Pharmacy Review - Responses to the Interim Report

Causes confusion, pharmacist time being used to justify our existence and explain the patient contribution system rather than assisting patients with medication questions.

Should be centralised like medicare safety net. We try an explain and assist customers as much as possible but no doubt people are missing out as they don't understand the PBS SN.

More awareness would lead to greater engagement with consumer in pharmacies and thus engagement with their health which we know leads to better health outcomes. It would possibly lead to greater offer from pharmacies.

Whilst I agree that there is variation on how CMI's are provided, I think most pharmacists would be thinking of patient care when providing these items of information or in some cases not providing if they feel professionally that there is valid reason not to. Consumer awareness of the CMI could be greater to ensure they understand that the info is available and they don;t have to risk getting incorrect information fro the web.

Lots of room for improvement here.

Australians seem to have a fear of data security which is unreasonably used to skew the reality that the benefits far outweigh the "risks". Risk of medication misadventure is forgotten in the debate and the real tangible health risk that poor communication and data exchange / availability poses. It also costs the tax payer a huge amount extra if there is an error or problem, and duplication of tests and other interventions is extremely wasteful.

However, the current electronic system allows it to be consumer lead and repository driven so wherever the patient goes, the pharmacy can extract that data. This is very different from the system in the US and Australia is doing a great job on e-scripts that have been widely used now for several years without any evidence of issues around channeling due to the framework of the structure in which the system operates. Of course this would require the "Federal" mandated system to include these existing system or a form of them at least.

massive issue - refer back to e-health record comments!

Ironically sometimes it is by having them, you illicit a conversation about peoples health that they might feel uneasy having with a "proper" traditional medicine practitioner. Medication reviews regularly show how many complementary medication people are taking anyway without telling their Dr or pharmacist usually because they think they are same or they don't want their doctor to think badly of them that they are using something that the Dr has not recommended and that somehow it is therefore best not to share that information. Many are actually supplements that Dr's regularly recommend such as calcium and iron, but can interact with prescription medication. It is vital people see pharmacy as a place to view the whole "medication" picture regardless of what opinion the medical personnel have of the complementary medicine space. Not to is the same argument that catholic pharmacist don't sell contraception because they don't believe in it. We have a duty of care to ensure our patients are educated about everything they use.

There is a greater chance of deeper engagement in someones health if they have the opportunity to see the pharmacist when purchasing a homeopathic product. A better option is strickter labelling rules and claims so consumers can understand there is limited evidence if any on these products. Safety is first and foremost and having these products sold in other "retailers" poses far greater risks as those patient will seek them out anyway.

Every pharmacy is different and operationally the costs can be vastly different. For example I have 2 pharmacies, one which services aged care, which is extremely labour intensive and the cost with no generic value, is now quite burdensome. The result is completely different where another pharmacy has high contact with patients in store. A "best practice" pharmacy model would not work because there are so many iterations of how a pharmacy works. A great range of fee structure to reflect each dispensing would be a more tailored approach.

What does that mean! Who is to assess what an efficient dispense is. Sometimes I do a dispensing and it would seem very "inefficient" but could have long lasting implications of the health of that patient, their engagement with their health and the long term health costs on our health system. Other times a single comment can have the same effect. This is not a black and white area.

Any redesigned dispensing remuneration formula should allow pharmacist to be remunerated appropriately for their skill and training.

If pharmacy are doing the same work they should be remunerated in the same way.

I feel the community trust and confidence in pharmacy lies with the professional service and information pharmacists provide to their community not bureaucratic reports. Not withstanding the importance of being seen to uphold the highest of standards is critical and can only help entrench further the esteem that pharmacy is held.

CHF is a self appointed "peak representative consumer body". Not know for their understanding of the finer nuances of the pharmacy industry, and the impacts that government decisions have directly on the industry, it should be a process of industry negotiation with the government and this could include PSA. However in saying that, the government funding for all programs and dispensing is through pharmacies and individual pharmacists are not dispensing individually for the health department so the negotiations could be divided into dispensing (Guild) and general programs (Guild and PSA), with a view to a medicare style funded model for services.

Best safety and value for money the government could ever spend on medication issues.