Trying to figure out the inconsistencies of our Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme ( PBS ) which can see a two dollar packet of Panadol cost the taxpayers about fifty dollars is now the task of Federal Health Minister Sussan Ley. Following through on that Panadol cost trail takes some interesting twists and turns.
A packet of Panadol is freely available without a script at Coles and Woolworths for two dollars, but once it is prescribed on a PBS script the cost increases to $ 6.70 for pensioners and concession card holders. So - why would a pensioner willingly pay $6.70 for something that can be had for the lesser amount of two dollars ?
Enter that enchanted kingdom known as the "PBS Safety Net ". Once a pensioner - and that includes couples and even families - have spent $ 366 in any one calendar year on sixty PBS scripts their entire PBS medication becomes free. That is a big incentive and most pensioners carefully count their scripts as they work towards the magic six-o !
Another cost addition occurs when the chemist applies a "dispensing fee "to that packet of Panadol. The PBS pays $ 6.70 and the Panadol is taken off the shelf and has a dispensing instruction added, which includes any instructions that doctor may have required on frequency or the need to combine with food. That two dollar pack of Panadol has now increased to $ 12.80.
But of course the cost of getting that script must come into calculation somewhere. Most likely the pensioner is bulk billed, hence the visit to the doctor is without charge, but the taxpayer foots the bill and pays the doctor $ 37.05 for that bulk billed visit. Put that together with the $ 6.70 dispensing fee and the $ 6.10 pensioner charge and you are looking at $ 49.85 for a packet of Panadol !
The problem is that a big number of low cost medications cheaply available at supermarkets are also included in PBS availability and these include dandruff treatment and antacids. It might be cheaper to remove them from the listing and simply award all pensioners a few extra dollars each fortnight to cover this cost. The main purpose of the PBS was to make high cost medication within reach of ordinary people and it seems that trying to keep costs under control is preventing the listing of new essentials. Too much money is being expended on items that become outrageously expensive when they are included in PBS listing.
One idea being considered is to unshackle chemists from the rigidity of that $ 6.70 dispensing fee - and allow them to compete with other chemists for custom. Dispensing fees seem a throwback to a distant age, when many chemists actually put together a mix of ingredients to create a product that their training told them would help with the ailment troubling their customer. It seems a bit rich to charge $ 6.70 to take a packet of Panadol off the shelf and stick on a label - with much the same instruction as on the original packing.
No doubt any change will be bitterly opposed. The number of chemist shops in Australia is a fair testament that they are a rewarding profession - and in many shopping centres their numbers are similar to coffee shops. Forcing them to be more competitive will reduce the numbers and create the volume climate for lower prices. The grocery duopoly have long hungered to be allowed to include a prescription service - and that is an option that remains open to the government.
Sussan Ley has the job of trying to juggle the conflicting interests of the pharmaceutical industry, chemists, doctors and the long suffering taxpayer to put together a PBS that delivers within a workable cost structure. Chemists are an important filter in dispensing advice that reduces the numbers visiting both doctors and hospital emergency departments. That safety net is an important initiative to shield families from the cost of catastrophic illnesses, but sanity must prevail in padding the entry numbers by the inclusion of medication already available at low cost.
We know something is wrong when it becomes evident that costs could be reduced by actually giving away free items that artificially bloat the PBS impost on the taxpayer.
No comments:
Post a Comment