Editorial

From the desk of the editor

Welcome to the first homepage edition of i2P for 2012.
In many ways it has been a slow start to the New Year because of having to deal with the “leftovers” from 2011.
One of those items for i2P was that a third-party provider to the site did not advise of a code change to the security section in our subscribe panel, creating a range of frustrated subscribers not able to get on board.
We apologise to all those potential subscribers who were unable to register with us in the second half of 2011, but if you try once more you should have no problem.

read more
open full screen

Columns

Recent Comments

Click here to read...

Past Editions

Volume 1 Number 1
Volume 1 Number 2
Volume 1 Number 3
Volume 1 Number 4
Volume 1 Number 5
Volume 1 Number 6
Volume 1 Number 7
Volume 2 Number 1
Volume 2 Number 2
Volume 2 Number 3
Volume 2 Number 4
Volume 2 Number 5
Volume 2 Number 6
Volume 2 Number 7
Volume 2 Number 8
Volume 2 Number 9
Volume 2 Number 10
Volume 2 Number 11
Volume 3 Number 1
Volume 3 Number 2
Volume 3 Number 3
Volume 3 Number 4
Volume 3 Number 5
Volume 3 Number 6
Volume 3 Number 7
Volume 3 Number 8
Volume 3 Number 9
Volume 3 Number 10
Volume 3 Number 11
Volume 4 Number 1

i2P Archives

Health Politics

EPublications

Click here for a list of epublications

Inquiry into the PBS – GET IT RIGHT FIRST TIME

• Printer-friendly version
• Send to friend
• PDF version
• Share

Rollo Manning articles by this author...

Rollo Manning has experienced pharmacy practice from all sectors of the industry – retail, administrative, policy and remote Aboriginal practice. He spent 10 years with Glaxo Australia and was the first Director of Public Relations at the Pharmacy Guild National Secretariat in Canberra. He has also held the position of Pharmacy Policy Officer for Territory Health Services in Darwin. Rollo is currently a Consultant working in his own practice with remote Aboriginal communities, in Northern Australia.

A failing in the push for a Senate Inquiry into the 5^th Community Pharmacy Agreement is recognition that the Pharmacy Guild is named in the National Health Act as the party the Government must liaise with before making decisions on fees paid to pharmacists for supply and services.
It is not the Society of Hospital Pharmacists, the Pharmaceutical Society, the National Australian Pharmacy Students Association or APESMA - but the Pharmacy Guild.
It is therefore no wonder that the Guild is the party at the negotiating table.
An amendment to the National Health Act would be needed to change this and while there is a Clause that says another organisation can be included if it represents a majority of pharmacists this has never been tested.

open this article full screen

The degree to which this is a conflict of interest is another matter but this should be a part of the Terms of Reference for an Inquiry – be it a Senate Inquiry or this writer’s favoured preference - a Productivity Commission review of the $9 billion spends on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme.

Is the Nation getting value for money through the spend?

Is the $1.3 billion being paid to dispensing pharmacists justified in terms of value for money?

Are dispensing pharmacies sufficiently accountable for what they do in return for this payment?

Is the Auditor-General satisfied that the contract between the Government and the Approved Pharmacies is sufficiently robust to receive the levels of payment involved?

The problem with the PBS and its infrastructure for delivery to the Australian public is not just the way the 5^th Agreement was negotiated but the whole question of the infrastructure that supplied PBS medicines to the consumer.
The Pharmacy Guild can bleat as much as it likes about the efficient network of 5000 retail pharmacies in Australia but really – is there the need for so many outlets to dispense PBS medicines to the public?

Without changing the quantum of money paid to dispensing pharmacies it may be possible to restructure the payments so that more money went to pharmacies that really provide a top notch service and less paid to those that simply “pick and lick”.

Why should a pharmacy get paid $6.42 for dispensing a repeat and the same remuneration for a dispense of new medication to a just diagnosed diabetic requiring 15 minutes of counselling.

The status quo in the PBS is in need of examination but make sure the guns are loaded with the right ammunition before firing the shots.

Come on Pharmacy Coalition for Health Reform – broaden your charter and get to the real crux of the problem – the infrastructure used to supply PBS and its necessary counselling to the Australian health consumer.

A related article on this subject can be read at http://www.i2p.com.au/article/major-revamp-pbs-needed

Ends

Clinical Newsfeed

Click here to read more...

Research Reports

Practice Development

Information Technology

Indigenous Health

Preventive Medicine

i2P Alliance Partners