• long running

Sixty Day Dispensing of More than 300 Common Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme Medicines

4936
Sixty Day Dispensing of More than 300 Common Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme Medicines
Go to Deal
SupeNintendoChalmers on 12/06/2023 - 22:09 health.gov.au (7623 clicks)
Last edited 13/06/2023 - 10:41 by 1 other user

From 1 September 2023, many patients living with a chronic condition will be able to buy 2 months’ worth (60-days’) of common PBS-listed medicines for the price of a single prescription, rather than the current 1 month’s supply.

This will apply to more than 300 common medicines listed on the PBS and will be implemented in three tranches over 12 months. See PDF link here for all the medicines included

When fully implemented on 1 September 2024, the changes will mean at least 6 million Australians who need regular medicines for chronic conditions will reduce their medicine costs, some by as much as half.

The list of PBS medicines recommended by the independent Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC) as suitable includes some medicines for chronic conditions such as for:

Asthma
breast cancer
cardiovascular disease
chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)
constipation
chronic renal failure
Crohn’s disease
depression
diabetes
endometriosis
endometrial cancer
epilepsy
glaucoma and dry eyes
gout
heart failure
high cholesterol
hormonal replacement and modulation therapy
hypertension
osteoporosis
Parkinson disease
ulcerative colitis.

Benefits and cost savings
When a PBS medicine can be prescribed for 60 days patients can save:

up to $180 a year, per medicine for general patients
up to $43.80 a year, per medicine for concession card holders.

Health & Beauty Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme

Related Stores

Department of Health, Australian Government
Department of Health, Australian Government

Comments

      • tetra on 12/06/2023 - 22:22
        +24

        How so?

        • RyanEditor on 12/06/2023 - 22:31
          +34

          Wiadro is likely implying that pharmacies will be missing out on that 2nd monthly prescription fee, as the patients can get 60 days worth instead of 1 month worth of medication, which is good for us, the patients. However, to remain profitable, pharmacies will likely increase costs of other services and products that aren't on the PBS, which is bad for us, the patients. This is assuming it goes through the senate vote. I could be wrong about this too, I'm not an expert in any of this and am speculating. I hope this clears things up though.

          • ninohax on 12/06/2023 - 22:45
            +64

            @RyanEditor: Dude common how much profit do these pharmacies want. For the record Chemist Warehouse Posted a whopping $1.07billion in profit for the last financial year. And mind you that is profit not revenue. All of these corporates have been ripping us out day in day out. I guess that is what happens when a country decides to go down the capitalistic path.

            • tagin on 12/06/2023 - 22:51
              +18

              @ninohax: Chemist Warehouse is a little different to the small pharmacy on the corner. They're the ones that will struggle.

              • makeyouryear on 12/06/2023 - 23:25
                +78

                @tagin: The pharmacy guild protesting the change has made a number of immoral and verifiably false statements as part of their fear campaign.

                They are well known for representing pharmacy owners to the detriment of actual pharmacists, not to mention patients.

                They have pushed to have the ability to prescribe and offer consults. "All medicines for all people", direct quote from the guild president. Yet they have fought tooth and nail to keep GP's from even owning pharmacies, a privilege currently only available to pharmacists.

                The real concern is that given pharmacies are slowly evolving into supermarkets less visits means less opportunity for impulse purchases.

                If that doesn't make you feel better (or angry) the health minister has committed to reinvesting all cost savings back into community pharmacies.

                fyi I have no connection to either profession

                • sal78 on 14/06/2023 - 10:32

                  @makeyouryear: This is only a solution for rural and trialled in rural because not enough doctors in rural.

                  What other solution is there? Doctors only stay in rural for the min time they have to.

                  Another huge Gov is the Nurse Practitioner Workforce plan. NPs can diagnose, treat, and prescribe and will have their own medicare billing items.

                  Doctors are all unhappy but they have no solution for the rural shortage. It's really dire, some rural towns have only 1 GP and totally burnt out. So difficult for clinics to get GPs.

                  The clinics in close to major cities have over supply of GPs. All the GPs on restrictions want to work as close to major cities as possible.

                  Doctor shortage in cities and remote rural. We only have locums applying for jobs. They can only work a max 6 mths as a locum.

