Directly no. As above, it will go back into pharmacies for other purposes.
There is no 1.6 being replaced with 1.2 The figure of 1.2 $B is the saving in script fees to the PBS which is being redeployed not going back to internal revenue. The 1.6 $B is the saving to the customer from reduced price of drugs, not the same thing. As mentioned before there must be additional money available for the PBS for this to be possible.
Quite right. The more of the target drugs you consume the more you save. If you use no target drugs you save nothing. I donāt think anybody has ever suggested everybody will save.
Overall pharmacies will be getting $1.6 billion less from customers and $1.2 billion (your source) less script dispensing fees from the Government. The Government has said that the latter amount will reinvested in community pharmacies, so the net loss to the sector is $1.6 billion. Given that the spin doctors are all over this issue, if the Government was compensating pharmacies for all or part of the $1.6 billion they would have included that detail in publicly available information.
There is nothing that I can find that says so explicitly but the sums just donāt work if there is not.
No you have it all mixed up. It is quite clear the 1.2 is savings to PBS, this is the initial loss of revenue to pharmacies, they will get some back in other ways which are listed in the link above.
From the Ministerās release:
I committed, when I announced this, weāll reinvest every single dollar the Commonwealth saves from this measure, which is about $1.2 billion over four years and Iāve announced the way in which we will commit we will deploy that $1.2 billion.
The pharmacies are not getting 1.6 less that is the saving to the user.
From the Health Dept link above:
Patients are expected to save more than $1.6 billion over the next 4 years
As an example, a person is on a long-term medication which will be eligible for 60-day scripts. Under the current rules this person goes to the pharmacy 12 times a year and pays $30 each time ($360 in total). The Government also pays the pharmacy a total of $155.88 ($12.99 for each script).
There are also other transactions i.e. the wholesale purchase of the medicine, PBS subsidy etc. There is no mention that any of the amounts will change due to the introduction of 60-day scripts.
When the new system starts, the patient will pay $30 only six times per year, saving $180 per year, reducing the pharmacyās income by $180. This forms part of the more than $1.6 billion savings for individuals. The dispensing fee paid by the Government will be $77.94 less. This forms part of the Initial $1.2 billion of Government savings.
Initially the pharmacies are $2.8 billion out of pocket, but the $1.2 billion redistributed by the Government brings the total loss down to around $1.6 billion over four years.
Put another way it is like the three parties are playing poker with the public winning $1.6 billion and the Government breaking even. Using simple maths this means that looking just at the 60-day script transactions the third player, the pharmacies, must collectively be $1.6 billion worse off.
You would also expect that the change will give pharmacies the opportunity to cut costs and/or grow other revenue streams, so the real loss after considering all factors would be a lower amount.
Nope, under the new system you continue to pay $30 per script but you get two monthās, rather than one monthās supply for $30. This is a total of $180 per year.
If you still paid $360 per year why the the Government be telling everyone that you will save up to $180 per medicine per year?
No. You are assuming without any evidence that the 1.6 B$ saved by the users comes from the purse of the pharmacies.
If the user is getting twice the product in a year for the same cost there are two component of the change happening.
One is the script fees halve for the year, the pharmacy doesnāt receive that amount and the PBS doesnāt pay it. That is 1.2 $B which is recirculated.
The second change is the funding for the user receiving double the product in a year at the same cost to them. The pharmacies do not pay that component. The PBS paid it before the rule change and after the change, so if it doubles then the PBS must pick up the difference, which is why I say there must be additional money.
The game has (at least) 4 players - because doctors are affected by this as well. If you only need to renew the prescription half as often then that negatively affects doctor revenue.
Hi syncretic I donāt know where the ānothing to see hereā comment came from! Spell corrector maybe. No I donāt necessarily believe that the size reduction is specific to the 60 day scripts but also means that the idea that when going to the pharmacy you will buy other stuff is a LOT less likely as the choice of other shopping options is reducing significantly. One pharmacy near us reduced floor area by over 50%, reduced staff a lot, and a medical centre was put in the space.The medical centre closed completely in the last month. Itās not the only one in the area that has renovated to a much smaller floor plan and some of this started well before the 60 day script issue was in the media. where things were happening in the background donāt know.
The AMA and RACGP are in favour of the initiative. Perhaps this means some GPs are not just looking at the bottom line and care about seeing sick people instead of doing extra paperwork for stable long term cases.
Most GPs are fully booked for days or even weeks ahead. Those known to keep time for walk-ins usually have more walk-ins than it is possible for them to fit in so there is no idle (non-billable) time in their working day.
There are many posts about areas where GPs are not taking new customers because they are at their limit of being able to care for their existing customers.
Conclusion, the AMA/RACGP membership is not going to have any financial change but less time spent with routine mundane script writing might open some to taking on new customers, and that would be good for their community and those who struggle to be seen in any case.
What about the pharmacists?
Our local pharmacy is often queued for half a hour or longer. I leave my scripts and come back. There can be up to 3 working in the dispensary. I doubt they are at risk from the intended changes.
Considering this from The Guild, cutting back on the work load by providing the 60 day prescriptions for those with regular long term needs would be part of the solution.
The Guild constantly conducts surveys and reviews data to ascertain exactly what the workforce situation is and where its needs in the future will be. Its most recent modelling, established from various surveys and data sources, shows there is a currently a shortage of approximately 2,400 full time equivalent (FTE) pharmacists across Australia.
What is even more worrying is that the identified shortage is growing and shows no signs of easing in the near future.
ā¦ for some there will be a saving in that it becomes (more) viable to purchase pharmaceuticals when in the city rather than being forced to pay prices some monopolies charge in regional locations. In the city I pay at minimum half and uaually a third the price I do in my home town where 4 of the 5 pharmacies are owned by the same company, and the 5th is much less convenient being out of town, the next nearest town with a pharmacy being over 500km away - and because I work remote the city pharmacies will dispense two repeats at a time (usually). Iām hoping the new system will mean I can get 120 days at a time ā¦
Iāve made the effort to align the chemist visits for my 4 regular meds to the one day each month. Itās not necessary to wait until one supply runs out to fill out a repeat. If one is concerned about the safety net rules, itās possible to pull the cycle of those later in the month forward progressively. Use the 20 day minimum for monthly repeats.
Canāt say I totally sympathise with the chemists ācry poorā wails. As a pensioner I will benefit from the scheme as stated but only because I have a repeat prescription and am therefore able to get 2 of the same.for 1 fee unlike those with non-repeat prescriptions where the pharmacist will still make the same profit as before. My local pharmacy has bit the bullet and taken over the vacant shop next door, made it one and filled tt with even more impulse buys like sunnies etc. which should see it through given that not every prescription is a double quantity and the govt has said it will subsidise the pharmacies.
As you wrote āsome GPsā (my emphasis), Iām sure you are right that some GPs are concerned about more than just the bottom line. I also know that some in the medical fraternity are highly concerned about their bottom line, possibly as their highest priority, higher priority than providing health care. For example, those who are defrauding Medicare are telling you something about their priorities.
Yes. The three players in the post to which I was replying are: the government (the taxpayer), the pharmacies, and the consumer (members of the public buying affected medicines).
So the pharmacists were already included. I was just pointing out the 4th player: doctors.
