Maybe, maybe not. You assume that with a lock on the policy through their very efficient legal lobbying the Guild would be stupid to do anything illegal or improper. Large organisations are not always that rational and not always totally in control of all the actions of their staff and supporters.
Take the case of AGL and their gas field at Gloucester. During the campaign AGL made regular donations to both parties in NSW as all lobbyist who want to influence policy should under the current system.
But they couldnât get their paperwork right. How hard would it be to comply with the very lax reporting requirements of political donations? It ought to be very easy but AGL couldnât do it. They plead guilty and were eventually fined a pittance for it.
This was after the relevant authority had sat on it for months until the bad PR from it could no longer influence public opinion because AGL had quit having realised the project wasnât worth it. AGL burned many hundred millions, maybe as much as a billion, on the project but couldnât lodge the right documents on time.
This suggests to me that we should cut the last few discussion points out to a new topic that targets the real problem here. The risks to consumer outcomes of Organisations and businesses gaining undue influence through political donations and other actions. The issue is clearly of greater interest and broader than being lost to a topic relating to regulation within the pharmacy industry?
With the publicly disclosed âmore than $770,000â (see above), how much cash do you think they are throwing around over and above that? Anyway, they are entitled to the presumption of innocence.
You are right of course that they donât control independent supporters.
So you are saying that the responsibility for disclosure lies with the donor, not with the political party? I donât know. Itâs not something that I need to worry about. LOL.
Once you start to look into the detail of the legislation, governments rarely make things âeasyâ. They usually make things complex, so that you need a lawyer to do anything. (AGL should be big enough to afford a lawyer however. So that wouldnât be an excuse for them.)
Well said, Fred! When I needed a Rollator I looked around at different pharmacies and my local Chemist Warehouse sold the same Wagner Rollator for $50 less than my usual chemist, plus they were happy to put it together at no additional cost! This experience was repeated when I needed a small blood pressure monitorâŠ$20 difference! Sure all the current popular âlotions and potionsâ line the shelves but there are always âspecialsâ when it comes to big and small brand vitamins, which doctors often recommend eg fish oil etc.
The way I understand it is in general the receiver of political donations is supposed to report them but the requirement is very lax. In the case of donations from a miner whose application is under consideration they have additional reporting requirements (in NSW at least) and AGL cared so little about it they couldnât take those meagre steps. Despite clear cut evidence the State let them face no formal outcome or penalty until it no longer mattered.
This suggests, for fairness and like mindedness, that wages and income should also be reported the same way.
It would take a substantial burden off business and the tax system. The average earner just collects all payments/earnings/income. Mandatory reporting can be 6-12 months in arrears, and is the sole responsibility of they who receive the funds. The idea of only reporting individual amounts above a certain threshold, sat $13,000 per payment also appeals. How much simpler would the ATOâs job be. You add it up and send off your statement of earnings at the end of the year, then they can let you know if you owe them anything in return!
What could go wrong with that?
P.S.
Could go really well with the flat tax proposal.
Regardless of âmonopolyâ, âracketâ, âsnoutsâ and âturf warsâ ⊠the bottom line for any consumer who is on some medication long term is that the current system is inconvenient for the consumer and wasteful for the taxpayer and potentially more expensive to the consumer. That applies to the contraceptive pill but it also applies to many other medications.
I can see both sides of the argument but there would be a lingering doubt that GPsâ opposition to this measure includes some consideration of self-interest and is not solely motivated by concern for the health of the consumer.
It is possible that a compromise position could be reached where
the number of repeats is significantly increased, and
telehealth is instated permanently for routine review of long term medications.
From the article, âthe pharmacist could determine, after a consultation, whether it was still the right contraceptive choiceâ
I think the word âconsultationâ suggests how they might benefit. It could be a 30 second Q&A with the customer but the odds are âconsultationâ would be billable to Medicare or the customer.
Some long term meds can have bad side effects only evident over time so an annual blood test is part of the routine.
As it is a GP is âencouragedâ to make one consult to get the order for the test and consult again to get the results. A dollar in âmyâ pocket is a constant regardless of the player in discussion
For other meds the limit of 6 scripts at a time is ridiculous; some GPS might enjoy a 3 minute consult for their fee and catch up or leave early as a result, but for the GPs with month long backlogs it might be why they have month long backlogs.
Compounding the inconsistency and âretentiveâ regulations there is the inane and blessed practice of some meds being packed in 30s and some in 28s, with the latter requiring an extra script to be written for an annual supply. Maybe it gets irrelevant when one needs to go twice for scripts, for a flu shot, who knows about COVID boosters yet, and can double up, but.
