediate and convenient treatment? In line with your logic / ethos?

  • [Deactivated] on 13/06/2023 - 08:16

    Lol my dealer disposes 420/7 and gives me whatever supply I want. Costs a little bit more for a higher quality product.

    Don't get hooked on big pharma. Sure they have antibiotics and baby pills, but their pingas suck.

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

    What we are witnessing contradicts the notion that if pharmaceutical companies were genuinely striving to assist people in curing their illnesses, they would inadvertently push their own businesses out of the market.
    There appears to be a systemic issue at play that leads to an increasing number of individuals becoming dependent on long-term subscriptions, or perhaps the medication's side effects are compelling people to remain on lifelong subscriptions.

    • tensionday on 13/06/2023 - 11:44
      +2

      I too would prefer my 83 year old grandma who is still alive today but dependant on medication after having a stroke to not be dependent on medication. Her mother died from a stroke at 63 but at least she never took pills!

    • hypie on 13/06/2023 - 14:15

      @hokonfan You sound like you know a lot about curing disease. Any tips?

      • hokonfan on 13/06/2023 - 16:35

        Do you own research too much controversy.
        Rabbit hole - Look at Food Pyramid in reverse.

  • Waltervp on 13/06/2023 - 09:30
    +24

    I've had cystic fibrosis my whole life and my diet seems to mostly consist of pills. I could never understand why i could only get 1 month supply of meds that i use my entire life, making me repeatedly go into pharmacies full of sick and susceptible people where i can share and receive all my bugs (and i carry some seriously lethal bugs in my lungs!). I order most of my medicine via the hospital pharmacy who delivers to a nearby health centre where i can pick them up from the counter where there are few if any people.

    Insulin and thyroid medication i get many months worth at a time for some reason, but most others only 1 month, and it makes no sense. Diabetic supplies for my insulin pump are not PBS, and cost me a lot of $$ that i cannot go without, and many others are non prescription or not in PBS but necessary. Because cystic fibrosis affects digestion we do not absorb a lot of (especially the fat soluble) vitamins and minerals and must have $upplements, none of which are PBS. Not to mention the high fat high protein diet we are supposed to have for our eternal problem maintaining our weight -due to that malabsorbtion. Groceries are extra expensive, plus the food supplements, hospital strength sustagen etc, which are also very expensive….

    So I for one will be very happy to get 2 months of meds easier now, making my life a little easier.

  • Bunnyburger on 13/06/2023 - 09:39

    This is criminal, nothing for erectile dysfunction!

    • JohnHowardsEyebrows on 13/06/2023 - 10:55
      +2

      Stiff.

    • try2bhelpful on 13/06/2023 - 11:04
      +1

      Do you think this is an American health fund where you can get the little blue pills but they won’t stump up for the contraceptive pill? Then again we know who runs the health funds and what their priorities are.

      • Big L on 13/06/2023 - 11:31
        +4

        Robin Williams did a joke on this - you can get viagra on your fund but not glasses, so you have a raging hard on and can't see where to put it

    • maverickjohn on 14/06/2023 - 00:12

      https://m.pbs.gov.au/search.html?term=SILDENAFIL&analyse=fal…
      I can see it. They have catered for your needs

    • ColtNoir on 25/06/2023 - 20:08

      Viagra’s on the PBS but the pill isn’t. You’re already getting a good deal.

    • pizzaguy on 13/06/2023 - 09:52
      +2

      Haven't heard about that band.

    • bidam1 on 13/06/2023 - 10:05
      +5

      cry me an effing river

    • ruddiger7 on 13/06/2023 - 10:32
      +3

      have a tissue champ

      • moar bargains on 13/06/2023 - 13:29

        Tissues, Aisle 3. Unless it's allergies, then aisle 6.

    • Clear on 13/06/2023 - 10:39
      +1

      You confused pharmacies with pharmacy guild.

    • ColtNoir on 25/06/2023 - 20:10

      When a pharmacist can open 3 pharmacies, on the same street, within 500m of each other, I’m not shedding a tear for them.
      Yes, this is a real example.

