Talk:Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme
|WikiProject Australia||(Rated Start-class)|
Can anyone add anything (perhaps in a new article) on Chiffley's proposed scheme? matturn 11:15, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
== Pharmacy & the PBS ==
The article should have information on how the PBS operates in regards to pharmacies including service delivery, consideration (money paid by the PBS to pharmacies) and the regulatory framework of pharmacy and the PBS.
Topics include: - The restrictions on the distrubtion of medicine: The monopoly of pharmacies to sell schedeled medicine. The need for pharmacy to have a HIC number to collect and sell PBS subsidized medicine. Georgraphic and other restrictions on obtaining an HIC number.
- Payments made by the PBS to Pharmacy Nominal Dispensing fees. The Profit margin paid by the PBS to pharmacy on subsidized medicine. The controversial role of discounts provided by generic medicine manufactorers to pharmacies for bulk purchases that increase the profit margain to pharmacy on subsidized medicine provided by the PBS. How this renumeration to pharmacy is set by regulation and how it has changed over time.
- The restrictions on pharmacy ownership: Pharmacists must be owned by qualified pharmacists. Pharmacies not allowed to be owned by companies. Limits on the number of pharmacies allowed to be owned by an individual pharmacist. Georgraphic and other regulatory restrictions. Exceptions and loopholes for the above e.g. Hospitals etc
--22.214.171.124 21:45, 11 August 2007 (UTC)--
Added Internal Links
I have added Internal Links to this article. Kathleen.wright5 08:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
This article really needs a bit of a polish up in the history section - the history should cover a lot more - as there have been countless occasions where the PBAC has clashed with mainstream media and politicians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shuggyg (talk • contribs) 17:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I have removed a section on 'biggest price drop occurred under Julia Gillard as it seemed overtly political and also erroneous. I have checked the citations and no such price 'drop' occurred (the $5.80 price cited was still an increase), the articles cited referred to a number of drugs now included in the scheme which dropped in price...but the text implied that all prices had dropped and 'australian families' were better off. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 06:23, 25 January 2013 (UTC)