Organisations representing consumers, health experts and GPs have joined forces to urge parliamentarians to support the 60-day dispensing proposal for prescription medicines.
The group has penned an open letter to the government, urging it to carry on implementing changes to Australia’s prescription laws that would result in consumers being allowed to buy up to 60 days’ worth of medication at a time.
“On behalf of our collective memberships, which represent over 50,000 healthcare practitioners and almost 10 million of the most vulnerable health consumers in Australia, we call on you to put consumers first and support this initiative,” the letter states.
The letter is co-signed by the Australian Medical Association (AMA); the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners (RACGP); the National Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation (NACCHO); the Federation of Ethnic Communities’ Councils of Australia (FECCA); Asthma Australia; Lung Foundation Australia; the Australian Multicultural Health Collaborative (AMHC); the Australian College of Nurse Practitioners (ACNP) and Breast Cancer Network Australia.
Under the proposed reforms, the amount of prescription medication that can be dispensed at one time will double from 30 days’ supply to 60. The new rules would apply to more than 320 medicines for stable conditions listed on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS), when deemed safe by a patient’s GP.
The group says the changes will benefit approximately six million Australians living with chronic and other ongoing conditions, and could save these consumers as much $180 per year. Even more if they take multiple medicines.
It would mean fewer trips to the pharmacy for many and would bring Australian regulations into line with other high-income countries such as NZ, the US and Canada.
Leanne Boase, CEO of the ACNP, says her organisation supports the changes because they will improve access to medication and ease time constraints for GPs and pharmacists.
“The ACNP supports 60-day dispensing in the interests of improving access to good health,” she says.
“Many Australians struggle to access a prescriber for repeat prescriptions, and 60-day dispensing will free up more appointments, improving access to timely primary healthcare.
“Where medicines are long term, especially in relation to stable chronic disease, significant savings for consumers in both cost and time can be made, as well as redirecting more healthcare dollars towards improving health outcomes.”
The double-dispensing proposal has its detractors, especially among pharmacists, who say the changes will exacerbate already existing medicine shortages.
Professor Trent Twomey, national president of the Pharmacy Guild of Australia (PGA), says he has concerns that medicine shortages will eventually cost lives.
“I am very concerned for Australian patients, and big shortages will hit common medicines that treat cholesterol, blood pressure, diabetes, depression, anxiety, epilepsy and Parkinson’s disease to name just a few,” he says.
“If the federal government proceeds with this proposal, everyday prescription medicine will be put into severe shortages lasting months, not days or weeks.”
The PGA conducted a poll of 2500 people across Australia and found 47 per cent felt 60-day dispensing shouldn’t happen at all and a further 37 per cent said it should not go ahead if it would result in medicine shortages.
“I don’t want to see a ‘hunger games’ stand-off in any community in Australia where some patients get double the medicine they need, while others get nothing,” Prof. Twomey says.
Do you support 60-day dispensing of prescription medications? Does the threat of medicine shortages concern you? Let us know what you think in the comments section below.
Also read: Prescription drug too expensive? Is it safe to source it online?
The elephant in the room that everyone is avoiding is the impact on the safety net for vurnerable families. The 60 day rule means fanilies will take a lot longer to reach their safety net amount and when the actual spend is calculated, will spend more money on their medicines.
How do you arrive at this conclusion,? Please show me your maths?
How does that work? I don’t think your comment makes sense.
This is simply a way of reducing the PBS cost by moving it back onto the families who can least afford it.
How do you arrive at this conclusion, Where are your calculations?
Pharmacists just protecting their profits
Each time I visit my doctor for a prescription I pay a service charge. If the doctor double dispensed surely it would reduce my costs for the service. It would also free-up my time and the Doctor’s time, so the Dr could see patients who really need a face to face appointment.
By my calculations I wouldn’t increase my intake of medication, so after a settling-in period the volume of medications required would not change.
OzJames70: How are the PBS costs changed for needy families? In the first instance they could opt for a 30-day dispensing, and over a year their costs remain the same? Happy to learn the answer?
Crocodile tears from pharmacists. They’re going to rake it in with vaping prescriptions anyway.
Complete silence from OzJames70