              • jong on 12/06/2023 - 23:35
                +24

                @tagin: Not really - under Pharmacy Guild rules (the strongest union in Australia, and one none of the politicians will touch) each pharmacy has to be individually owned. So all the Chemist Warehouse/Priceline/Etc groups are really just a bunch of indies sharing branding.

                There's also Guild rules on how far apart pharmacies can be - like an old-school mafia-run union, they'll tell you where and when you can work your trade.

                They're also the reason Woolies and Coles don't have a pharmacy section, the way Walmart/Sainsburys do overseas. The Guild said none of its members may work in a supermarket, and not even the Colesworth duopoly could break 'em.

                Good old mafia-style blacklisting at its best.

                  • Jonzay on 13/06/2023 - 07:25
                    +9

                    @jv: That word doesn't mean what you think it means.

                • sal78 on 14/06/2023 - 10:23
                  +1

                  @jong: Wdym? They totally did the dirty to the guild this time. Now it's the survival if the fittest.

                  Pharmacies create a lot of employment. I feel bad for the smaller pharmas that will struggle.

              • maverickjohn on 13/06/2023 - 00:41
                +9

                @tagin: Not sure why you are getting negged. This is true. The small pharmacies in regional locations are more likely to close due to this rule. I work for clinical governance a western LHD and our concerns are how to support the community in those regions as our hospital doesn't have an outpatient service but the pharmacies profit margins will reduce and become unmanageable with this new rule.

              • ColtNoir on 13/06/2023 - 11:04
                +1

                @tagin: Chemist outlet is having a whinge too, and they’re a big chain.
                Honestly, just business protecting their profits at the expense of casuals.

              • omcb on 13/06/2023 - 13:38

                @tagin: Won't somebody think of the rentseekers

              • Muttley on 13/06/2023 - 19:13
                +1

                @tagin: They already struggle. Chemist Warehouse and Priceline are killing community pharmacy

              • the Unforgiven on 13/06/2023 - 22:10
                -1

                @tagin: my little pharmacy on the corner is non-stop busy, they will be fine
                Every chemist I go into is always busy, I am a pensioner, so I go into a lot of chemists,
                how many chemists do you go into?

              • supersabroso on 03/07/2023 - 07:14

                @tagin: People need to do what is required for the economy and be efficient. We shouldn't prop up useless dead end businesses at the expense of the tax payer or sick people who need prescriptions to give people a living. There are many, many ways to make a living. It's time we stopped getting ripped off and freed up staff for industries that actually require them.

            • Binchicken22 on 13/06/2023 - 06:33
              +3

              @ninohax: And what happens when a country decided to go down the communist path?…

              I'll take my .99c Paracetamol thanks…

              • sirmemealot on 13/06/2023 - 08:05
                +4

                @Binchicken22: Did you know there are other alternatives to an ultra capitalist society than full blown communist?

                • Binchicken22 on 14/06/2023 - 06:25
                  -1

                  @sirmemealot: Haha, Australia is the furthest thing from an "ultra capitalist" society around.

                  We've got fully socialised health care & disability care (that goes way beyond any where else I've seen). A decent amount of public/subsidised housing, anyone who doesn't have a job at a minimum gets about $500 a week in cash + more in other housing/power supplements… I'm sure there is a heap of more things I wouldn't even know that goes on.

                  • Nom on 14/06/2023 - 12:26

                    @Binchicken22:

                    We've got fully socialised health care & disability care (that goes way beyond any where else I've seen). A decent amount of public/subsidised housing, anyone who doesn't have a job at a minimum gets about $500 a week in cash

                    Sorry, are you trying to say these are negatives ?
                    That's a pretty great set of societal benefits.

                    • Binchicken22 on 14/06/2023 - 15:08

                      @Nom: Not at all, I'm saying it isn't a sign of a "ultra capitalist society", I thought that was pretty clear.

            • hokonfan on 13/06/2023 - 08:57
              -4

              @ninohax: This economy seems to be under socialist control rather than being purely capitalist, as it benefits specific sectors and relies on regulations. In true capitalism, the driving force is the interplay of supply and demand, with the ultimate goal of benefiting the end users rather than prioritizing corporations.

