To better inform the discussion, the Federal Government completed a recent review of the Review of Pharmacy Renumeration and Regulation.
This is as a summary of the recommendations and government responses.
The recommendations towards reducing regulation are limited in detail and assessments of the outcomes. Importantly they do note that the States independently control the regulation of the delivery of pharmaceutical services. The Federal Govt has control over the scheduled drugs and PBS payments.
The report, sleep well, itâs 136 nominal pages?
P.S.
It is also worth noting that the ABC news item at the start of this topic lacks balance. It provides commentary (largely the views of a single organisation) on the current situation.
While the Pharmacy Guild was approached for interview, there is no additional commentary from the Federal minister or Shadow Minister on the now 14 month old review. There is also no commentary from the Consumers Health Forum of Australian.
The major private health chains EG Ramsay plus businesses Chemist Warehouse and Terry White Chemists also have views on the way forward. Arguably for less regulation, but perhaps more to their favour and to the exclusion of supermarket chains.
It may be a topical discussion, but it is old news ABC, and lazy reporting?
Perhaps an unfriendly opposition mob to the changes recommended in the review stopped further advancement of any changes to legislation. With a changed Federal Parliament we may now may have new impetus to change current law and policy, something I certainly am not privy to what may or may not is being discussed and perhaps the ABC have contacts that are giving them feedback we would not hear off until much later in the processes. A situation perhaps of forewarned is fore armed?
Their justification is that ownership ensures quality of client service. Anecdotes tell you how their pharmacists go the extra mile to help clients. This is often true, it doesnât mean that a non-owner wouldnât do the same. No comparison is made, no evidence presented, just claims.
The restrictions are enforced by law in every state and territory and have cross party political support.
If you oppose the ownership rule you must be a free-market idealist, a commercial opportunist or one of the perennially confused. Supermarket access is specifically mention {we know the face of our enemy!} and if you support supermarkets you must be confused. This section is very defensive, âman the barricadesâ sort of stuff.
This has come up twice recently, the King report mentioned by Mark and a review by QLD. The Guild objected vociferously to any change by either review.
For another view of this here is the Grattan Institute submission to the QLD enquiry. They argue the ownership rules should be cautiously lifted.
In summary: âThe current legislation governing ownership in Queensland is more effective in protecting the commercial interests of pharmacy owners than in serving the public interest and locks pharmacists into inefficient business models, elevating the cost of dispensing paid by consumers. Cautious removal of the pharmacy ownership rules could lower dispensing costs and ensure costs savings are shared by all parties.â
The Institute also recommend relaxation of the location rules. They say that the current rules are anticompetitive in urban areas and that overseas experience of deregulation like this has increased, not decreased, customer service.
Both submissions cover other topics but they are quite brief and it is easy to find the relevant parts and I commend them to you.
Someone I know bought a hearing aid from Costco. It didnât end well and it took months and months and months of the run around to get a refund. Of course thatâs just one anecdote. Perhaps there is significant variability in whether a local Costco employs PhDs with vast research and industry experience, or not.
As with any business YMMV depending on the particular store and its staff. My experience over 5 years has been good, although I did encounter one audiologist who had a less than great âbedsideâ manner so I just avoided having to deal with him.
An important difference is that large businesses tend to be listed entities, publicly answerable to their hungry shareholders regarding ever rising profits, and frequently focused on the short term - whereas a small business is likely to be closely held if not owner/operator and more readily able to take a longer view and/or to subordinate rising profits to other considerations.
Yeah. Its just that they dont seem to be de-ranging as much as Coles (or maybe just not as fast). However, I keep shopping at Coles because they are close to me, whereas Woolies is 2 suburbs away and once I am scooting instead of driving, it wont be doable. Nor will IGA which is even further away
A simple reminder that despite all the concerns we share about the cost of the supply of pharmaceuticals, there are those who are much worse off than us here.
This was March with the report saying the US congress were looking at the problem in April.
Four months on and SBS are reporting insulin sold in Canada costs one tenth of what it does in the USA. (27 July 2019)
Just as mind bending is the patent which dates back to 1923. It was supposedly sold for $3 Canadian by the creator, hoping that it would serve the public good.
Big Pharma has tried over and over to get Australia working for them, the same as the US. Iâm glad they have failed so far. Diabetics have to pay more than we do, for everything. They donât only ration their insulin, they also have to ration their test strips, needles etc. Its crazy. and it wont change because over there, Big Pharma has nearly as much power as Big Oil.
But we are being sucked into Trade Agreements that do lock us into the Multinational Industries. Govts sign our right away to self determine what we do as a country and any business that feels affected can seek âsecretâ court action against us as a country for redress and compensation. At the moment it may not be so bad but give it a few more years and see what may have changed and who pays.
I have no doubt that the current gov would eagerly jump on board because it would save billions and effectively kill off those of us most in need. Not right away of course but pretty quick. I would not be able to afford all my meds all the time, and I suspect many/most other pensioners would be in the same situation.
Oh dear. I didnt realise that Aus was in ELEVEN of the damn things. I know protectionism isnt de rigeur these days, but sometimes I wonder just how much independence we have to give away before the idiots at the top understand. Dunno about the rest of you but I will NOT buy fresh food that comes from someplace else. âProduct of the USAâ go away. Of course we are stuck with Chinese manufactured clothes, appliances etc, because without them, what would we have? But, thats a whole nother thing.
While wandering off topic but having relevance, those âidiots at the topâ got where they are and stay there because people vote for them time and again. Some voters are welded on, some do not pay attention, and some believe everything is the ALPâs fault, not that the ALP would not be signing FTAâs of its own while in government.
The end-all-theory for FTAâs which I make no comment about +/- is that the global market, left to its own with zero protectionism, would promote each nation focusing on what it can do competitively. When that reaches equilibrium the politicians would have less chance of selling their wars since any war would impact on everyone since everything came from âsomewhere elseâ and disruption to life and economies would be epic. It makes a certain amount of sense since barriers from nation states all protecting their own turfs yield haves and have nots, and have nots will not quietly âstay in their placesâ forever. Foreign aid? Most foreign aid today is designed to make customers, not competitors.
When we were kids, there were programs run for immunisations at school. Prior to that age there was a health clinic at the Brisbane City Hall.
There were no Drs appointments. You simply lined up and took the jab. Mothers waited patiently in line with babes in arm sleeve up or nappy loose. Immunisation booklet at the ready. The school nurse or public nursing staff seemed to be in control.
Perhaps there was a Doctor hidden somewhere? Surgery it was not. Production line by any fair assessment.
âItâs the only protected industry in Australia and in the year 2019, these rules make no sense. Weâre the only country in the world that does it,â
Are GPâs in a free market?
They can set up in competition next door to each other if they choose. They can charge as much as they feel they need while upholding the principles of Socrates?
And they are free to all set up in the Capital Cities en mass while the regions and rural extremities are under serviced.
At least with the current pharmacy regulations there is no over supply in the big cities. There is also half a chance you will find a pharmacy in most rural townships.
Perhaps we still have something to grumble about and pharmacies should be deregulated.
Then pharmacies could all compete like Doctors for business with both offering medical service at cheap as chips bargain prices. Providing you live in a big city.
There is more than one problem to solve?
My fear Is that in the more rural areas deregulation of pharmacies will simply result in a change of ownership that ensures only large chains survive. One monopoly will replace another. And a cosy relationship will continue between the wholesale medical distributors and drug manufacturers to ensure profits all around.
Is there an assurance deregulation will ensure better consumer outcomes and lower prices?
