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.

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.

Key Takeaways

• The Coalition is threatening to delay the rollout of the 60-day dispensing of medicines, a policy set to benefit millions of Australians by providing cheaper medicines.
• Senators Anne Ruston and Bridget McKenzie stated they would move a disallowance motion if the policy wasn't paused, claiming concerns that community pharmacies could close down, causing vulnerable Australians to pay more for their healthcare.
• Health Minister Mark Butler stated the government was committed to this policy, arguing that it frees up GP consultations for major health conditions and halves the cost of medicines for patients.
• Despite the Coalition's threat, the Greens have indicated they do not support the Opposition's bid, and unless they can convince crossbench senators, it's unlikely the Coalition would get the numbers to pass the motion through the Senate.

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.

 

[Hammy59]

Seems like the Coalition will use anything to stop this Government doing good, as it does not play into their agenda. The everyday person will benefit the most and this surely should be what all elected Ministers should support, not their own interests.

 

[Suzanne rose]

I thought it passed last night and will go ahead from September

 

[Penny4]

Whenever I venture into a Chemist, customers are standing in queues at the counter, waiting to hand over scripts, or waiting to collect scripts.
I can't envisage this ever changing. Pharmacists are 'crying wolf'.

 

[Buzzy]

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.

View attachment 27113

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.

Key Takeaways

• The Coalition is threatening to delay the rollout of the 60-day dispensing of medicines, a policy set to benefit millions of Australians by providing cheaper medicines.
• Senators Anne Ruston and Bridget McKenzie stated they would move a disallowance motion if the policy wasn't paused, claiming concerns that community pharmacies could close down, causing vulnerable Australians to pay more for their healthcare.
• Health Minister Mark Butler stated the government was committed to this policy, arguing that it frees up GP consultations for major health conditions and halves the cost of medicines for patients.
• Despite the Coalition's threat, the Greens have indicated they do not support the Opposition's bid, and unless they can convince crossbench senators, it's unlikely the Coalition would get the numbers to pass the motion through the Senate.

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.

Same old - if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is. Just another money-making scheme for the government at more cost for pharmacies. Some drugs are hard to source for them now - & govt wants them to supply double?!

 

[Suzanne rose]

It's not only scripts that chemist sell !

Maybe more people will get their scripts made up now that it's cheaper.

The chemist are still getting paid , they are not covering the cost, and as I said more people will now get their scripts made up

 

[Rob44]

The LNP are wreckers, pure and simple. If the LNP harassedthe governmnet so as to IMPROVE our Public Hospitals, then they might be worth consdering. But all the LNP wants is to run riot with rorts for little mates, such as the $750 million AFL rort in Tasmania.

 

[Ian Crane-Luff]

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.

View attachment 27113

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.

Key Takeaways

• The Coalition is threatening to delay the rollout of the 60-day dispensing of medicines, a policy set to benefit millions of Australians by providing cheaper medicines.
• Senators Anne Ruston and Bridget McKenzie stated they would move a disallowance motion if the policy wasn't paused, claiming concerns that community pharmacies could close down, causing vulnerable Australians to pay more for their healthcare.
• Health Minister Mark Butler stated the government was committed to this policy, arguing that it frees up GP consultations for major health conditions and halves the cost of medicines for patients.
• Despite the Coalition's threat, the Greens have indicated they do not support the Opposition's bid, and unless they can convince crossbench senators, it's unlikely the Coalition would get the numbers to pass the motion through the Senate.

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.

Like most of the actions of this government are vote catchers only and as usual not thought through, people should think through what the objections are and realise that the pharmacists are correct in their objection.

 

[Countryjohn]

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.

View attachment 27113

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.

Key Takeaways

• The Coalition is threatening to delay the rollout of the 60-day dispensing of medicines, a policy set to benefit millions of Australians by providing cheaper medicines.
• Senators Anne Ruston and Bridget McKenzie stated they would move a disallowance motion if the policy wasn't paused, claiming concerns that community pharmacies could close down, causing vulnerable Australians to pay more for their healthcare.
• Health Minister Mark Butler stated the government was committed to this policy, arguing that it frees up GP consultations for major health conditions and halves the cost of medicines for patients.
• Despite the Coalition's threat, the Greens have indicated they do not support the Opposition's bid, and unless they can convince crossbench senators, it's unlikely the Coalition would get the numbers to pass the motion through the Senate.

