A new system of 60 day prescriptions come into effect soon four some 320 medicine's,, health ministers rationale is that it will save us money, because supposedly you will only need to go to the doctors twice a year to get your repeats, and 6 times a year to the chemist.

If you take med say for blood pressure you get 60 day script filled for the price of one month, on the surface that looks good saving the patient money, but what will this cost to the pharmacy? Could this see some smaller rural chemists shut down, or reduce staff and trading hours.

I wonder what drugs will be on the list, one of the meds I take has 28 days for example. Between me and my partner we take 14 different  medications, I'll bet they all won't be on the 60 day list, so that won't reduce our doctors visits nor chemist visits.

I think this will be a stealth way of removing the PBS safety net scheme, for some, for us as it stands  by May we reach the threshold and get our meds free for the rest of the year.

Not a mystery, just gotta look and thou shall find.

You could make the same offer as I did which is to compensate the chemist for the lost
income for each script. No brainer really.
I think the list is available for perusal. The main meds for things like blood pressure, diabetics
and blood thinners.
www.health.gov.au/our-work/60-day-dispensing/pbs-medicines-current-item-codes
Amazing what you find when you look.
For some this is a more productive quest then looking for negatives - just saying.

Like you Gundog, we reach the threshold by May and get our meds free too. Will see what this scheme brings us but I cannot see any less doctor visits though.  (My tablets are all on the list)

-- Edited by Gaylehere on Tuesday 8th of August 2023 10:03:22 AM

Craig1 wrote:

---

thanks Deverall, looked and one of key ones is not there, so buggered for the new deal, or some of it. At least the Chemist will remeber my face.

---

 Both faces Craig, you're from tassie remember? :)

The government is making out how generous they are. In fact they are getting chemists to cover the cost of the savings by dispense the same volume of medication and be paid half the amount of the money.

It is the same as offering to shout every one in  pub free drinks, and then telling the publican he will have to pay. 

Neil

My asthma medication (Symbicort) isn't on the list, must be a reason as it can be life saving.

BicycleCamper, 

 Smoking is a major cause of ulcerative oesophagitis as a friend had it bad before he passed, it would be a better preventative if your still smoking to give them up just saying.

" Both faces Craig, you're from tassie remember? : "

Ha de Ha, I've had the op and have the scar to prove it

Kebbin wrote:

---

My asthma medication (Symbicort) isn't on the list, must be a reason as it can be life saving.

 

BicycleCamper, 

 Smoking is a major cause of ulcerative oesophagitis as a friend had it bad before he passed, it would be a better preventative if your still smoking to give them up just saying.

Wanting to give up( which I do)  and giving up is two different things. I have banned all addictive things from life accept smokes. Don't drink no more, no sugar, no carbs, virtually everything bad is gone, I have tried so many times to give up smoking, I now doubt it will happen $cost is not an issue now, just health, it may happen it may not.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-- Edited by Kebbin on Tuesday 8th of August 2023 12:25:58 PM

---

Bicyclecamper wrote:

---

We can't get Tacidine, now due to the company building up stocks for this new way of doing things, it was hard to get before, hardly can get Somac now as well, although I don't do well on it, my reflux is going to be really bad from here on with nothing to treat it.

---

 Mentioned it before but your reply was borderline rude. So here we go again:

Proton pump inhibitors (known in Australia by names such as Nexium, Pariet, Losec, Somac and Zoton) work by preventing key pumps in the cells of the stomach that produce stomach acid from working. In stopping the production of stomach acid they help to reduce the inflammation and heal ulcers caused by the stomach acid

Giving up smoking is hard for some & easier for others.

I gave up smoking in 1969 but kept on drinking booze.  A mate gave up alcohol at about the same time but kept smoking.  Tragically, he passed last week after a terrible last 10 years with lung cancer.  But then, I have a few relations & friends who have died as a result of excess alcohol.

My Son smokes despite having tried to quit many times.  He rarely drinks.

On the topic of Prescriptions, my main pills are on the list but I'm not sure if I'll bother to take advantage of it.

I lived and worked overseas for 20 years and when I returned to Australia I became aware that many, many medications that can be bought over-the-counter in other countries require a prescription here in Australia.

I understand that in some European countries, there is a process by which people with chronic conditions who need to buy certain medications on a regular basis can receive approval for non-prescription purchase on a year-by-year basis (i.e. only requiring a doctor's review once per year).

Here in Australia, I find it both more convenient and cost-effective to get my prescriptions online - https://www.instantscripts.com.au/

I llok at the meds I have only one of the three are on the list, so it will make SFA difference to me, As for my wife I didn't check hers, as one is supplied by the hospital on each visit and one is direct delivery from a specislist chemist that is 3 months at a time the other eleven I didn't check.

Dumb assed Governments dont take into consideration us who are aging generally take more than a couple meds, so it will make little change to doctors and chemists visits,

woolman wrote:

---

The government is making out how generous they are. In fact they are getting chemists to cover the cost of the savings by dispense the same volume of medication and be paid half the amount of the money. 