              "A socialist economy is an economic system characterized by collective ownership and control of the means of production. In a socialist economy, resources and means of production are owned and managed by the state or the community as a whole, rather than by private individuals. The central principle of a socialist economy is the equitable distribution of wealth and resources, with the aim of meeting the needs of all members of society. In this system, the government typically plays a significant role in planning and directing economic activities, and there is an emphasis on social welfare and reducing inequalities."

            • cloudy on 13/06/2023 - 14:48
              +1

              @ninohax:

              For the record Chemist Warehouse Posted a whopping $1.07billion in profit for the last financial year. And mind you that is profit not revenue.

              I didn’t know this and thought I’d fact check it, and it seems you’re a little off.

              According to this it’s about 550b profit before tax.

              https://ajp.com.au/news/chemist-warehouses-huge-550m-pre-tax…

              Still huge, but a factor of 2 off, and still tax would probably reduce it to 300m or thereabouts.

              • Binchicken22 on 14/06/2023 - 06:26
                -2

                @cloudy: I find lefties continually have issues with the difference between revenue and profit, to the point of it just being malicious now.

                • cloudy on 14/06/2023 - 11:10
                  +1

                  @Binchicken22: yea i found the article that Ninohax probably read, it did say $1.07 Billion profit, but it was gross profit, so before any staff wages, or utility bills or rent etc etc
                  Pretty useless figure for this debate really.

                  And given how late I am to this party, no one will read this haha

            • sal78 on 14/06/2023 - 10:20

              @ninohax: The crackdown needs to be on Pathology companies! The amount they bulk bill is insane. Everytime you get bloods referral, the more items on there, the more the claim. Worth about $1k.

              This is why they can afford to pay $120k rental for a shoe box in a doctor's surgery. The rent us their highest expense. Only staffed with 1 phlebotomist.

              PCR tests, they made a killing.

        • Korban Dallas on 12/06/2023 - 23:28

          He's with the pharmacy guild.

      • nobro25 on 13/06/2023 - 07:19

        Probably gonna be down voted. Pretty sure it's sarcasm.

      • Piranha2004 on 13/06/2023 - 07:32
        +1

        Found the pharmacist

    • payless69 on 12/06/2023 - 22:26

      It is a comradizised bargain, hey half price! Never say no!

      • DogGunn on 12/06/2023 - 22:29
        -1

        It's not half priced

    • lachlan1 on 12/06/2023 - 22:26
      -3

      JV is correct - Also it hasn't even passed the senate vote yet so not even confirmed. Watch this space

      • Atlantictaiwan on 12/06/2023 - 22:35
        +1

        For once I agree with jv

      • DogGunn on 12/06/2023 - 22:48
        +1

        Is a vote required? I was under the impression that it just needed to be recommended by the PBS Committee, which it has, and then the Minister can sign off on the new amounts.

    • DingoBlue on 12/06/2023 - 23:03
      +1

      Six people have reported this deal, category “other”,. Even the drop down box doesn’t care about your opinion of this deal.

      • jv on 12/06/2023 - 23:29
        -4

        of this deal.

        It's not a deal.

        • DingoBlue on 12/06/2023 - 23:38
          +12

          You may feel that way but it is simply your opinion and unfortunately your feelings and opinions are not valid selections in the drop down box. You have the option to have your feelings heard by not upvoting the deal.

          • jv on 12/06/2023 - 23:41
            -4

            @DingoBlue:

            it is simply your opinion

            Nope, it's fact…

            • DingoBlue on 12/06/2023 - 23:45
              +8

              @jv: I know you feel that way and you have a right to feel that way but still we will not pander to your feelings.

              • jv on 12/06/2023 - 23:51
                -3

                @DingoBlue:

                we will not pander

                I didn't ask you too.

                It's not a deal about bamboo.

    • boomramada on 13/06/2023 - 00:07
      +2

      Government Benefits Scheme never a bargain, money spending on this scheme has to come from somewhere else not from politicians pay.

      • kiriakoz on 13/06/2023 - 11:41
        +3

        I'm okay with you downvoting this if you don't think it's a bargain but you shouldn't logically be able to down vote it because you think pharmacies will increase other products/services, that's their choice and we will go to other pharmacies for those products/services if they do. Seems ludicrous that you can down vote on something that hasn't happened yet and that you've given no real proof that it will.

        • HootyMcBewb on 13/06/2023 - 16:31

          Well… using your logic, it seems ludicrous you can upvote something that hasn't happened yet. It should be in the forums and not even here.

