Late bid to pause policy rollout met with Government disapproval
- Replies 27
With only weeks left before Labor's groundbreaking dispensing policy is set to effect, the government is in uproar as the opposition pushes a disallowance motion to pause the rollout.
The 60-day dispensing policy is a major change in prescription medicine rules and was welcomed by millions of Australians looking to save on medication costs.
Under the proposed policy, patients can get two-month supplies of their prescription medications instead of the usual one-month allocation. It would also make accessing the needed medications easier for those in rural and regional areas, aged care residents, and patients with chronic diseases.
However, the government has been stopped in its tracks by a matter of timing as the Coalition looks to undo the policy.
On Wednesday, August 9, senators Anne Ruston and Bridget McKenzie said if Labor didn't pause their policy—set to come into effect on September 1—they would move a motion of disallowance that would effectively put the policy on hold.
The bid came a day after the Pharmacy Guild of Australia, a major representative body in the pharmacy space, called on the government to pause its policy rollout because a survey showed that 'hundreds of pharmacies are reducing opening hours, cutting staff and increasing fees for services'.
The group also said the new dispensing policy would cause seniors to foot an $806 bill annually, which Health Minister Mark Butler dismissed as a scare tactic.
The spokeswoman for the opposition concerning health matters, Senator Ruston, argued that there were legitimate concerns that the policy could result in pharmacies closing down, leaving vulnerable Australians unable to access healthcare and forced to pay more.
'The government must get this right, and so far, they have shown no ability to do so,' she said.
On the other hand, pharmacists have warned that the plan could lead to mass closures and massive job losses in the pharmacy industry.
Butler hit back anew at the Coalition and the Guild, insisting that the government was determined to enact the policy to benefit everyone's finances.
'This halves the cost of these medicines for patients. But it's also good for health, and it frees up millions of GP consults that we desperately need for important health conditions rather than routine scripts being issued by doctors,' he said.
He added that the policy was fully backed by patient groups, with everyone from doctors to specialists agreeing it was a positive change in the system.
As a result, instead of entertaining the suggestion of a pause made by the Coalition, Butler said the choice before the Senate was to either allow access to cheaper medicines—in line with medical experts, patient groups and doctors—or to accept the dissenting position of the Coalition and the Pharmacy Guild.
The consequences of disallowing the policy are clear, according to the minister, with not only six million Australians missing out on cheaper medication but also a $1.2bn investment in community pharmacy in danger of being withdrawn.
When asked about the possibility of pausing the policy to allow more time for consultation, Mr Butler explained that this option had not been presented to their group.
He argued that the Coalition prioritised the interests of the pharmacy lobby over the well-being of six million patients. As a result, these patients have 'shelled out hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars' that experts managing the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) believe they shouldn't have had to pay.
The Greens have already stated they won't oppose the Coalition's motion, and unless the crossbench senators can be won over with a better argument, it's unlikely the Coalition will be able to pass the legislation required to delay the policy.
Jordan Steele-John, the Greens' health spokesman, said that the community has long been advocating for changes to dispensing rules.
'We are incredibly proud that after years of the Greens calling for the change, the government has agreed to support better access to medicines for people with opioid dependency, he said.
Now, the big question is: how will the Government react to this unexpected situation? Will they consider the Coalition's arguments or push forward regardless?
When the dust finally settles, we at the SDC hope the winner will be the common Aussie struggling to pay for necessary medications.
What are your thoughts on this news, members? Feel free to leave a comment below.
The 60-day dispensing policy is a major change in prescription medicine rules and was welcomed by millions of Australians looking to save on medication costs.
Under the proposed policy, patients can get two-month supplies of their prescription medications instead of the usual one-month allocation. It would also make accessing the needed medications easier for those in rural and regional areas, aged care residents, and patients with chronic diseases.
However, the government has been stopped in its tracks by a matter of timing as the Coalition looks to undo the policy.
The government has slammed an eleventh-hour bid to pause a major policy rollout just weeks before it begins. Credit: Shutterstock.
On Wednesday, August 9, senators Anne Ruston and Bridget McKenzie said if Labor didn't pause their policy—set to come into effect on September 1—they would move a motion of disallowance that would effectively put the policy on hold.
The bid came a day after the Pharmacy Guild of Australia, a major representative body in the pharmacy space, called on the government to pause its policy rollout because a survey showed that 'hundreds of pharmacies are reducing opening hours, cutting staff and increasing fees for services'.
The group also said the new dispensing policy would cause seniors to foot an $806 bill annually, which Health Minister Mark Butler dismissed as a scare tactic.
The spokeswoman for the opposition concerning health matters, Senator Ruston, argued that there were legitimate concerns that the policy could result in pharmacies closing down, leaving vulnerable Australians unable to access healthcare and forced to pay more.
'The government must get this right, and so far, they have shown no ability to do so,' she said.
On the other hand, pharmacists have warned that the plan could lead to mass closures and massive job losses in the pharmacy industry.
Butler hit back anew at the Coalition and the Guild, insisting that the government was determined to enact the policy to benefit everyone's finances.
'This halves the cost of these medicines for patients. But it's also good for health, and it frees up millions of GP consults that we desperately need for important health conditions rather than routine scripts being issued by doctors,' he said.
He added that the policy was fully backed by patient groups, with everyone from doctors to specialists agreeing it was a positive change in the system.
As a result, instead of entertaining the suggestion of a pause made by the Coalition, Butler said the choice before the Senate was to either allow access to cheaper medicines—in line with medical experts, patient groups and doctors—or to accept the dissenting position of the Coalition and the Pharmacy Guild.
The consequences of disallowing the policy are clear, according to the minister, with not only six million Australians missing out on cheaper medication but also a $1.2bn investment in community pharmacy in danger of being withdrawn.
When asked about the possibility of pausing the policy to allow more time for consultation, Mr Butler explained that this option had not been presented to their group.
He argued that the Coalition prioritised the interests of the pharmacy lobby over the well-being of six million patients. As a result, these patients have 'shelled out hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars' that experts managing the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) believe they shouldn't have had to pay.
The Greens have already stated they won't oppose the Coalition's motion, and unless the crossbench senators can be won over with a better argument, it's unlikely the Coalition will be able to pass the legislation required to delay the policy.
Jordan Steele-John, the Greens' health spokesman, said that the community has long been advocating for changes to dispensing rules.
'We are incredibly proud that after years of the Greens calling for the change, the government has agreed to support better access to medicines for people with opioid dependency, he said.
Now, the big question is: how will the Government react to this unexpected situation? Will they consider the Coalition's arguments or push forward regardless?
When the dust finally settles, we at the SDC hope the winner will be the common Aussie struggling to pay for necessary medications.
What are your thoughts on this news, members? Feel free to leave a comment below.
.png){kind=icon}
this legislation will save money for everyone but alas it an't feeding money to the pharmacies for profits the Liberal way is pay for it (services etc) if you can't you don't deserve it as you are a burden to society their policy the rich get richer and the poor get nothing these lobotomised LNP government should be wondering why they got the ARSE last election corruption in the party you thieving bastards