  • LlamaLlamaLamp on 13/06/2023 - 09:48
    +1

    Disappointing this doesn't apply to all medication. Was the original proposal to include all/most?

  • ruddiger7 on 13/06/2023 - 10:30

    I heard you can get 3 months worth of medication in New Zealand. Then again they dont have our pharmacy guild to cry poor.

  • Naigrabzo on 13/06/2023 - 10:36

    The guild controls all the politicians at all levels. :)

    • Clear on 13/06/2023 - 10:39

      If they did then why is this happening? Never would have made it this far.

      • Naigrabzo on 13/06/2023 - 12:39
        +3

        That's why it's not 3 months or even 6 months. All locals politicians are at risk. The guild has an iron grip over older voters who come every month to pharmacies. The guild will tell them whom to vote for. by having constant contact with the pharmacies they control the voters. :)

        I know this is an exaggeration but hope you get the picture.

        • Clear on 13/06/2023 - 13:14

          You make a good point. All the boomers watching Sky News will come to the wrong conclusion.

          • Naigrabzo on 13/06/2023 - 13:47

            @Clear: LOL true. Although if you are watching and believing sky news you may have other issues. :)

            The guild has a long history of this. They even have rules on how far each pharmacy has to be from one another. From memory it has to be 1km.

            It's not a cult; It's not savage; It's the guild. :)

    • Namidairo on 13/06/2023 - 11:50
      +1

      I find it hilarious that they dropped over 150k on the ALP in FY22 and still got screwed.

      Suckers.

  • knackers on 13/06/2023 - 10:47
    +6

    Forcing chronically ill patients(many of which are senior citizens) into a pharmacy every 30 days is plain cruel. Pharmacies can now treat common conditions and dispense vaccines to make up the difference. Classic case of highly profitable industry crying poor (and yes, the lion share of tax payer funded windfall goes to big pharmacy chains).

    • sal78 on 14/06/2023 - 09:56
      +1

      They go to GP, Specialists etc every other week. We see them around even when they are not coming to the doctors.

      • try2bhelpful on 14/06/2023 - 10:00
        +2

        That’s not correct. Chronic just means persisting for a long time. Most people are on medications that mean their doctors check up on them every few months not weekly.

      • ColtNoir on 25/06/2023 - 20:12

        Every other week, are you mad?
        I speak to my doctor 4 times a year, and maybe 1-2 specialist a year but pharmacists, several times a month (because the meds don’t all line up neatly, and dispensing limits).

        This is just for Asthma(and related issues) and TMD.

  • jinkerjinx on 13/06/2023 - 11:19
    +2

    i don't mind that OP posted the 'deal'.. or that moderators allow it.
    but it's not a deal that fits with the mabo.. the spirit of ozb

  • Leor44 on 13/06/2023 - 11:57
    +2

    A lot of people are going to be in for a big shock in September….

    Yes you will get double the medication per dispense, but the price will ONLY stay the same if your medicine cost exceeds the claimable amount (when your medicine caps out at $30 or $6.30 if you're a concession card holder)

    If you are currently paying below $30 your medicine's cost is too low to claim on the PBS, so pharmacies can set whatever cost they choose. So for people paying $15 a box, pharmacies will just charge $30 for a double supply because they can. Once it exceeds $30 they can no longer increase the price, as per the Govt rules etc.

    In short, the majority of people will end up paying the same (maybe more if pharmacies use them to slow the bleeding) to compensate for the loss on claimable scripts.

    • stringbean402 on 13/06/2023 - 13:23
      -1

      Meh more threats from the pharmacy cartel crying poor. People will shop with their wallets.

      Hopefully enough small, crappy, price gouging pharmacies close up shop and they let supermarkets have pharmacies like other countries.

      Drop off your scripts before you do your shopping and grab them on the way out, with better prices to boot.

      Better than standing around like a mug while a pharmacist takes an inexplicably long time to type your medication name into a computer program and then prints a label and slaps it on the box.

      It's a profession that really can be largely automated by software, pharmacists add relatively little value to the chain of medical care.