          And you're right, you'll likely have to go to other pharmacies when those that are forced to increase their prices eventually close down. Again, I have no proof, but neither do you.

          • kiriakoz on 13/06/2023 - 16:44
            +1

            @HootyMcBewb: What? I'm voting on something that has been proposed, you're voting on something that hasn't been proposed, it's that simple. You're not using my logic. You've taken my logic for a walk around the block a few times until you've come up with some batshit theory.

            • HootyMcBewb on 13/06/2023 - 16:51
              +1

              @kiriakoz: OK boomer. Settle down. There are many pharmacies that have already started introducing fees to cover the potential losses of this policy. If you'd like to know how I know. I work in a pharmacy that has (if you couldn't already tell). Consumers are already losing, and it hasn't even gone through the senate!

              • kiriakoz on 13/06/2023 - 17:40
                +2

                @HootyMcBewb: That sounds like oppotunism if you're introducing it before it's even gone through. No wonder you're against the government, you have skin in the game. Stuff chronically sick people, keep letting big pharma and rich pharmacists profit off them. I knew you'd drop your cover as soon as pushed, thanks for the entertainment.

                • HootyMcBewb on 13/06/2023 - 19:47
                  +1

                  @kiriakoz: It's not opportunism when these businesses are trying to remain viable. Most pharmacies aren't actually big pharma or rich and are just trying to maintain care for their communities, but, they need to stay open to do that.

                  Why do people have a problem with small businesses, like pharmacies, making a profit when we let billionaires take advantage of tax loopholes and pay barely anything back to the Australian people? Who knows? (That's rhetorical btw, no need to answer)

                  • kiriakoz on 13/06/2023 - 21:08
                    +1

                    @HootyMcBewb: I don't like billionaires taking advantage of loopholes either, we just happen to be talking about pharmacies. It's poor logic to deflect to something else with no knowledge of my opinion on it.

                    I also have no doubt that some pharmacies aren't super rich, but my suspicion is that on the whole, pharmacy owners are richer than people with chronic conditions. We have to make rules and laws on people in bulk. Of course there are people worse off due to this change, just like there would be with any change.

                    Having said that, I appreciate it's easier for me to be philosophical about this as it doesn't directly impact me either way.

    • Naigrabzo on 13/06/2023 - 10:38

      especially for the guild.

    • playerzer2 on 16/06/2023 - 10:53

      agree

  • TanedaR on 12/06/2023 - 22:15
    +22

    Permanent change of policy should go to forum.

    • SupeNintendoChalmers on 12/06/2023 - 22:19
      +27

      Last time the mods deleted this they stated "(Upcoming deals cannot be posted more than 90 days in advance / Insufficient details for upcoming deal)"

      Sep 1 is now 81 days from now and there is a full pdf of all the meds to be included.

      Ultimately up to mods to decide to keep.

        • SupeNintendoChalmers on 12/06/2023 - 22:26
          +31

          Explain then how consoles deals for example are posted at RRP?

        • eggboi on 12/06/2023 - 22:32
          +32

          it fits with many of the other 'pseudo-bargains' found on this site, that are also beneficial to know about. Maybe a third category of posts is needed in addition to 'bargains' and 'forum'. 'Public Service Announcements' or similar. Pricing and policy related news that is not really a bargain or forum thing.

          eg:

          -consoles in stock at rrp
          -interest rate increases on savings accounts
          -long-running hacks and 'deals' like buying subscription services from turkiye with the how-to instructions
          -this post

          • SupeNintendoChalmers on 13/06/2023 - 16:47

            @eggboi: I think thats fair enough

            • eggboi on 13/06/2023 - 16:57

              @SupeNintendoChalmers: There are similar functions in the "pages" section.. Mods could easily add another page for this kinda stuff I guess. Until then, it's clearly fine in the deals section.

      • Apsley on 12/06/2023 - 23:38
        +13

        Thank you very much OP for the full pdf list of all the meds included. It was very useful for me because I checked the pdf document whether a specific medication was listed and I am happy to find that it is there. I am certain that many others would have done exactly the same as me and would have benefited too.

