“Increasing pressure will be applied by large discounting chains,” she says. “We’ve already seen supermarkets trying to buy into this area and it will be very difficult for pharmacists to argue their case [from exclusivity] if they are not delivering quality, cost-effective services”. Price disclosure appears to be a slow and inefficient way of clawing back savings for taxpayers. Case in point: the osteoporosis medication alendronate. It was first subject to price disclosure in December 2007. Yet in 2009 the government paid chemists $46.87 per script for it, although consumers using discount chemist could get it for as little as $19.99, a discount of 57 per cent on the government price. As a result of price disclosure the government cut its price for alendronate by 22.96 pr cent last April- four years after it was first subject to price disclosure. Even then it wasn’t getting as good a saving as a consumer using a discount chemist. The TV tricksters would indeed be proud.
SUE DUNLEVY Article taken from HEALTH THE WEEKEND AUSTRALIAN June25-26 2011
Consumers Reforming Health Conference Report by Ann Revell Overall I found the conference worthwhile and the concept of a large, well run and well attended conference for consumers reforming health with international speakers is absolutely fantastic. In my own view, I felt there was not enough input from consumers, especially in the concurrent sessions, which appeared to be largely a forum for health and allied organisations, government and consultancies to showcase themselves as consumer engagers. Not all these appeared successful and there was little evidence of real partnerships. I felt these sessions overshadowed and took attention away from hearing the perspective of consumers who are actually advocates and representatives currently working with health professionals on a broad range of issues. As a consumer representative I wanted to hear from other consumer representatives about their experiences, not so much from organisations who had written papers on, or were researching the benefits of, consumer engagement. I also felt it was an opportunity lost that the conference attendees did not have any real opportunity of participation in interactive sessions. The only session that people could be involved in was an exercise to illustrate how people feel when they believe they are not being listened to, followed by an overlong period for people to comment on what they felt during the exercise. There were no surprises but lots of repetition and several comments were personal anecdotes that had nothing at all to do with the exercise. There was also a short period in which to ask questions of a panel during one plenary session but no opportunity to ask questions in the concurrent sessions. Experienced, skilled and knowledgeable consumers and organisation representatives could have engaged with each other to share information. How terrific if there had been a facilitated plenary session resulting in some conference outcomes to publish and carry forward. This conference was a terrific start though, I hope it continues, and I have sent my feedback to the conference organisers so – perhaps this will be incorporated next time.
Page 22