---

It's the smart thing to do, and it's about time. Sitting in a doctor's surgery for an hour, and paying for a non-bulk-billed appointment, just to keep getting the same meds, is wasteful, both to the patient and to the taxpayer.

At my medical centre, a nurse dresses wounds, not the doctor. Similarly, a pharmacist can supply repeat prescriptions and COVID and influenza vaccinations. To me, it's an intelligent reallocation of responsibilities that should have been implemented long ago.

dorian wrote:

---

woolman wrote:

---

The government is making out how generous they are. In fact they are getting chemists to cover the cost of the savings by dispense the same volume of medication and be paid half the amount of the money. 

---

It's the smart thing to do, and it's about time. Sitting in a doctor's surgery for an hour, and paying for a non-bulk-billed appointment, just to keep getting the same meds, is wasteful, both to the patient and to the taxpayer.

At my medical centre, a nurse dresses wounds, not the doctor. Similarly, a pharmacist can supply repeat prescriptions and COVID and influenza vaccinations. To me, it's an intelligent reallocation of responsibilities that should have been implemented long ago.

---

Yes I think it is the smart thing to do too. Too much of the individual's time is wasted these days because no value is  placed on it. In addition it  creates more accessibility to GP's who are less snowed under for 'repeat prescription only appointments. The criticism made seems like government bashing for the sake of it to me. Damned if they do & damned if they don't. 

Gundog wrote:

---

...

Dumb assed Governments dont take into consideration us who are aging generally take more than a couple meds, so it will make little change to doctors and chemists visits,

---

 Mate don't whinge about what the government is doing or not doing, instead write to them or go see you local MP

and explain your situation. Didn't see you have anything to say about this in the previous 10 years.

Whinging here gets you nowhere other then get a few who may sympathise.

Our Dr. does prescriptions over the phone.We just make a tele - appointment with the receptionist, the Doctor rings about the appointed time.

We tell him what scripts we need and they are sent to Chemist,we can pick them up, or get free delivery. To easy.

msg wrote:

---

I have yet to work out what is so bad for the Chemist and what is so good and saving money for the patient.

Chemists run a business. I believe they get reimbursed per prescription filled. Wouldn't they profit by selling 2 at once? Staff time paperwork etc.

Patient usually get doctors' prescription for six repeats. May be a bit easier only having to go into chemist 3 times instead of six.

Not saving anything with doctors' visits. Still every six months. So what's it all about.

Makes it easier for me, I suppose I can get two months before I go to take with me when travelling and get half as many scrips from remote chemists who complain about the gray nomads using up their resources.

Where am I wrong? I must be. This is a pretty big issue apparently.

---

 I checked my meds on the list for 60 day supply, only 1 is on the list so in effect nothing changes for a monthly visit to the chemist is still required.

What the govt is not explaining is cost benefit analysis for both supplier and user, remember chemists only carry a limited number of each drug they sell, in many cases if you go to fill your script they will have no stock and you may need to return to collect the med the next day. One drug my partner takes that is the occurrence if we go to a different chemist when we are away from our normal chemist.

Usually chemist get a daily delivery from a regional distribution company,  but this could become a longer small country chemist.

Remember this will effect the PBS safety net scheme, it will take longer to reach the limit.

I don't trust governments when they say it will save you money, that maybe the case for city slickers, when it comes to the bush its usually bull**** therefore I hazard a guess small town chemists will either become a one person operation or just disappear.

I get the impression that the criticisms through this thread are more aimed at the government (because they are not the preferred flavour?) than of the newly introduced system,

From where I sit, it appears that the new system will benefit many folk by reducing their GP fees (less visits) & waste less of their time (GP visits & Chemist visits). For others it will make no difference. With the list being limited it was never going to be a change for everyone, although I believe that the list may expand in the future. (Essentially making the changes a 'staged introduction' presumably to aid chemists & their suppliers).

The chemists will adapt to the new system by holding changed levels of stock. It will be in the interests for the suppliers (drug companies) to make the payment process to them by the chemists for the products as painless as possible.

As with any change to the system there will likely be a changeover period during which there may be a few inconveniences during the adaptation period.

I'm unsure how it will take longer to reach the PBS safety net scheme threshold? It's not something I have used, but I would assume (incorrectly?) that if the prescription remains the same (eg. 3 times a day) that the same amount of medication would be prescribed during the course of a year, & quite possibly as a result of getting more at once, that the threshold may be reached earlier rather than later. As I say though I am not familiar with this, so would be interested to learn if (& how) I have that wrong.

As msg suggests, there should also be some structural cost savings for chemists too. 

Cuppa wrote:

---

I get the impression that the criticisms through this thread are more aimed at the government (because they are not the preferred flavour?) than of the newly introduced system,

From where I sit, it appears that the new system will benefit many folk by reducing their GP fees (less visits) & waste less of their time (GP visits & Chemist visits). For others it will make no difference. With the list being limited it was never going to be a change for everyone, although I believe that the list may expand in the future. (Essentially making the changes a 'staged introduction' presumably to aid chemists & their suppliers).