        • HootyMcBewb on 13/06/2023 - 16:34
          +1

          Take that with a grain of salt for now. There are apparently going to be 3 tranches released over a year, and considering that list includes medicines that have been discontinued, eg. ranitidine, there's no guarantee your required medicine will be included. At least not immediately.

    • lachlan1 on 12/06/2023 - 22:27
      +4

      Also it hasn't even passed the senate vote yet so not even confirmed. Watch this space

  • yht on 12/06/2023 - 22:19

    Meaning if I am prescribed for 5 repeats worth 30 x 5 days, then I can actually get another 30 x 5 days without additional cost ?

    • SupeNintendoChalmers on 12/06/2023 - 22:20

      yes, you'd basically be getting 60 x 5

      • CalmLemons on 12/06/2023 - 22:39
        +3

        I don't think so. You would probably only get 60 x 2 or 60 x 3.

        It's not good practic/s/e to prescribe a patient 300 days worth of medication without a checkup, obviously depending on what it is but it's highly frowned upon, as it means patients go 10-11 months without a checkup unless the patient is been stable for several years.

        Even now, it's just 6 months supply, so I would imagine the scripts would be 60 days plus 2 repeats max.

        • DrScavenger on 12/06/2023 - 22:46
          +28

          My depression aint going away. I am glad this is happening. No reason not to support this and I really hope I can get 300 days worth of supply without forking stupid amounts of money to GPs for 5 minutes of their time.

          • cloudy on 13/06/2023 - 00:28

            @DrScavenger:

            My depression aint going away

            What a depressing thought

            • Sleeqb7 on 13/06/2023 - 09:26
              +7

              @cloudy: When you're 10+ years into "treatment" it really feels more like "matenience" at that point. Every 28 days I need to make sure I've got a new box ready because missing a dose of SSRIs (Or similar) presents with really harsh side effects.

              In my particular case, I don't even benefit from this change because my meds aren't even on the PBS (Yet?) so I'm just paying $95 a month in perpetuity at this rate. No bargains for Sleeqb7 :(

        • xmail on 12/06/2023 - 22:56
          +11

          Hence the scheme and medication list is for chronic conditions that do not go away. If you read the doc one of the justifications is to reduce GP visits, which it will only do if it increases the length of time the script can be used for.
          Also it claims to save the patient money - which it will only do if they can get more for less. Although that may be in reference to the reduced GP visits.

          • Hendot on 13/06/2023 - 08:20
            +7

            @xmail: The patient gets 60 days supply for $30.
            Previously they got 30 days supply for $30.

            This definitely saves the patient money.

            • xmail on 13/06/2023 - 08:48

              @Hendot: Yes - but I was replying to someone suggesting it would be only 2 or 3 repeats to keep within the 6 month period. But that wouldn't reduce GP visits which is one of the stated aims.

            • Naigrabzo on 13/06/2023 - 10:32
              +4

              @Hendot: Pharmacists have left the chat to complain…. :)

      • Tunder on 13/06/2023 - 13:17

        If anyone would like to look at how the PBS works you can find the answer to your questions here - https://www.pbs.gov.au/info/about-the-pbs and if you want to research deeper here - https://www.pbs.gov.au/info/healthpro/explanatory-notes/sect…

        As an example - escitalopram 20 mg tablet, 28 (Lexapro) - https://www.pbs.gov.au/medicine/item/8701Y-9433L
        Note: the example is for a concession card patient only as escitalopram 20 mg tablet, 28 does not meet the $30 threshold for the general Co-payment.

        Currently the PBS will kick in if the script is for a quantity of 28 with the maximum number of repeats allowed as 5. This would result in ~ 6 months supply if the medication was taken once a day.

        I believe the proposed change to 60 day dispensing would see the me max qty unit on the PBS schedule increase from 28 to 56 but I also suspect the max number of repeats to drop to 2 as almost all items on the PBS are approved for a maximum of 5 repeats with a few exceptions. Through this mechanism there is an expectation to review prescribed medication every 6 months. This may change but that would require a separate piece of legislation like the one outlined in table 2 of the OP original document.

    • Fiximol on 12/06/2023 - 22:29
      +1

      No. The doctor would have to prescribe 60 days worth on a new prescription.

