Health Forum has some intresting topics

http://ourhealth.org.au/

It seems the pharmacists are still not doing their duty towards the PBS on generics which is why we still pay more thatn the UK and NZ for medicine which is costing money which should be going towards say operations instead of having waiting lists etc.

Interestingly the most money is lost on Lipitor.

I often wondered what happened to the scheme Abbott as Health Minister arranged with the Pharmacists to grab back the monies they were not entitled to by charging the agreed price to PBS but paying a lot less and pocketing the difference.

Which is why they pushed generics hard every time and lately not as much,  so thought oh well back to not getting the extra's but seems not.

I cant beleive we didnt get the Smart Card anyway because if so it would sort out so much of the ideas on this forum and the way we vote without having identity etc. Could stop the rorting of safety net on PBS too and lots of things instead of providing all these docs like passport, driving license etc just use the Smart Card.

But of course the civil libertarians objected once again and seems like they always do and we all lose out on waste of money that could be better spent on urgent surgery or bettr medicine.

Or Free to all who collect the full age pension.

Anyway a forum for discussions that should take place as it is our money they are spending.

10 comments

Smart card's old hat Val... new generations will probably be micro-chipped at birth .. until then we may be given a 'temporary' tattoo ( see technology talk.. LOL)

Couldn't find anything relating to dental there but I signed up anyway, as you say ..some interesting/helpful info' ... thanks

Start a discussion on dental maybe? I think we may well get back the Howard type scheme cancelled by Gillard and replaced for even more money for childrens teeth when states are doing more for them too usually. It is older people who are in most need with least help.

Cannot see why if dogs are microchipped why humans should not be required also.

That would sort out the illegals.

No more posting of prescription drugs overseas.

Smart Card would too Abby as can be latest ID using cornea etc. 

And we know that the drugs being posted home is one of the biggest rorts going in by mainly immigrants whose names are not Anglo often and they use the one card and then free for rest of the year. And who is game to report it? Get a nasty shock called racist usually.  

Whatever Maggs Smart card for now would immediately stop a lot of rorting on safety net for medicines.

Easy to take one card and use it for a lot then all get free meds.

Plus as I said, Turnbull lamented voting ID not checked, would sort that out too.

And I reckon lots of things could be rorted if one sat down and thought about it and are - just I only know mainly of the Health card one. And easy to guess who does it too.

Oh yes just remembered in the 80's the FHO Grant was rorted by those arriving from Lebanon and other places with money to spend and bought houses in their kids names in Perth and then rented them out, a Real Estate salesman reported it going on and got labelled a racist and was threatened with the hate act etc instead of there being a investigation. I know it went on as worked in RE there for years. Smart Card would catch these out. And it will eventually come as human nature is alway seeking out ways to rort the system these days more than ever with the way some can get away with twisting rules in their own favour.  And some have been charged under the most recent FHOG too but guess what emm heritance/nationality? Easy the one which has no race card.

Its the principle - it will stop rorting and why not?

Dont you  think it is fairer that all get treated the same equally regardless of race colour or creed?

Smart Card could carry all we need for life.

Re micro chipping would only identify us, couldnt carry health needs or other information and be easily changed,also I think that is going a bit too far as in animals it is because they cant speak, so to find their home if lost.

 

 

 

Quote Bigval - which is why we still pay more thatn the UK and NZ for medicine

That is a very small range of countries for comparison. I am not familiar with meds in UK but I know that in NZ prescriptions are subsidised by the government. Last time I was over there I was prescribed meds and it cost me $5, which is the same any NZ native pays, as that is the standard subsidised price. In NZ prescriptions for children under six are free.

I think to compare us globally, we need more than 2 cherry picked locations.

Medication is free for people 60+  in the UK. Also free for Australians 60+ if travelling in the UK.

I certainly hope the new government does something positive towards the the health in general for the seniors.

Or maybe Mr Palmer may possibly give the Seniors a push . It would be good if the cataract and dental got back on the scheme that Labor took of us.

Don't count on Abbott doing anything to help the battlers. Abbott proved what a distaster he was when he was health minister in the Howard Government

Yes it would seem neither ALP or Libs are interested in the Seniors yet theoretically they should have a powerful vote but unfortunatelly they are splintered and very set in their way as to which party they will vote for.