A question was posed, I replied with a probability, not a fait accompli. They are asking for some rule changes and would be remiss if they did not ask for something for themselves too.
I know well that the Guild spends much effort protecting the position of their members, that is what this thread is about, you will see my posts on that above.
However, unless you can show how particular behaviour is snout in trough; ie exhibiting greedy, excessive or unreasonable commercial behaviour, you are bagging them unfairly.
I think though making this billable through Medicare would be more than a rule change. A Pharmacist wonât have a Provider Number and, to the extent that it is relevant, therefore wonât have a Prescriber Number. (The pharmacist will however be a registered PBS Supplier.)
Bottom line: Neither of us knows what the proposer of this change had in mind.
Since the government rejected the proposed change, it is all academic - until the next time consumers say âthis sucksâ / âthis system isnât working for meâ.
The AMA is having another run at the monopoly, it is hard to say how pure their motives are but at least part of their campaign looks right to me.
âWhat weâre calling for is a deregulation of an extremely protected industry,â AMA president Omar Khorshid said.
Location rules banning new chemists opening within 1.5km of an existing pharmacy, restricting ownership to pharmacists and limiting online sales to brick-and-mortar operators were part of a âclosed shop approachâ that Dr Khorshid said was âharming consumersâ, who spent almost $11 billion a year on medicines.
âIt pushes up the price, it reduces convenience and access compared with newer models that are popping up in other places around the world,â he said.
But the wall is up and ainât coming down yet.
A spokesperson for federal Health Minister Greg Hunt said the government âsupports the current community pharmacy model which continues to serve Australians well and which provides for the supply of over 300 million subsidised scripts for PBS medicines each yearâ.
âThe government has no plans to support changes to pharmacy ownership or location rules,â the spokesperson said, describing the âAmerican modelâ of using vending machines to dispense medicines as âa surprising and concerning directionâ.
If the AMA advocates for dispensing machines for prescription-only medicines then Iâm sure the AMA will also advocate for dispensing machines for the prescriptions themselves. Not.
limiting online sales to brick-and-mortar operators
On how well this serves Australianâs there are many differing views.
One of the challenges that relates to many professions in Australia is the ability of the nation to supply well trained, experienced and competent staff.
The renumeration and rewards need to be adequate to encourage the right young Australianâs to service the community. How best to ensure that the community needs are able to be adequately met?
This asks questions concerning:
Regulation by Govt or the Professions or both.
The cost and provision of training by Govt, enterprise or personal endeavour.
How best to provide equal service/access to all Australianâs at the same cost.
Whether all desired community outcomes can be delivered without regulation and intervention, any desire for a totally free market solution might not serve all needs. The NBN rollout and mobile network coverage demonstrate how difficult it is even with some regulation and Government intervention.
The risk of becoming too reliant on free enterprise to deliver essential services, may be a desire to take only the âlow hanging fruitâ.
As a follow on effect will fewer Aussies choose to be trained because of the pressures from competition lowering incomes? Will those businesses put in place strategies that favour immigration from other economies to deliver staff without the imperative to invest locally?
In 2018 the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee publish advice (which is their job) that the number of repeats on prescriptions and the number of days supply should be increased on selected drugs for selected patients. The aim is to reduce administrative overheads where appropriate and to increase convenience of access for those who have trouble getting to a pharmacy.
The target for this measure is people with well managed chronic conditions (often for life) who needlessly pay dispensing fees and have to attend the pharmacy for no good reason. If your doctor is prepared to give you a script for six months supply why do you have to pay six dispensing fees and attend the pharmacy six times to get it?
Well the Pharmacy Guild is sure this is a bad idea.
The community pharmacy lobby has warned that doubling prescription lengths and boosting the amount of medicine available in each script will disrupt supply and may present a risk to patients.
This is coming from the lobby group that says preventing competition between pharmacists is good for you.
So patients needs to pay more to the pharmaceutical industry because the industry cannot fix its supply line problems and because their members would be too stupid to restrict supply in cases of shortage.
I would like to know what risk there is to patients from having 60 day supply in their hot little hand that they donât have from having 30. Surely it is the responsibility of all the professionals involved to take precautions regarding the medication for those not able to manage it themselves and this ought not impact the majority who can be relied on to take their drugs correctly.
But if you are looking at your dispensing fees taking a big hit any old reason will do if you are as powerful as the Guild.
