‘Overcharging’ claims give false impression


Guild condemns PBS price fixing suggestion as article accuses pharmacies of overcharging

The King Review interim report is a “damning” one which demonstrates that “chemists have been overcharging customers for medicines,” according to an article by News Corp Australia Network national health reporter Sue Dunlevy.

“The price of the same PBS medicine can vary by up to $26 depending on where a consumer shops, a damning government review of the pharmacy industry has found,” Ms Dunlevy wrote in News Corp media over the weekend.

“The Turnbull Government’s Review of Pharmacy Remuneration and Regulation wants to end the practice costing consumers $145 million a year by introducing a set price for PBS medicines.”

The interim report of the King Review “has blown the lid on a massive pricing discrepancies in subsidised prescription medicine,” Ms Dunlevy writes.

The article used the example of atorvastatin, with a government-set price of $14.25, which Ms Dunlevy writes is available for $6 at Chemist Warehouse.

“However, a suburban pharmacy that applies extra fees allowed on top of the $14.25 government fee could bump the price up to $19.82 or higher, the review says,” she writes.

“This means it would be possible for a chemist to charge up to $38.80 for the script which really costs half that amount, Professor King says.”

The interim report found that “the variation in pricing for medicines due to pharmacy pricing discretion creates consumer confusion”.

It recommends that: “the payment made by any particular consumer for a PBS-listed medicine should be the co-payment set by the government for that consumer or the dispensed price for that medicine, whichever is the lower.

“A community pharmacy should have no discretion to either raise or lower this price.”

As well as finding it “inappropriate” that community pharmacies have the discretion to raise the price paid by a consumer above the relevant dispensed price, the interim report found it was unnecessary to allow pharmacists to add optional additional charges to the price paid by consumers.

But a spokesperson for the Pharmacy Guild of Australia told the AJP that fixing the prices of PBS medicines under the general patient co-payment would force many consumers to pay more than they currently do.

This would also drive other consumers out of the PBS to private scripts with no safety net.

“This is a flawed option which would reduce competition under the co-payment ($38.80) and it is hard to see what the Pharmacy Review was thinking in putting this option forward,” the spokesperson said.

“Not for the first time, a News Limited newspaper story on the weekend falsely gave the impression that pharmacies that charge the legal allowable fees for under co-payment medicines are somehow doing the wrong thing. This was unfair and flies in the face of the market realities for these medicines.

“Consumers benefit considerably from competition in relation to under co-payment PBS medicines. 

“The Pharmacy Review interim report itself publishes a table of ten high volume medicines, six of which would become more expensive under their proposal. 

“It is very unlikely that the Government [would] be attracted by a proposition that reduces competition, forces many consumers to pay more, and drives many consumers out of the PBS safety net system.”

The News Corp article also says the interim paper “caves into the demands of the powerful Pharmacy Guild of Australia” regarding the proposed abolition of the controversial $1 script co-payment discount.

It claims this could increase the out-of-pocket costs for some chronically ill people on multiple medicines by “hundreds of dollars” per year.

A review of the optional discount had already been flagged in this year’s Federal Budget, and had been welcomed by the Guild.

The News Corp article is the latest in a series by Ms Dunlevy which have been critical of the community pharmacy sector.

Previous We're all in this together
Next Crime is rising, readers say

NOTICE: It can sometimes take awhile for comment submissions to go through, please be patient.

5 Comments

  1. Curtis Watson
    26/06/2017

    I guess because “Businesses Charging Allowable Prices” isn’t really Sue’s MO..

  2. Glen Bayer
    27/06/2017

    “It is very unlikely that the Government [would] be attracted by a proposition that ….drives many consumers out of the PBS safety net system”. Really? Wouldn’t the government love to reduce PBS expenditure? Ignore the implications regarding whether people simply stopped buying their medications, and the flow on effects on the health system, but the PBS bottom line would look great.

    I’d love to know what a pharmacist did to Sue Dunlevy at some time in the past to uncap this endless spring of vitriol.

  3. Karl Landers
    27/06/2017

    Another bi-annual ‘pharmacist bashing’ article by Sue Dunlevy…Yawn, yawn! Move on Sue…

    • Ian Bodycote
      27/06/2017

      Same theme- different date- I just look at the author and immediately turn to the next page of good health and well-being from Chemist Warehouse, scrunch the segment up and use it to start the fire at home

  4. stevehon1966
    27/06/2017

    hi professor king , have you tried to live in a remote town where you pay 30% more in wages , electricity and storage etc. So a chemist charges more means sensible ! You pay $100 for a flight from brisbane to sydney
    whereas you pay $ nearly $400 from brisbane to Mount Isa ! Why ?

Leave a reply