Poll: Who should have a seat at the table?


competency standards: meeting room

As 7CPA talks begin, we ask AJP readers who they think should be a party to the proceedings

The Department of Health confirms it has begun consultation for the Seventh Community Pharmacy Agreement with the Pharmacy Guild of Australia and the Pharmaceutical Society of Australia.

Broader consultation will also reportedly occur this month with a variety of organisations including Chemist Warehouse, Ramsay Health Care and doctor’s groups.

The Pharmacy Guild has been the sole party in negotiating the past six Community Pharmacy Agreements.

However the upcoming 7CPA marks a shift as Health Minister Greg Hunt announced in February this year that the Pharmaceutical Society of Australia will be co-signatory to the Agreement.

Following this announcement, the Consumers Health Forum also called for a seat at the table, saying consumers want a voice too.

The CPAs cover funding for community pharmacy remuneration, the Community Services Obligation and community pharmacy programs, as well as other matters such as pharmacy location rules and governance arrangements.

Who do you think should join the Pharmacy Guild at the negotiating table?

Previous ‘Wild West’ of health advice
Next A new group

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

10 Comments

  1. M M
    10/07/2019

    I think this Poll should allow choosing more than one choice. The poll in this format is not designed properly.

    • Sheshtyn Paola
      10/07/2019

      Thanks M M, you are correct, the poll format has now been updated.
      Kind regards,
      The AJP team

  2. Tim Hewitt
    10/07/2019

    PLEASE take this ‘POLL’ down.. no good can come of it and it will only fuel the fire, and give credence to the unfounded ‘fake truth’ that CPA’s are a free for all.. The KING REVIEW (remember that?) gave anybody/everybody who had a view on Pharmacy regulation and remuneration the chance to state their case.. on a theoretically level playing filed.. but still some are not happy to be treated equally and want special treatment because they are.. big and powerful!! So now the CHOSEN FEW are offered a special chit chat round table gabfest to the exclusion of all others.. and for what??.. what did they NOT tell the King Review that they need to say now??.. Hunt will use this as bargaining chip to screw us over big time..’Oh.. the CWH and Ramsay said they can do it for free??.. whats wrong with the rest of you??’.. we know what CWH offer.. and why.. and what their business model is.. we KNOW Ramsay are a HUGE BILLION DOLLAR MULTINATIONAL (BTW// in my business, we spend a lot of time dealing with inadequate medication management issues emanating from the local Hospital..)..we KNOW the AMA wants pharmacy to go back into our little box… in fact your article says the round table includes Doctors GROUPS.. like how many Doctors groups does it take??.. I’d love to be more direct but might offend someone.. (and we cant have that in Australia can we…)
    FINALLY.. where is the option for either ”NOBODY’ or ‘ANYONE WHO WANTS TO SHOW UP’ in your POLL.. AND when you publish the result will you include how may people DID NOT BOTHER to VOTE

    • M M
      11/07/2019

      Hi Tim, when you say “The KING REVIEW (remember that?) gave anybody/everybody who had a view on Pharmacy regulation and remuneration the chance to state their case..on a theoretically level playing filed”

      ** Do you know that CPA’s support monopoly? CPAs break two fundamental concepts –> the SUPPLY and ACCESS of medicines in Australia leaving our elderly patients vulnerable, and destroy the pharmaceutical manufacturing industry in Australia.

      ** Also, when you say ” Hunt will use this as bargaining chip to screw us over big time” who to you refer to by “us” the pharmacy owners or patients?

      **Do you know that the CPAs support a ONE-SIZE fits all Monopolistic approach that disadvantages small pharmacies?

      This poll should have included the Guild rather than having the Guild as a given, to see if people would still vote for the them.

      • Tim Hewitt
        15/07/2019

        MM.. I’m not sure what you mean by ‘fundamental concepts ‘.. CPA’s used to be called ‘Gulld government Agreements’.. and we’re the child of a broken system called the PBRT ( pharmaceutical Benefits remuneration Tribunal’ which degenerated into an almighty shot fight in the late 80’s (some of us were there ..).. the government of the day (bob Hawke no less ).. sidelined the PBRT in favor of an agreement with the Guild (representing a majority of section 90 pharmacies).. and here we are 30 odd years later.. I know it’s the past but I think a thorough history lesson needs to be undertaken by a lot of CPA commentators…

  3. Kevin Hayward
    11/07/2019

    The problem with 7CPA is that, even with a new player, it is likely to produce more of the same.
    Primary care pharmacists should consider the provision of professional services, which are not covered by the CPA.
    If pharmacists are prepared to upskill their competencies, alternative public and private funding streams exist, which can complement the existing publicly funded professional services of the primary care pharmacist. I am aware of many pharmacists working in health education, indigenous health, training, health IT and management, so think outside the 7CPA box!

    • M M
      11/07/2019

      Definitely, we need a national public health strategy that uses pharmacies and pharmacists as tools to implement a set strategy and deliver results.

  4. Abraham
    12/07/2019

    Please take down chemist warehouse from the list. Do you want more monopolies or what?.

  5. Greg Kyle
    16/07/2019

    Really it doesn’t matter who is at the table – nothing will change.

    The agreement is a way for the government to screw down their pharmaceuticals budget by holding the guild’s “holy grail” of pharmacist ownership dangling over the guild like the sword of Damacles. The guild will always give the government what they want rather than face their members and say why they caved in on open ownership.

    If we want professional services funding, we need to get it out of the agreement – after all, look how HMRs were killed off as a career option as the funding put into the agreements was whittled down and then the caps put on. I would question how vehemently funding was argued for in the HMR bucket versus dispensing fees…

Leave a reply