      The pharmacy system we have here and their protected business model is just dumb.

    • StarPlatinum on 13/06/2023 - 12:40
      +3

      How so? This saves tax payers money as the government would need to pay the pharmacy less ? And the cost of the medicine isn’t changing it just makes it more convenient for the consumer meaning less GP visit and less pharmacy visit

      • stringbean402 on 13/06/2023 - 13:25
        +1

        Exactly this, save the tax payer the cost of the excessive GP's and pharmacy visits for zero reason, the system as it is now is broken, it's just a big slush fund with so much waste.

  • Jase83 on 13/06/2023 - 12:22
    -6

    Excellent news - good to see the glorified pick and packers (pharmacists) finally take an L

    • RtN on 13/06/2023 - 12:26
      +3

      Yeah they're even trying to take a cut of the pie from GPs who are already struggling to run clinics by dispensing some antibiotics… hello resistance and a few other clinical issues. The pharmacists have a financial incentive if they are allowed to prescribe antibiotics etc.

      • Jase83 on 13/06/2023 - 13:42

        Ha, had not seen this before

    • chocolatelover on 13/06/2023 - 13:20
      +2

      Go work in a pharmacy and get back to me about being a pick packer!!!

      • stringbean402 on 13/06/2023 - 13:29
        -3

        Yeah it's a shit job, not exactly what I would call a highly skilled profession.

        • chocolatelover on 13/06/2023 - 16:48
          +1

          Not pharmacists fault they study for 5 years and aren't paid well! There's a calling for each and every person and you are extremely demoralizing! Your ego is clearly bigger than a stringbean!

          • HootyMcBewb on 13/06/2023 - 19:56

            @chocolatelover: Wait a minute. I thought most of the comments above said pharmacists are all rich. Why are they now not paid well in this comment? Something isn't right….

            • Jase83 on 13/06/2023 - 20:01
              +2

              @HootyMcBewb: The pharmacy owners are rich - they exploit young graduates

      • Jase83 on 13/06/2023 - 13:42
        +5

        An entire profession that could be replaced by a dispensing vending machine robot and no one would notice the difference

        • esosite on 13/06/2023 - 15:04
          +4

          but who would ask you is generic ok? have you had this one before? no? ok.

        • HootyMcBewb on 13/06/2023 - 20:32
          +3

          Good luck getting a vending machine that reads doctor's handwriting

        • sarah965 on 13/06/2023 - 22:42
          +1

          If that’s the case, robots and AI can pretty much take over any and every job

        • jason101 on 28/06/2023 - 20:06

          Happy for this - but vending of any medication (even over the counter meds) is actually illegal in South Australia. So on one had we (pharmacies) have to continue some very inefficient practices, yet on the other any modern innovation is stifled and our hands are tied behind our back.

    • sarah965 on 13/06/2023 - 22:41
      +4

      That’s just cruel. They study 5 years, have a wealth of knowledge about medication, more than any GP and other health professional. Yet they get paid less than someone working at coles. It’s the big chain cwh owners that are milking all profits.

      • dangerdanger on 20/06/2023 - 18:58
        +1

        Yep.

        Kind of like Drs : the hospitals and Pharma companies make more than the prescribers. The corporate GP clinic owners make more than the GPs.

      • BEZ2311 on 25/06/2023 - 11:16

        4 years.

  • IPYF on 13/06/2023 - 15:21
    +1

    Good to see Enstilar foam on the list. That stuff costs me an arm and a leg just for the privilege of being able to see that arm and a leg. GPs can only issue like 2 months worth through the software ($40 per consult out of pocket) for a rattle can that runs to $70. So once the doc is factored in, it's $90 a month per treatment. Any saving on that has to be grabbed with both hands. Thanks OP.

  • psyclone1982 on 13/06/2023 - 17:19

    My medicine already comes in a pack of 200 that I take one per day, so over 6 months supply per script.

    However is listed in the "Now I can get 60 days worth" does this mean i'm going to be able to get 400 tablets and over a years supply?