The chemists will adapt to the new system by holding changed levels of stock. It will be in the interests for the suppliers (drug companies) to make the payment process to them by the chemists for the products as painless as possible.

As with any change to the system there will likely be a changeover period during which there may be a few inconveniences during the adaptation period.

I'm unsure how it will take longer to reach the PBS safety net scheme threshold? It's not something I have used, but I would assume (incorrectly?) that if the prescription remains the same (eg. 3 times a day) that the same amount of medication would be prescribed during the course of a year, & quite possibly as a result of getting more at once, that the threshold may be reached earlier rather than later. As I say though I am not familiar with this, so would be interested to learn if (& how) I have that wrong.

As msg suggests, there should also be some structural cost savings for chemists too. 

-- Edited by Cuppa on Friday 11th of August 2023 08:14:42 AM

---

 On 1 January 2023, the PBS Safety Net thresholds were updated to: $262.80 for concession card holders. $1,563.50 for general patients.

As for structural changes for chemists, is that one for some on loosing their job.

Gundog wrote:

On 1 January 2023, the PBS Safety Net thresholds were updated to: $262.80 for concession card holders. $1,563.50 for general patients.

As for structural changes for chemists, is that one for some on loosing their job.

---

 I don't understand your points - please elucidate.

Cuppa wrote:

---

Gundog wrote:

 

---

On 1 January 2023, the PBS Safety Net thresholds were updated to: $262.80 for concession card holders. $1,563.50 for general patients.

As for structural changes for chemists, is that one for some on loosing their job.

---

 I don't understand your points - please elucidate.

---

 Not which you mean the PBS safety net when you reach the threshold then all medications covered by the PBS are free until Dec 31.

As for the structural changes, if medicine's with increased qty, that mean less foot traffic getting prescriptions therefore less person to person engagement equals less chargeable hours equals less staff required.

Basic tenant of business  less chargeable hour less staff

I may be wrong but I think it is all about reducing the fees paid to chemists to dispense medications. Apart from the sale of the medication, the chemist receives a fee from the government for each dispensation. So for those medications on the list the chemist will dispense half as often, thus receiving half their current fees. And of course the list will grow.

At the same time, the PBS medications are charged to consumers per dispensation, so for consumers, their costs are less.

The government saves fees, the consumer saves, but the chemist loses and may cut staff or reduce services. It also depends on whether those lost fees are more or less than the cost of staff to provide that service. They say in some cases the chemist will have to close, and more likely for small ones in remote areas. Without knowing the financial issues in detail for a chemist it's hard to know if this will be a major blow or something they can adjust to with ease.

In my opinion if the current system is built on inefficiencies, and this change will reduce their staff requirements at the same time as saving money for consumers and the government, then it is a step in the right direction. But reducing that revenue stream may have some less desirable consequences.

As I said, I have not seen any detail on this, so apologies if I have something wrong.

Gundog wrote:

---

Gundog wrote:

 

---

 Not which you mean the PBS safety net when you reach the threshold then all medications covered by the PBS are free until Dec 31.

 

---

 So there was a change from free to $262.80 as from 1st January 2023?  

With no 'compensation' for this in the form of other increased benefits or payments? (Eg. In my case the amount I was charged for my medication dropped, along with many others on the PBS list earlier this year  - Total cost for dispensing of section 49 x 6 scripts  reduced by around $50 - a reduction of about 20% ) 

If so, then I agree there is reason for complaint. 

Ah  .... I just found the table below (from https://www.pbs.gov.au/healthpro/co-payment-reduction/PBS-General-Co-Payment-Reduction-Explainer-Table.pdf) which shows that before January 2023 concessional scripts were $6.80 but rose to $7.30 with the threshold for the PBS safety net rising from $244.80 to $262.80. A rise of  $18 per year cost to the patient. (Which by the look of it is still $64 a year less than what it was in mid 2022). If you are 'lucky' enough to have PBS listed medications which dropped in cost like mine then you would still be better off than before January 2023, but if not $18 worse off than in December 2022, but $64 better off than than in July 2022 ..... I think? 

I take your point about the negative side of structural changes - much like automated self checkouts in supermarkets taking jobs away. Not good. 

Are We Lost wrote:

---

In my opinion if the current system is built on inefficiencies, and this change will reduce their staff requirements at the same time as saving money for consumers and the government, then it is a step in the right direction. But reducing that revenue stream may have some less desirable consequences.

 ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

I agree, but as I alluded to earlier I would think that it is in the interests of the drug companies to ensure maximum outlets for their products, so perhaps they will need to 'contribute' a tiny part of their profits to ensure their ongoing market???? If so what I suspect we are looking at is a 'redistribution of wealth' as a result of the government's strategy, which if I'm correct(?) I applaud. 

Just like everything else the Govt does, changes things before they have decided what replaces it. ie. Jan 24 TBD.  They don't know what they will change it to, but they will decide after it is in place.