Hijacked review misses
RIDDLED with problems of missed deadlines, hijacked agendas and conflicts of interest, the Interim Report of the Pharmacy Remuneration and Regulation Review is “fundamentally flawed and inherently damaging”, concludes the Pharmacy Guild of Australia in its submission to the Government.
The Guild highlighted that failing to identify “practical ways to build upon a community pharmacy model that works extremely well, enjoys the overwhelming support of the public and is fiscally sustainable” represents a “lost opportunity”.
Nevertheless, the Guild has also stated that it is “determined that this opportunity is not lost and is committed to working with government and all relevant stakeholders in ensuring that a viable community pharmacy network continues to deliver the best possible health outcomes for patients into the future.”
In addition, the emphasis ought to be on “working in partnership with the profession and collaborating and integrating with the broader health sector” the Guild argued.
Principal points in the submission refer to ideological economic theorising hijacking the agenda of the Review in a way that would “dismantle if not destroy the tried and tested, mature community pharmacy model, forcing the closure of an estimated 1,700 community pharmacies with major losses of jobs, and an irreversible corporatisation and commoditisation of medicines related care.”
The Review’s approach to dispensing with its Efficient Long Run Incremental Cost (ELRIC) benchmarking metric is described as “unworkable in practice, unprecedented in the health sector, and completely lacking in terms of any cost benefit analysis”.
The flat dispensing fee at such a low level is inconsistent with the Review’s own admission that 15% of pharmacies are not even earning taxable profits.
Of major concern to the Guild are the dismantling of the location rules, including the supermarket options, and radical changes to the supply chain.
The other over-riding concern expressed by the Guild submission is the “serious conflict of interest” which saw the appointment of competition economist Professor Stephen King to head the Review, in spite of his “public statements” on location rules, and reference to Deloitte Access Economics reports.
CLICK HERE for the submission.