  • echelon6 on 13/06/2023 - 17:22
    +2

    nothing for adhd ;(

  • sal78 on 14/06/2023 - 09:51
    -3

    The Pharmas got screwed over for Gov. The small ones may not survive. Huge losses.

    • SupeNintendoChalmers on 14/06/2023 - 09:55
      +3

      Thats what the Pharmacy cartel, er I mean union, I mean Guild + Murdoch media would like you to believe.

    • Circly on 14/06/2023 - 10:29
      +1

      In fact they have been having it too good for a long time.

  • drumrollplease on 15/06/2023 - 19:09

    No ADHD? Sucks considering there was a shortage that really (profanity) me up for like the rest of the year

    Edit: nevermind clicked the pdf link (which does not link to a pdf but my meds are there huzzahhh I will no longer have anxiety at the back of my mind of the day another shortage happens)

  • [Deactivated] on 16/06/2023 - 20:34

    My small town of 500 people has ONE full time Pharmacy - fifteen minutes drive to the small regional town with EIGHT Pharmacies.
    Without government subsidies this level of socialist over-servicing would not exist.
    Not to mention the number of health food stores run into the ground by subsidising the prescriptions of Chemist Warehouse.
    This is bad policy finally being corrected - an education doesn't mean that the less fortunate should subsidise the businesses of entitled professionals.

  • caulfieldguy on 20/06/2023 - 14:40

    Whenever I buy medicines on prescriptions, the verbal exchange rarely goes beyond - sign please. No value add; no advice; no suggestions, nothing. Might as well buy at Coles. But I can't because Coles aren't allowed in that pharmacy market.

    I live in a middle distance suburb in Melbourne, local shop streets are littered with ex fruit shops who home delivered, ex meat shops who cut to order, ex newsagents who delivered a newspaper. All leased to cafes, flower shops, medical centres.

    They're almost all gone, they weren't subsidised by misplaced regulations and subsidies.

    Enough of the bleating; our Doctors will decide what medicines we need and ensure no negative medicine interactions. Goodbye local chemist.

  • dangerdanger on 22/06/2023 - 19:56
    +1

    Received robocall from the Guild today. 0489 988 599. I usually do the opposite of what robocallers want, I hope everyone else does too.

    • Sweet3st on 24/06/2023 - 17:39

      Yep. My call was followed up by a text message thanking me for 'listening'… I didn't.

      • dangerdanger on 24/06/2023 - 19:24

        I often just leave the call going for as long as possible, by leaving the phone on the table. If they're wasting more time with me, they're tied up unable to annoy or scam another number

  • penetration8 on 28/06/2023 - 14:25
    -2

    this isnt a good deal, it will cut a large portion of income for pharmacies who will attempt to compensate for their loss by increasing prices on other items, overall negative impact

    • jason101 on 28/06/2023 - 19:53

      I made a few similar comments on Redit and was slaughtered - essentially everything else in pharmacy has to rise in price to cover this "saving" which is really just the government paying pharmacies less, concession clients paying pharmacies less and the Federal Government waving their hand in the air cheering they have "lowered the cost of living".

      Items where pharmacies have a monopoly such as larger pack hayfever meds, soon to be 100x packs of paracetamol etc will all rise.

      I wouldn't have had so much of an issue if the government simply allowed concession card holders to save money (ie 60 day supply, clients pay only once per 60 days instead of twice), but what irks me (allot) is that the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT also pay pharmacies 50% less and we have to effectively hold double the stock to meet the double dispensing rule.

      As much as I hate it - I think it is actually political genius in play:
      "Lets save the concession holders and the governement (tax payers) money by paying pharmacies half as much to dispence twice as much and make them hold twice as much stock (if they can get it), we'll package it up so 99% of the voters agree it will save consumers money and any voice of descent will make it look like greedy, rich pharmacy owners complaining. We bring it in, in under 3 months - give no time for the industry to adjust for the changes - they'll work it out"

      Game, set and match Federal Labor Government.

