PSA awarded continued funding


PSA House exterior

The Pharmaceutical Society of Australia has welcomed the continuation of its national peak health body funding

It says the continuation represents Federal Government recognition of the work PSA does for all pharmacists in Australia.

PSA National President Dr Shane Jackson says the organisation is pleased that the Federal Government has provided funding over three years for PSA, confirming the role PSA plays as a peak health advisory body representing all of Australia’s 31,000 pharmacists.

“We are exceptionally proud to represent pharmacists in all locations and sectors, including community, hospital and academia,” he says.

“We sincerely thank the Federal Government, as part of the Health Peak and Advisory Bodies Programme, for its strong support of PSA and our work in continuing to improve Australia’s health through its leadership of the pharmacy profession.

“PSA believes the expertise of pharmacists can be better utilised to address the healthcare needs of all Australians.

“There is no doubt that we can improve healthcare by optimising the role of pharmacists as healthcare professionals and as leaders in Quality Use of Medicines.”

Dr Jackson says PSA, the largest pharmacist member organisation in Australia, has a strong and engaged membership base, who are medicines experts and provide high-quality healthcare for all Australians.

PSA leads and supports innovative and evidence-based healthcare service delivery by pharmacists and works to unlock opportunities for pharmacists to practise to their full potential, he says.

PSA provides high-quality practitioner development and practice support to pharmacists and is the custodian of the professional practice standards, guidelines and code of ethics to ensure quality and integrity in the practice of pharmacy, he says.

Previous Underlined: extending the 6CPA
Next Greens leader calls for funding transparency

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

15 Comments

  1. Gavin Mingay
    28/11/2018

    There are over 31,000 registered pharmacists in Australia and 18,000 are members of PSA, so PSA represents half of pharmacists?

    • Jarrod McMaugh
      28/11/2018

      PSA represents 100% of pharmacists, but the members gain the extra benefits.

      • United we stand
        29/11/2018

        What if I don’t want PSA representing me? They’re in their big Daddy’s pockets. At every turn when we needed them to stand up, they backed away.

        PPA is the representative of a significant number of pharmacists these days not PSA

        • Jarrod McMaugh
          29/11/2018

          Not by a long shot.
          Less than 10% of the membership of PSA.

          • Andrew
            29/11/2018

            I think the point is that PSA by its ties to PGA is conflicted and skewed towards the commercial imperative and can’t be viewed as impartial.

            PPA have their own agenda but it’s not steered by external orgs like PSA is.

          • Jarrod McMaugh
            29/11/2018

            Which links are those?

            PPA not steered by external organisations…. That’s an interesting interpretation of PPAs constitution.

          • Andrew
            29/11/2018

            I mean, I appreciate the Socratic method but the answer to your question is literally the first sentence of my post.

            That the boards at national and state level contain Guild members infers a conflict of interest whether it exists in practice or not. Any impartial observer would accept that and in any other industry a relationship like that would be careful scrutinised.

          • Jarrod McMaugh
            29/11/2018

            They also contain SHPA members
            And PPA members
            And people who aren’t a member of any other organisation.

            They contain staff members of some of the universities
            And staff members of some of the bigger banner groups (and smaller ones).

            So, which of these particular groups ends up winning in the CoI tug-of-war that must be happening based on your assumption that an individual can’t act in the best interest of the organisation they represent?

          • Andrew
            30/11/2018

            Membership of SHPA or PPA doesn’t imply a pecuniary interest in a pharmacy, whereas PGA membership does. There’s your CoI

            Like I said, whether the CoI exists in practice or not is irrelevant – the hypothetical that in the event of choosing between public and their own interests that the board members would be 100% impartial (even to their own detriment) is fanciful, and regulators tend to agree, as per structures elsewhere.

            Human nature is complicated and to think that someone can act impartially even if they try really really hard is pretty niave to be honest. This is understood and reflected in the laws elsewhere.

          • Jarrod McMaugh
            30/11/2018

            I would suggest that if you believe that membership of an organisation doesn’t reflect the potential for a conflict of interest, then you don’t understand the nature of CoI.

            If you believe that having a pecuniary interest in a business is the only manner in which a CoI can exist, then you definitely don’t understand CoI.

          • United we stand
            30/11/2018

            Just to refresh everyone’s memory, it wasn’t long ago that PGA was seeking to axe penalty rates and put a hold on Fair works commision review of pharmacist award rates. At such a critical juncture, many PSA members asked their representing organisation to speak out against these actions to which PSA was quick to pull away from the discussion all together stating this is not a matter for them to discuss and they currently don’t have a say on the matter.

            Once the penalty rates were gone and the wage review was lost into oblivion, their newly appointed president was quick to call for better pay etc, knowing fully well that ship has sailed long ago.

            Now they are conning a new generation of young pharmacists into overpriced memberships making them believe they will seek them better working conditions and award rates, while piling on new responsibilities on their backs knowing fully well the system is built to keep them poor for years to come.

            And the cycle continues….

          • Jarrod McMaugh
            30/11/2018

            Wow you don’t mind misreprenting the facts do you

            PSA is a membership organisation – it isn’t a union, nor is it an employer organisation. That means PSA is not empowered to negotiate for changes to the award.

            PPA certainly has this role AND response nsibility, yet consistently fails to deliver.

            PPA has long been ineffective. They sat on their hands in the 90s & 00s when there was capacity to wring more money out of the PBS for wages.

            In recent years PPA has pushed for supermarket ownership of pharmacies so they could engage in collective bargaining, despite evidence that supermarkets & unions have negotiated WORSE outcomes for supermarket employees

            Most recently, PPA actually made some headway with the wage case review…. Yet in the end the submission by PPA has no teeth!

            In the end PPA has been ineffectual, slings mud around at everyone else and blames everyone else for their failings.

            Pharmacists deserve much much better representation than this – it’s no wonder membership is so low.

          • Gavin Mingay
            02/12/2018

            “PSA works to identify, unlock and advance opportunities for pharmacists to realise their full potential, to be appropriately recognised and fairly remunerated.”
            So PSA says it does the job, but isn’t empowered to do so?

          • Jarrod McMaugh
            02/12/2018

            PSA specifically cannot participate in a wage case review or industrial relations, as this requires the involvement of an employer organisation or an employee organisation. Since PSA represents all pharmacists, it is not appropriate for PSA to take on either of these roles.

            Other methods – such as establishing new settings of employment, recognition of scope of practice, influencing legislation & regulation, etc are part of PSAs role

          • Gavin Mingay
            02/12/2018

            So the spelling error in “The PSA will positively influence the roles, responsibilities and renumeration of pharmacists in our health system” probably makes it actually more accurate? The PSA can count pharmacists, but can’t positively influence us getting a fair wage…

Leave a reply