Well I am not set in my ways re voting but seems everything is more important than the health system for both parties.  However Abbott is showing his colours --as in--if you ignore something it does not exist

They have already taken catract removal off the list

so the seniors cannot see

the emergency dental so the Seniors cannot eat

NO NDIS - if you break your leg on th eway to work -What else is left

Pray you remain in good health ???

Seniors in Australia are treated as second grade citizens.

Yes they sure are Abby !

Recent news article says best country to grow old in is Sweden followed by Norway and Germany. We came 14th. 

The push to keep everyone in their own home as long as possible sounds good but in reality they probably won't be able to staff it or fund it properly and it will ultimately just be a cost saving ecercise.

 

TOP 10

1. Sweden

2. Norway

3. Germany

4. Netherlands

5. Canada

6. Switzerland

7. New Zealand

8. USA

9. Iceland

10. Japan

Britain came in at 13, ahead of Australia (14) and France (18).

Lower down in the rankings were the emerging economies of Brazil (31), China (35), South Africa (65), India (73) and Russia (78).

BOTTOM 10:

82. Honduras

83. Montenegro

84. West Bank and Gaza

85. Nigeria

86. Malawi

87. Rwanda

88. Jordan

89. Pakistan

90. Tanzania

91. Afghanistan

Home based Care was brought in primarily that there is not enough accommodation and some very poor statistics on the quality of care given in Nursing Homes.

Some of th eproblems include

 Inadequate staffing - including training and staff shortages - were found in more than half of the homes that received negative reviews from the accreditation agency;

 Residents were often left waiting hours for assistance with their toileting, or endured other continence-related problems;

 Several facilities failed to report assaults, including assaults on residents by staff, or by other residents.

My 92 yr old mother had home care for two years before she had to go into a nursing home and it was very hit and miss. A lot of the carers are only doing it while they look for other work as it is so badly paid.  They were often not on time, or didn'tcome at all with no warning. They could only do "certain" jobs and some were not totally honest.

The nursing home she is in now has problems too and I contacted the accreditation board as per the flyer on the home's notice board asking for feedback. They rang and said they could only act on specific events with time and place recorded and not on general complaints as I had made such as poor food, lack of choice, under-staffed, not changing bed weekly etc. It was a complete waste of tome and effort writing to them. I am on the state board of Council for the Aging and reported this to them but nothing they could achieve either. It really is a disgrace to a country like Australia.

People say to me - oh, I'll just stay in my own home, this sort of thing won't happen to me but they just don't realise that is not always a choice if they get into their late 80s and 90s and are on their own and become frail/unstable.  I go to visit her and think every time that i don't want to end up like a lot of the patients there but have to acknowledge that it is a possibility - you can't always have control over these things and should think about it before it happens.

Here is more on the Costs of PBS and Generics in particular. I dont know if you all know how it goes. Back in 2006 Tony Abbot as Health Minister and put out a media release in Dec saying he had identified that pharmacists were in fact charging the PBS with the agreed price by the government to the generic companies on thir drugs but that in fact the generic companies were charging the pharmacies themselves a lot less so as well as the fees they make on dispensing these drugs, they also were copping a nice little earner on the lesser charge they were paying over the greater charge being paid back to them.

Anyway he agreed with the Pharmicists Guild that they would cut back by 12.1.2% each year until 2012 then PBS would not be paying more out than necessary. Of course meanwhile the government was changed so nothing more heard.

But these days I havent myself heard what was the usual "do you want the cheaper drugs" but maybe bcause the last time I needed one it was a generic that was prescribed!

Remember all generics do not have to have the same format just the active ingredient and no mandatory rated first grade either and are 'randomly checked' meaning maybe not at all or not enough like Pan Pharmaceiticals in Sydney eventually shut down after bad experiences by short cuts for greater profits and they were 'randomly checked and in Australia whereas not all generics aare made here.

So maybe read and then argue over this as to which lot of pollies are better or worse than the rest. Whilst it all just carries on as it has seemingly since 2006. Fighting hard if they are not getting that bit of extra that was supposed to end 2012.

Cynical you bet profit and greed rule today.

And also the new commission of audit has to audit before reporting so time will pass a lot longer yet before any cuts and these will be announced as usual I am sure.

HEALTHCARE is one of the fastest growing areas of government spending and is a legitimate target for scrutiny in tough times.

The government has already identified some opportunities: reducing bureaucracy in the Health Department, slimming the alphabet soup of national health-related agencies, and rationalising the back-room overhead of the relatively new primary care organisations, Medicare Locals.

