They have done this because an estimated 3 percent of adults apparently do not collect their medicine because they can't afford the $5 fee (which is capped at $100 over a year).
But the vast majority of patients DO collect and pay for their medicines.
Yet again Labour has introduced a universal policy to solve a non-universal problem. Prior examples of this folly include the Winter Energy Payment for all superannuitants and the Best Start payment for all parents of babies aged under 12 months. Throwing money at people who do not need it is hardly testament to good governance.
But it gets worse. In this instance the government has also thrown money at businesses that don't need it.
Around 10-15 percent of the prescription market belongs to relatively new entrants into retail pharmacy. The best known is probably the Chemist Warehouse.
To gain a commercial advantage and market share the Chemist Warehouse did not charge the $5 prescription fee. They paid it themselves. By scrapping the fee Grant Robertson has effectively handed the non-chargers a $17 million subsidy (at minimum). Far from leveling the playing field for all pharmacies, the 'big boys' now have even more disposable dollars to promote their chain and on-line services which have, by the way, been very successful due to superior product pricing and choice.
But back to the problem of people not accessing medicine due to prescription costs, the problem the Finance Minister is claiming to solve.
According to Work and Income, "If you or a family member can't cover your prescription costs, we may be able to help with a Special Needs Grant." A Special Needs Grant is not repayable.
Another option was for the patient to use one of the non-charging pharmacies if an outlet was convenient.
This move also comes against a backdrop of minimum and living wage hikes, and benefit increases. Yes, there is a cost-of-living crisis but set at $5 the fee was also inflation-proofed.
All things considered it is difficult to understand why the Labour government has chosen now to scrap the fee for low-income individuals - let alone the wealthy.
Then again, it is election year. And simplicity makes for easy soundbites and headlines.
But it gets worse. In this instance the government has also thrown money at businesses that don't need it.
Around 10-15 percent of the prescription market belongs to relatively new entrants into retail pharmacy. The best known is probably the Chemist Warehouse.
To gain a commercial advantage and market share the Chemist Warehouse did not charge the $5 prescription fee. They paid it themselves. By scrapping the fee Grant Robertson has effectively handed the non-chargers a $17 million subsidy (at minimum). Far from leveling the playing field for all pharmacies, the 'big boys' now have even more disposable dollars to promote their chain and on-line services which have, by the way, been very successful due to superior product pricing and choice.
But back to the problem of people not accessing medicine due to prescription costs, the problem the Finance Minister is claiming to solve.
According to Work and Income, "If you or a family member can't cover your prescription costs, we may be able to help with a Special Needs Grant." A Special Needs Grant is not repayable.
Another option was for the patient to use one of the non-charging pharmacies if an outlet was convenient.
This move also comes against a backdrop of minimum and living wage hikes, and benefit increases. Yes, there is a cost-of-living crisis but set at $5 the fee was also inflation-proofed.
All things considered it is difficult to understand why the Labour government has chosen now to scrap the fee for low-income individuals - let alone the wealthy.
Then again, it is election year. And simplicity makes for easy soundbites and headlines.
Stupidity takes a little longer to uncover and understand.
Lindsay Mitchell is a welfare commentator who blogs HERE.
Lindsay Mitchell is a welfare commentator who blogs HERE.
4 comments:
O dear. Obviously careless decisions based on no thought let alone research.
The classic cracking a nut with a sledgehammer approach from Labour.
How did we end up with such an especially awful bunch of socialists in charge who seem incapable of making any sensible decisions, regardless the issue.
Still, that's good news. 97% of voters will not regard this as a meaningful benefit to them and will vote accordingly.
I would like to see breakdowns of the finances of people who claim to be desperately poor. Presumably they never buy from small shops, have porridge instead of WeetBix or Coco Pops , never have beef or fish but get by on satisfactory chicken, have no expenive to run pets, dont smoke, very sparingly use any car etc etc. It was curious that many in the Loafers lodge apparently smoke or vape!
Indeed. Stupendously stupid and exceeding all previous idiocy.
Thanks for reporting it Lindsay.
Post a Comment
Thanks for engaging in the debate!
Because this is a public forum, we will only publish comments that are respectful and do NOT contain links to other sites. We appreciate your cooperation.