      With pensioners gathering up 60 days worth of stock for the price of 30 - watch this space as medicine shortages kick in. We have so many clients who change their meds (on Dr's advice) every week or fortnight, but everytime they swing by our store they'll be collecting 60 days worth of product for their $6 contribution - billions of dollars of drugs will literally be flushed down the toilet starting September 1st.

      Currently there are 415 meds on the shortage list: https://www.tga.gov.au/safety/shortages/medicine-shortage-re…

      Lets keep an eye on this metric.

      • Love a bargain on 29/06/2023 - 12:30
        +1

        Absolute lie from the pharmacy guild. No doubt you're a pharmacy owner.

        Holding double stock? The overall consumption is the same (ie on average, half as many prescription being filled at double quantity/ script).

        Pharmacies can raise the price on the already overpriced non-prescription products that sell & customers can vote with their feet. What a lot of pharmacies have forgotten is that they don't own our patronage.

        • LovingHatingCoffee on 29/06/2023 - 13:42

          This has been a "fascinating" thread, and the broader topic, to follow. I've been following as a pharmacist (not an owner), a consumer, a taxpayer and a citizen.

          Going to throw in <2cents that nobody asked for (but hey, it is the internet!). Just addressing the matter of "holding double stock". It is uncertain whether it'll be fully "double" the stock holding for the medication on the list, as it'll depend on how many of those patients are deemed "stable" with their conditions.

          However, it is certain there will be an at-least transient increased stock holding even if consumption is the same, as the pharmacy will need to meet the transient increased dispensing demand, even if long term usage is the same.

          For example, if you usually dispense 100 boxes per month, you'll need to hold 100 boxes (+ n% to buffer small fluctuations) stock per month. But now if let say 50% of those will become double supply at once, then you'll need 50 + 50x2 = 150 boxes worth of stock in that month, just that the next month you'll be supplying less stock.

          I agree it isn't a strong argument for medication to go into shortages in the metro area, and likely it'll smooth out over time. However this means either the pharmacy increases its holding levels to buffer the now larger fluctuations (as the buffer n% mentioned above will need to be at least twice the amount) which may affect its cash flow, or maintain the same amount of stock holding which means much more frequent "we haven't got enough of this medication today, but I can order it and it'll come the next business day. So you'll need to come back then" and ensuring another visit to the pharmacy for pick up.

          The big chains with the most market shares can likely weather the extra business liability, and most pharmacies in the metro area will be fine logistics/distribution wise too. Although when the metro areas are increasing stock holding overall, it'll mean potentially less stock available for regional areas. The regional and rural areas can be a very different beast in terms of logistics and distribution, where some places may not get daily delivery on usual working days, so it can present very realistic challenges to the pharmacies in such areas.

          This isn't to say that this should prevent what I would prefer to call "Extended Regularly Dispensing" (rather than 60 Days Dispensing, which I feel is very misleading and suffer branding issues. Extended Regular Dispensing can mean if things work out well it can move onto 90 days and still retain same name and avoiding so much changes which can lead to confusion. But I digress..), because if it is implemented well (which often should include proper consultation with all stakeholders) , it is a very sensible policy if its aim is to increase affordability and ease of access to healthcare, just like a lot of different groups are saying (which, pharmacists actually do and has always supported such aim). Strategies need to be implemented though (such as, prioritising stock supply allocation to regional/remotem/rural areas) to reduce the adverse impact on regional and rural areas, or wherever places there are already a healthcare access crisis.

          Edited ~20 minutes after first posting, for clarity and elaboration.

          • Love a bargain on 30/06/2023 - 15:01

            @LovingHatingCoffee: Those who are not stable enough would not be getting a 60-day script - so there goes one of your argument

            If they're seller the same amount, the buffer (the n% in your equation) is the same - so there goes your second argument.

      • Chas k on 02/07/2023 - 03:08
        +1

        If they get 60 days supplies in one month, they won't be back the next month to get their supply. What's the problem??

        Over a two month period the supplied amount is the same. It's not like people will be hoarding 6 months supplies of drugs.

        The Pharmafia are really a bunch of silly whingers.

    • SupeNintendoChalmers on 29/06/2023 - 09:42
      +1

      Nice try, pharma guild shrill.

