The world of pharmacists is divided into two types.
The owners who are specialised shopkeepers who take the profits of the drug dispensing business and of the sales of sunscreen, patent medicine, corn plaster, vitamins, cosmetics, soap powder and whatever else they come up with. Some may actually work in the shops and dispense drugs and advice. They belong to the Guild which has much influence.
Then there are the non-owners who are paid a wage to dispense drugs and advice. According to sources cited above they earn very ordinary wages and certainly do not belong to the Guild and consequently do not have much influence.
The Guild has successfully lobbied for supermarkets to be kept out of the first group as unless they remain vigilant the eschaton will arrive far too soon. Why should supermarkets not employ the second group? See previous paragraph.
As Lorenzo The Magnificent said âMoney to get the power, power to keep the money.â
Would this be any different in a world of competition between Supermarket operated pharmacies?
Iâll sit on the fence and ask how might our supermarket duopoly and âBig Pharmaâ interact? Would it be to the greater benefit of the consumer, Colesworth, the multinational Pharmaceutical companies, or âŠ.?
One vision if it comes to pass is of two different Australiaâs.
One urban with competition between the pharmacy services of the big supermarkets and chain branded pharmacies.
The other of a regional Australia where which ever provider serves a community there remains a single or limited choice.
Open to suggest whether a supermarket chain as the only pharmacy choice in a regional location would be as responsive to the community as an independent pharmacy service. Corporate policies being what they are. Or would the pharmacy department of the supermarket chain be acceptable as a loss leader, considering only prescription and over the counter products might be considered part of the pharmacy profit centre?
Iâm looking forward to the 60 days for our next round of prescriptions.
The junior pharmacists can stick up for themselves. I drew two pictures side by side to show that the world the Guild members want us to imagine, where there is no distinction is not real. I donât see how the wage earnersâ lives are improved by the political clout belonging to the ownersâ group.
Would more competition do any harm?
Maybe but it could go the other way. Such a change may improve the range of services in the bush where there is a supermarket but no pharmacy, or where colocation makes the pair commercially viable where individually they are not. Aside from shared premises there is synergy from both benefitting from the foot traffic of the other. Keeping the sales from their foot traffic to themselves is something the Guild is rather fond of.
More outlets may encourage young pharmacists to move out of the big smoke, especially if it can be done without having to stump up the funds to have their own premises.
We do, or do we not? One of the Guildâs arguments against the change was the viability of continuing to provide services to smaller communities. A line is always drawn (not always clearly).
Also not lost on the handful of Federal politicians with electorates the size of the US state of Texas or thereabouts.
I have been taking one drug for well over a decade that has enough for a tab every day for about three months in one box. The pharmacists have never complained when I buy it.
So, the solution is surely simply a matter of packaging⊠If the drug companies package two months supply (utilising one of their many existing largely empty containers), the pharmacist would only need to handle one container or box for two months supply, so they should be happy with one dispensing fee; and the customer would be happy as they too have what they want.
I prepack four weeks of my morning tablets at a time (using the plastic flip up tablet containers). The problem is that I have to take two of the tablets at night as well as in the morning, which means I donât have enough in all except the above prescription to fill four weeks worth, only two weeks worth. I suppose I could ony prepare two weeks of tabs at time, but it is such a process getting all the tablets sorted that I prefer to only do it once a month.
Beacause the pharmacists will only fill the scripts some weeks after it has been last dispensed, I have to have two sets of scripts and alternate using them every two weeks
Happily, at least one of my meds is on this first tranche of two months supply medicines. I will have to check to see if the âproblemâ ones are one there too.
How does this work with respect to the chains of stores and the franchise stores (if that is what they are)?
One of the disadvantages of chain/franchise pharamacies is they seem to be tied in to using only one wholesale supplier. And when that particular wholesaler has ânone of medicine X in stockâ the pharmacy tells the customer âmedicine unavailableâ ⊠yet if the customer goes to a non-aligned pharmacy which deals with multiple wholesalers they are able to get their medicine despite the so-called âcountry-wide shortageâ
This was happening before 2020, but since then it has happened more frequently.
Well itâs been in for a while now and seems to be working well?
Donât know anyone whoâs been given a 60 day script and havenât heard the pharmacists upset since the change. They had me thinking that 60 day prescribing would occur quite often but discovered that it must be requested from the Doctor by the patient so mustnât be happening seeing the time patients are allocated with the Doctor goes by too quickly.
Anyone had a 60 day script?
Yes. Working well.
The scripts now cover 12 months and not 6 for regular meds. Previously it required an extra visit to the GP after 6 months just to dot the iâs and tâs for new scripts. Perhaps the change also frees up the GP. We seem to have a shortage of GPâs, but no shortage of high cost fee charging specialists.
The local pharmacy seems to be just as busy as ever. Happy to not need to be going every month. Curiosity is theyâve changed how they handle prescriptions. What could take 30-60 mins is now ready almost immediately or within 10-15mins. Not necessarily due to the change to 60day prescriptions. Just great to see customers receiving improved service, whatever the reasons.