      • yht on 12/06/2023 - 22:34
        -1

        But now I can claim 5 repeats at the same time at Chemist and lower the cost. No need to wait until my medicines run out. Don't quite get the new rule

        • ringostingo on 12/06/2023 - 22:41
          +3

          No, you can get a new prescription that gives 60 days worth each time it’s filled, for the same price that the 30 day supply was filled for

          • yht on 12/06/2023 - 22:46
            +3

            @ringostingo: So buy one get one free then ?

          • opposablethumbs on 12/06/2023 - 23:09
            +2

            @ringostingo: @ringostingo
            "No, you can get a new prescription that gives 60 days worth each time it’s filled, for the same price that the 30 day supply was filled for"

            No, you still pay for 60 days worth of meds, just the pharmacists cut is halved (i.e. dispensing fee and copayment).

          • Wiser on 13/06/2023 - 09:53
            +2

            @ringostingo: Not really
            Only benefit is dispensing fees chrged by the pharmacist.
            You pay one dispensing fee for two months medicines which you are paying everymonth now.
            If your medication costs less or equal to this fee you may cosider the medicine as free.
            Savings for the patient is number of trips to the pharmacy and the dispensing fees charged by the pharmacist.
            Pharmacy loses 6 dispensing fee per year and foot traffic to the store.

        • Fiximol on 12/06/2023 - 22:46
          +7

          This is not what the change is about. The change is that the PBS will now reimburse certain medications (under certain conditions, based mainly on the judgement of the prescriber) for up to 60 dyas supply instead of 30 in one dispensing, with one copayment and one dispensing fee paid to the pharmacy/pharmacist.

          I am not sure what is happening to the number of repeats yet - for example it is unclear whether there will be a "42 day rule" to replace the "21-day rule" that currently exists for some medications. However, doctors have always had the ability to authorise the dispensing of all repeats in one go under regulation 24 of the National Health (Pharmaceutical Benefits) Regulations, though patients have to pay a separate copayment for each dispensing.

          TL;DR - you can now get 60 days of prescription with just one copayment, and repeats should be handled the same way as previously (but that is to be confirmed once the legislation has actually been written)

          • yht on 12/06/2023 - 22:48
            +10

            @Fiximol: Oic, I heard Chemist doesn't like the idea as they are losing money

            • Fiximol on 12/06/2023 - 22:57
              +3

              @yht: Correct, they are losing a lot of money both in the short term (less dispensing fee and copayments for the same cost of goods sold), and in the long term from the capital loss (their business is now worth a lot less than before due to lower profits and the increased likelihood of this happening again with more medications added and/or further extension to 90 days).

              With such short notice, it is almost impossible for any business, let alone some sole proprietor pharmacies, to compensate or account for, so we are likely to see cutting of some services (for example our local pharmacy has stopped free deliveries) and staff (either directly by firing, or indirectly by rostering fewer staff, not replacing staff who leave, or shortening trading hours) and/or sales of pharamcies in the short term. Those with deeper pockets who can weather this storm (they will probably pick up a few bargain PBS licences from those who can't) and we are more likely to see a higher number of CWH stores (which has its own subplot).

              We have not heard what other funding the government is providing for 'other services' but this does not include any amount loss to reduction in patient copayments - therefore, even if the government is true to their word and provide payment for other services, pharmacies will still have less overall income than before and their staff pharmacists have to do more for the same (or less) pay.

              • opposablethumbs on 12/06/2023 - 23:29
                +10

                @Fiximol: "Correct, they are losing a lot of money both in the short term (less dispensing fee and copayments for the same cost of goods sold), and in the long term from the capital loss…"

                Please provide any evidence of this, other than the disingenuous shrieking of the greedy Pharmacy Guild.

                • Fiximol on 13/06/2023 - 09:29
                  +4

                  @opposablethumbs: We have numbers from the government impact analysis. In brief, by year 4 (which asumes a 63% uptake of 60 day dispensing among eligible items), the government believes that each pharmacy will receive $158,000 less from the government, and $740 million less from patients, which, dividing into 6000 pharmacies that we have - the impact analysis assumes this to be 'over 5,900' - is another $123,000 per year. That's a shortfall of $281,000 per year, per pharmacy (on average) by year 4 - this is pure profit that is lost. Even if we assume that the government 'reinvests' the $158,000 lost in dispensing fees to the pharmacy for doing absolutely nothing (i.e. no additional diversification and reinvestment required from the owners) the shortfall is still $123,000 per year from reduction in patient copayment. We are ignoring potential loss in foot traffic (much more important for discounters, who assign a higher dollar value per person through the door, hence their employment of prescriptions and other goods as loss leaders) because that's much harder to quantify. Obviously the size of the pharmacy and the patient mix matters, but this is just an average.