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.

S usual this govt does not think things through. I think it’s partly to take the spotlight from a failing voice referendum.
Nothing will change in pharmacies except the price of everything going up. When will this govt realize they are unfit to govern?

 

[Big M]

I thought it passed last night and will go ahead from September

Me too! The news was in TV

 

[melnugro]

Same old - if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is. Just another money-making scheme for the government at more cost for pharmacies. Some drugs are hard to source for them now - & govt wants them to supply double?!

Hard to comment as I am already on the Long Waiting List for my Prescribed Pills .

 

[Self]

The amount of wasted medicines when people get to many in advance. The blister packs in aged care when prescriptions change or patients die is incredible.

 

[McMaster]

Of course while the medications will cost less, there is also the inability then to reach the safety net, but no one is mentioning that. The ultimate cost to pensioners will be more in the long run.

 

[IJH]

I thought I saw on the news that Dutton had withdrawn the objection to this

 

[Suzanne rose]

Me too! The news was in TV

So I didn't get it wrong then, this is a bit confusing

 

[Suzanne rose]

Of course while the medications will cost less, there is also the inability then to reach the safety net, but no one is mentioning that. The ultimate cost to pensioners will be more in the long run.

Even though it will take longer to meet the safety net you will still be better off this way. Also alot of pensioners never meet the safety so they will also benefit

 

[Janice McKay]

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.

View attachment 27113

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.

Key Takeaways

• The Coalition is threatening to delay the rollout of the 60-day dispensing of medicines, a policy set to benefit millions of Australians by providing cheaper medicines.
• Senators Anne Ruston and Bridget McKenzie stated they would move a disallowance motion if the policy wasn't paused, claiming concerns that community pharmacies could close down, causing vulnerable Australians to pay more for their healthcare.
• Health Minister Mark Butler stated the government was committed to this policy, arguing that it frees up GP consultations for major health conditions and halves the cost of medicines for patients.
• Despite the Coalition's threat, the Greens have indicated they do not support the Opposition's bid, and unless they can convince crossbench senators, it's unlikely the Coalition would get the numbers to pass the motion through the Senate.

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.

As I have said earlier in this forum, I cannot get my monthly supply of 120 tablets per month anymore. So my question is, how am I going to get 2 months of tablets per month if you won't give me the amount I need now. You have made it hard for me to get my extra tablets without paying for them every fortnight. Even with reaching the Safety Net I have to pay for my 2nd lot of tablets out of my pocket. So tell me, where does this save me money? Since Labor has been in many drugs are now off the PBS.

 

[Lynjw]

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.

View attachment 27113

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.

Key Takeaways

• The Coalition is threatening to delay the rollout of the 60-day dispensing of medicines, a policy set to benefit millions of Australians by providing cheaper medicines.
• Senators Anne Ruston and Bridget McKenzie stated they would move a disallowance motion if the policy wasn't paused, claiming concerns that community pharmacies could close down, causing vulnerable Australians to pay more for their healthcare.
• Health Minister Mark Butler stated the government was committed to this policy, arguing that it frees up GP consultations for major health conditions and halves the cost of medicines for patients.
• Despite the Coalition's threat, the Greens have indicated they do not support the Opposition's bid, and unless they can convince crossbench senators, it's unlikely the Coalition would get the numbers to pass the motion through the Senate.

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.

It’s pathetic. Playing with peoples lives who rely on medicine everyday to keep going. How many can afford $806.

 

[Gsr]

Of course while the medications will cost less, there is also the inability then to reach the safety net, but no one is mentioning that. The ultimate cost to pensioners will be more in the long run.

I don’t see how pensioners are going to pay more, you still reach the safety net after you spend the same amount of dollars you spend now to reach it. Even if you don’t reach it it is not costing you anymore a year than you now spend.

 

[Gsr]

It’s pathetic. Playing with peoples lives who rely on medicine everyday to keep going. How many can afford $806.

No one will be paying an extra $806 a year, the cost of their medications is coming down if they get 2 months supply for the cost they now pay for 1 months supply. The only way the cost will be more is if the pharmacies charge extra for making up Webster packs or deliveries. Then they will be ripping off the pensioners.