 

But these cuts alone will not make a huge difference. Bureaucratic spending is a relatively small proportion of health spending. Even the most rabid waste eliminator will have to accept that some management overhead is inevitable, and public accountability demands at least a modicum of departmental oversight of public expenditures.

 

Sacking bureaucrats never seems to go out of fashion, but the new Commission of Audit will have to look beyond the usual suspects to make substantial inroads into health spending. As Joe Hockey acknowledged in announcing the commission, there are areas of waste that might provide opportunities for saving money while not hurting patients or consumers.

 

This should be low-hanging fruit, ripe for harvesting. Unfortunately, low-hanging is in the eye of the beholder.

 

Previous Grattan Institute work has identified as a savings opportunity the high prices the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme pays for generic drugs. Grattan's 2013 Bad Drug Deal report showed that more than $1 billion could be saved annually by introducing improved purchasing arrangements and benchmarking the prices the PBS pays against those paid in comparable countries such as New Zealand.

 

Reducing pharmaceutical prices would benefit consumers and taxpayers, who pay about 80 per cent of the cost of the PBS. It would seem to be a win-win. But as political scientist David Easton points out, in public debates, concentrated political interests will trump diffuse interests, where the benefits or costs are spread thinly.

 

Although $1bn annual savings sounds like a big deal - and it is - those costs to government and consumers are revenues to pharmacy manufacturers or pharmacies. They can be expected to protest vociferously against any loss of income.

 

The costs of reducing pharmaceutical prices are highly concentrated and will fall on a handful of manufacturers and a few thousand pharmacies. The benefits will be diffuse, accruing to millions of taxpayers and consumers but small to each individual. Even if the savings are reinvested in healthcare, including listing new drugs on the PBS, the benefits are in the future and may be illusory and are significantly discounted or ignored even by those who might enjoy them.

 

During the federal election, the Pharmacy Guild organised a petition to protest against changes that would have sped up price reductions. Despite a counter campaign from the Consumers Health Forum explaining that consumers would benefit from lower prices, the guild gathered more than a million signatures. Although the effectiveness of the guild campaign could be questioned - there is no evidence that any seats changed hands as a result - the potential is clear: local pharmacies can be mobilised to protect their interests.

 

The then government's changes would have reduced the out-of-pocket costs faced by consumers. Yet more than a million people signed the petition.

 

Different policies could benefit the taxpayer and the consumer and fund more and better health care. Lower prices prevail in other countries, so pharmaceutical supply would still be assured as profits would still be there.

 

But action to reduce prices has been slow and without any acknowledgement of poor performance against international benchmarks.

 

There are many other changes that could benefit taxpayers and consumers, including improving hospital efficiency and reducing costly hospital adverse events. But change is hard in the health sector.

 

Lobbyists for vested interests regularly distort health professionals' legitimate concern for patients, using it as an excuse to block change. Of course, the rhetoric used is always selfless: they claim their advocacy is on behalf of patients. In extreme cases, it amounts to shroud waving - exaggerating risks to patient safety.

 

Governments must balance economic and political realities. Vested interests hope the Treasurer's eye will pass on to other sectors, or to diffuse interests without the same lobbying power.

 

Is there a solution? Better information and a willingness to fight for consumers' rights is part of it. Government initiatives to make clear the cost of concessions through tax expenditure statements, efficiency audits by auditors-general, the Senate and state upper house estimates processes and external scrutiny from academics and think tanks all help to reveal the opportunity costs of policy choices. As US jurist Louis Brandeis argued: "Publicity is justly commended as a remedy for social and industrial diseases. Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants; electric light the most efficient policeman."

 

Sunlight just doesn't happen, of course. Informed debate in health needs to be resourced, encouraged and institutionalised to balance narrow, vested interests so government has greater capacity to act for the broader interest - the public and consumers.

 

Stephen Duckett is the director of the health program at the Grattan Institute.

 

 Posted the whole article may be repeated in ABC Gerry but since it is behind a paywall and some say cant pay - have provided it.


I do note that the Pharmacy Guild garnered 1 million signatures to make sure they didnt have a pay cut so must still get more out of these than we know about.Not sure how many the health forum got.

After all are they not supposed to get only the dispensing fee on PBS scripts? Not get this extra by slight of hand!

Maybe a retired pharmacist here?

 

10 comments



To make a comment, please register or login

Preview your comment