Stakeholders reject Interim Report options

Members of the Medicines Partnership of Australia have banded together to raise concerns about the future stability of pharmacy

The stakeholders, which include the Guild, PSA, ASMI, Generic and Biosimilar Medicines Association, Medicines Australia and CSO wholesalers, formally responded to the King Review interim report by highlighting their objections to aspects of the report.

The Interim Report proposes options for broad and far-reaching changes to the nation’s pharmaceutical industry model; changes that the Medicines Partnership members say threaten the stability of a system that has delivered for Australian patients over a long period of time and is not in need of a major overhaul.

“Many of the options put forward in the Interim Report represent drastic and unneccesary change to a community pharmacy model that is for the most part, delivering well for Australians,” MPA Chair Donna Staunton says.

“Should the Review proceed on its current trajectory, negative impacts would be felt right across the pharmaceutical supply chain, ultimately increasing prices and reducing choices for consumers, and threatening patient accessibility to critical medicines.”

Pharmacy Guild of Australia

The Guild’s response to the report was scathing, calling the Review a “lost opportunity to build upon a community pharmacy model that works extremely well, enjoys widespread support and is fiscally sustainable”.

“The Review has been hijacked by a combination of ideology and economic theorising leading to conclusions 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,” Guild President George Tambassis says.

“The Guild has come to the conclusion that the Review is so fundamentally flawed and inherently damaging that it cannot and should not be relied upon by government as a credible input on the key issues of dispensing remuneration, pharmacy Location rules, the medicines supply chain or future community pharmacy agreements.”

Pharmaceutical Society of Australia

PSA National President Dr Shane Jackson said, “Clinical services delivered by pharmacists, especially dispensing, need to be seen through a health lens and not an economic lens.

“Dispensing is a core clinical activity performed by the majority of pharmacists across the country. We need to build on this core role, and expand on the services available for community pharmacists to help their patients,” Dr Jackson says.

Medicines Australia

While MA agrees in principle with some of the options put forward by the Review – namely those aimed at increasing transparency, harmonising pharmacy legislation and delivering technological advancements to enhance patient access and outcomes – its chief executive, Milton Catelin, says the case for broad, radical reform lacks conviction.

“Medicines Australia is not persuaded that a case for broad-ranging or radical reform has been made. Many of the options are quite radical, and would provide major disruption to a system that has served Australia well for many years,” Mr Catelin says.

“Rather than embarking on major reforms that would overturn many successful arrangements and lead to great unpredictability, Medicines Australia believes that incremental changes should be explored to make the existing systems work more efficiently.”

National Pharmaceutical Services Association

NPSA outlined several general and specific concerns with the Interim Report’s findings, which it says fail overall to sufficiently recognise the complex, interdependent relationships that exist across the pharmaceutical supply chain and for the wholesaling industry in particular.

The Interim Report outlines three alternative options relating to the distribution of medicines to community pharmacy. The Review Panel’s preferred alternative (6-1) suggests putting the obligation of medicine delivery directly on manufacturers through a panel of distributors, while the second (6-2) retains the Community Service Obligation (CSO). The last of the three alternatives (6-3) suggests a “separate review of the CSO to ensure current arrangements demonstrate value for money”.

“Implementing a Manufacturer Distribution Model offers no obvious benefit and has significant drawbacks, including greater regulatory burden for government; greater administrative burden for pharmacy; increased risks to medicines availability due to diminished system redundancy; greater complexity across the supply chain; and the potential for market power imbalance,” NPSA Chair Mark Hooper says.

“It is not supported by NPSA and we are yet to find an industry association in the entire medicines sector who does.

“We are talking about a critical medicine supply chain that underpins the Government’s own National Medicines Policy.

“In the interests of Australian consumers and our community pharmacy customers who are dependent on it, CSO wholesalers remain committed to finding a workable outcome for Government and sustainable remuneration for the sector.”

Generic and Biosimilar Medicines Association

The GBMA similarly expressed concerns about a Manufacturer Distribution Model in its response, noting that it will threaten commercial viability for manufacturers of generic medicines.

“Placing the onus for distribution on suppliers of generic medicines will only add to the cost of doing business,” says GBMA CEO Belinda Wood.

“It will shift the scale towards commercial unviability and therefore cessation of supply for a significant number of generic medicines that Australians rely on to keep them well. It may also hinder competition, tipping the scale heavily in favour of larger manufacturers.”

The GBMA also strongly disagrees that tendering for generic medicines would improve supply chain efficiency and reduce costs to the Australian community.

Ms Wood says “a tendering system for generic medicines poses more risks for Australian consumers than benefits.

“It will only reduce patient choice, cause medicine shortages and rationing, destroy investment in this country, and irreparably damage the sector that seeks to make medicines affordable.”

Australian Self Medication Industry

ASMI says it is not as staunchly opposed to the Interim Report as some of its Medicines Partnership fellows, but it is concerned about increased regulation around the sale of complementary medicines, as well as calling for further assessment of any option relating to the tendering for the listing of generics.

“ASMI supports education and improved health literacy of consumers but does not believe separating CMs within pharmacy is an effective strategy due to the multiple market channels they are available through and may lead to a misconception that they carry no medical efficacy,” says ASMI Chair Lindsay Forrest.

Previous Teen suicide drama sparks internet searches
Next API sees decline in consumer spending

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

1 Comment

  1. Ron Batagol

    Without commenting on other aspects if the King Report, I note that ASMI says:
    “Separating CMs in the pharmacy may lead to a misconception that they carry no medical efficacy”.

    Now, who would have thought!

    You mean that all those “jungle juice”varieties of products with multiple components of herbal and/ or vitamins don’t work! Better not tell all the customers clamouring to buy one of these CMs because Aunt Molly and the next door neighbour swear by it even if it doesn’t stand up to evidence-based scrutiny!!
    But hang on a minute! Isn’t that precisely why this specific King recommendation was made?

Leave a reply