  • Viospeed on 03/08/2023 - 11:22
    -1

    Is there an official source where it says we can buy 2 for the price of 1?

    • Love a bargain on 03/08/2023 - 14:06
      +1

      That's not how it works

      • Viospeed on 03/08/2023 - 14:21

        How does it work?

          • Viospeed on 03/08/2023 - 17:37

            @zrmx: It states "If your medicines are eligible, your costs will be effectively halved as you will get a 60-day supply for the price of a 30-day supply. "

            Isn't that effectively 2 for the price of 1?

            • zrmx on 03/08/2023 - 18:37

              @Viospeed: Depends on how much the medication cost per supply, whether it reaches the patient co-payment of $30 per supply for general category patient, or $7.30 for eligible concession card holders.

              What 60 days dispensing enables is the patient only pays one relevant co-payment per 60 day supply quantity.

              So if your medication used to be $10 per 30 day supply, then 60 day supply is $20, below $30 copay threshold, then no change as you still pay $20. But if your med is $20 per 30 day, then 60 day would be capped at $30 copay threshold instead of paying $40.

              Hence it is called 60 days dispensing rather than the blanket 2 for 1, which the government knows that'd be too good to be true, even though it'll make much better media coverage.

              All the above may still change as the government may release further details or amends conditions.

              • sky blu on 15/12/2023 - 14:42

                @zrmx: Hi there, looks like your above explanation with the assumption on $30 cap amount for 60 days is incorrect.

                Refer to the "examples" in the published PDF or Word - https://www.health.gov.au/resources/publications/savings-wit…

                Example – medicine below $30

                A patient may have paid up to $45.90 for two 30-day prescriptions, for a premium-free brand, paying $22.95 for each prescription. With a 60-day prescription, the cost of the medicine is $28.22. The patient is saving $17.68 every two months, or $106.08 per year.

                Personally I can't work out how it comes to $17.68 every 2 months. Could it be dependant on the pharmacy's discount (which is discretionary)?

                • zrmx on 15/12/2023 - 15:44
                  +1

                  @sky blu: The above example has not provided sufficient context, unless it is just factually incorrect, to explain why it is $28.22.

                  Personally I can't work out how it comes to $17.68 every 2 months. Could it be dependant on the pharmacy's discount (which is discretionary)?

                  Me neither, and that's why I think it is an inaccurate example.

                  I'd probably go with this publication instead: https://www.health.gov.au/cheaper-medicines/resources/public…

                  Nonetheless, whatever examples for anyone to come up with, basically still need to follow the PBS rule of:

                  When you buy a medicine listed on the PBS, the cost is shared between you and the Government. The amount you pay the pharmacist for each prescription is called the co-payment. In 2023, the maximum you pay for most PBS medicines is $30. If you have a concession card, the most you pay is $7.30. ¹

                  ¹ Unless there is a brand price premium. A brand price premium is an additional payment to the manufacturer of a specified brand of a PBS medicine. Brand premiums are only permitted where an alternative, premium free, TGA registered brand is available on the PBS for substitution by the pharmacist. Patients should speak to their pharmacist to discuss dispensing of premium-free alternatives.

  • CyberMurning on 01/09/2023 - 05:10

    It's here finally start

  • SupeNintendoChalmers on 01/09/2023 - 07:48
    +2

    https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-09-01/live-news-blog-the-lo…

    The government argues it'll save patients money, but the Pharmacy Guild has warned it will threaten the viability of some community pharmacies.

    Health Minister Mark Butler told Nine: "We've received twice as many applications to open new pharmacies as we received at the same time last year, or the year before.

    "Clearly people out there think there is still money to be made running a pharmacy, and I'm confident there is too."

    If this new change is the death of pharmacies like the Pharmacy Union, I mean Cartel, I mean Guild are saying, why are applications to open new pharmacies around double compared to last year?

  • yht on 01/09/2023 - 20:41
    +1

    Has anyone do this today ? I heard that you would need the script that is issued today to use this new rule. If you have old script, it won't be eligible. Is that right ?

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join