                  How much money does a pharmacy make? Much harder to guage, but we can get a ball park figure:

                  The RACGP (currently enemies of the Guild) puts the annual profit at $236,827. In 2014-2015 the Guild reported this to be $109,914.

                  Chemist warehouse, as a group representing (currently) 500 large scale, super profitable stores (due to economies of scale), reported a pre-tax profit of $550 million and a net profit of $385 million last financial year (sorry AJP is restricted, but the CW group holdings annual report does not appear to be availabe to the public as it is not publically traded yet). This gives us an upper end average of $770,000 net profit annually for each pharmacy.

                  So on average, this change either eats up ALL of a pharmacy's profits (if we use the RACGP estimates) or represents a reduction of 36% of the annual net profit to a large chain like chemist warehouse (which is much more profitable than your sole proprietor or smaller pharmacies). Assuming only the patient copayment amount ($123,000 per year) is lost as the government makes good on their promise to give all of the 'savinigs' from dispensing fees back through other channels, this still represents a 16%-52% reduction in net profit.

                  • Fiximol on 13/06/2023 - 11:36
                    +1

                    @Fiximol: Sorry, there is a mistake. WIth 60 day dispensing should only be $540 million less patient copayment ($740 million was 90 days). So overall shortfall is only $248,000 on average.

                    So on average, this change either eats up ALL of a pharmacy's profits (if we use the RACGP estimates) or represents a reduction of 32% of the annual net profit to a large chain like chemist warehouse (which is much more profitable than your sole proprietor or smaller pharmacies). Assuming only the patient copayment amount ($90,000 per year) is lost as the government makes good on their promise to give all of the 'savinigs' from dispensing fees back through other channels, this still represents a 12%-38% reduction in net profit.

              • SmoothCactus on 13/06/2023 - 00:33
                +7

                @Fiximol: I’m sure the pharmacies are making only 5 figures a year, and are doing very poorly. Wife and kids don’t have bread on the table and Billy can’t afford shoes.

                This is going to make pharmacies poorer, but it’s not going to put them in a position where they won’t still be doing extremely well.

                • FreshPanda on 13/06/2023 - 08:20
                  +1

                  @SmoothCactus: I worked for chemist warehouse, standing as a cashier the whole day and hardly taking a break. It must be over 6 figures even a prominent 6 figures.

              • Circly on 13/06/2023 - 09:27
                +2

                @Fiximol: Pharmacists already do alot more for less. Store owners have been profiting greatly by treating their staff like production workers.

                Not sure they can get much more efficiency from their workers.

                They are shrieking it as now they get Lambo money instead of Bugatti money.

                • Fiximol on 13/06/2023 - 09:36

                  @Circly: And unfortunately this change is not going to make things any better for the workers. However the government is pretty much expecting them to get more productivity (Praise Lowe) from their existing (or perhaps smaller) staff by making them do more for the same government money.

              • donga100 on 13/06/2023 - 19:21
                +2

                @Fiximol:

                Correct, they are losing a lot of money

                Yes, money which is paid for by our taxes. Are our taxes better used subsidising the chronically ill or subsidising pharmacy owners?

                • Fiximol on 13/06/2023 - 20:20

                  @donga100: In this instance, this statment is incorrect.

                  The government is paying less dispensing fee to the approved pharmacist (i.e. the owner of the pharmacy). The patient is paying less money to the pharmacy. There is no additional transfer from government to patient - so there is no further 'subidising the chronically ill' by the government beyond the existing PBS arrangements. The economic transfer (i.e. savings for the patient) is, in fact, coming from the pharmacy and paid to the patient, which is not entirely paid for by 'your taxes' - it is also paid for by whatever other income stream that pharmacy has.

                  • donga100 on 13/06/2023 - 20:24
                    +2

                    @Fiximol: OK, in that case I should have said:

                    Are our taxes better used subsidising pharmacy owners or literally anything else?

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join