Wow, thatâs still quite a delay - how many scripts are you filling? I now visit my local pharmacy once a month, and each time I walk in, hand over my two scripts, have a chat with the pharmacist while they prepare my drugs and am done under 2 minutes.
I think your pharmacy experience is an anomaly! At my local pharmacy - servicing an area with quite a few older people who seem to have very complex scripts - I always have to lodge the prescriptions and come back in 10 minutes or so. They have a set of floor-to-ceiling shelves for completed scripts for pickup, and there are always a lot awaiting pickup.
I donât think Iâve ever had scripts processed on the spot.
But Iâve never had to wait 30-60 minutes there, either. @mark_m, sounds like your pharmacy has streamlined its processing recently. Maybe there are more e-scripts than paper scripts now?
From 1 January 2024 who pays the $31.60 general co-payment for their PBS medicines, they will receive 60 daysâ worth of medication for the cost of 30 days.
The saving will be less where:
the cost of the medication is below the maximum $31.60 PBS general co-payment amount
additional manufacturer surcharges are applicable.
How does 60-day dispensing impact the co-payment that is made by
patients?
The PBS is funded by the Australian Government and subsidises the cost of most prescription
medicines for all eligible Australians. Consumers pay a PBS co-payment to the pharmacist for each
prescription that is dispensed.
For consumers who pay the general co-payment of $30 and where the cost of their PBS medicine is
over this amount, the full co-payment of $30 will be saved every second month for each medicine with
a 60-day dispensing quantity. For medicines with a dispensed price lower than $30, the saving will be
6 | P a g e
less. The amount that a general patient saves will change once the PBS Safety Net threshold is
reached.
You might both be correct. If the cost of a 30 day script is $15.80 or less, there is no saving from 60 day scripts. If the 30 day cost is $31.60, a 60 day script will save $31.60, with smaller savings when a 30 day script costs between $15.80 and $31.60
The correct answer for concession card holders is a single prescription in 2024 the set dispensing fee is $7.70.
The annual cost if issued as 30 day prescriptions
12 x $7.70 = $92.40
The annual cost if issued as 60 day prescriptions
6 x $7.70 = $46.20
A saving of $46.20 per eligible medication.
Last year 2023 the dispensing fee for concession card holders etc was $7.30 with the annual saving 6 x $7.30 per eligible medication total $43.80. See the following PBS example for the same saving indicated.
The more general answer for all with eligible medications is per the highlight and link that follows.
Unfortunately the way the information has been presented over time assumes the reader has a pharmacists understanding of how the system including concessional and safety net limits apply.
A gotcha is some meds are cheaper anyway, eg generics. My scripts are $6.70 for 30 days or $13.40 for 60 days. The brand names are $16.99 for 30 or 60 days.
At my Chemist the cost of a 30 day script is $7.70 (as I do not ask for the $1 reduction that is available) and for a 60 day script it is $7.70. I would be asking why the dispensing fee is doubled for a 60 day script, it may be that the Pharmacy is âdouble dippingâ on the dispensing or treating the script as two single monthly dispenses of the item/items or you may be paying additional approved fees. This more than one months dispensing can be used as a Reg 49 authorisation. There are a number of add on fees that a Pharmacy can add to a script and the link I have provided from Services Australia details these as well as the Reg 49.
"Section 49 - repeats supplied at the same time as the original prescription
Section 49 (formerly regulation 24) applies when a prescriber, under certain conditions, asks you to supply all repeats at the same time as the original prescription.
When you supply the total prescription as a single medicine, you can only add one of each of the following fees:
dispensing fee
dangerous drug fee
PBS Safety Net recording fee
allowable additional patient charge.
Multiple supplies of PBS medicines may attract multiple brand price premium and therapeutic group premium charges. The amount recorded on the PBS Safety Net prescription record form should reflect the total quantity supplied. This includes the original and repeats.
Unlike ready prepared medicines, the extemporaneous plus water dispensing fee is applicable for each maximum quantity supplied."
The safety net limit may be reached faster if a pharmacy is charging the extra cost to the consumer. So it may benefit the user to âhitâ that limit sooner as it will make items (those items that are fully covered by the PBS pricing) cheaper (if non concessional) or free (if concessional). This year the concessional safety limit is $277.20 and the non concessional is $1647.90.
As of the 1st of March 2024 the stage 2 rollout of medications available for 60 days scripts is now approved and active. In September 2024 a new selection of medications will be available for 60 day scripts, this will mark the so far final and third stage of the rollout. The first two stages include medications for the following issues
Yes. My doctor wrote 60 day PBS script instead of 30 day PBS script, and when filled by pharmacy it cost the same. That is, instead of $23.99 for packet of 30 tablets I paid $23.99 for two packets (2 x 30 tablets).
This exactly how the 60 day scripts are meant to work, i.e., a single dispensing fee. The Chemist is then reimbursed the cost of the drugs by the PBS scheme as well as any other payments they are entitled to claim from PBS. However if the drugs are dispensed under Section 49 then each will be at the $23.99 rate you paid, and this could be a sneaky way for them to recover extra money, though I would hope that an audit of the dispensing would disclose this practice if it was occurring on 60 day scripts.
