The Government is looking to extend the term of repeat prescriptions, allowing patients to wait as long as 12 months before seeing a doctor again to get a new prescription.
Currently, the “period of supply” limit is three months in most cases, with six months available for contraceptives or people travelling overseas. . . .
My GP prescribed me a vitamin D pill once a month and wrote a six month prescription.
The pharmacist told me she was only able to give me a three month supply.
Next time I went for a repeat, the practice nurse said they’d write the prescription for two tablets a month but I should continue taking just one a month and that would give me six months supply.
The proposal to extend prescription periods would stop the need for getting round the rules like that. It will also save doctors’ time and both time and money for patients.
However the College of GPs isn’t in favour of the proposal:
The pharmacist told me she was only able to give me a three month supply.
Next time I went for a repeat, the practice nurse said they’d write the prescription for two tablets a month but I should continue taking just one a month and that would give me six months supply.
The proposal to extend prescription periods would stop the need for getting round the rules like that. It will also save doctors’ time and both time and money for patients.
However the College of GPs isn’t in favour of the proposal:
But the benefits of such a change would come at a cost, with the Royal College of General Practitioners warning that a 12-month extension to the period of supply would see a revenue loss to practices that would need to be made up elsewhere – and if it were not, some practices may close.
“To balance patient safety and GP practice sustainability, costs would need to be subsidised by introducing charges to patients,” the college warned in a submission on the idea written last October, specifying practices would “either need to charge more for other non-contact services, raise fees or cut services”. . .
If patient safety requires a consultation more often than annually then that would still happen at the usual cost, and patients are already charged for prescriptions even if they’re done by phone and don’t require an appointment with the doctor.
But how could this affect practice sustainability?
The college has been very vocal about the problem of GP shortages, and has good grounds for its concern. Allowing annual prescriptions for patients for whom it would be safe would save the time of doctors, nurses and receptionists and allow practices to see more patients.
That would be better for the staff and the patients.
The College has a good case for higher payments for practice nurses and patient subsidies but it’s contradicting itself and undermining its own case for more GPs by arguing against an extension of the period of supply for some prescriptions on the grounds it would affect clinic incomes.
Increasing practice workload and patient costs is asking patients to subsidise clinics; adding to the problem of GP shortages and is not a valid argument for maintaining three-month prescriptions.
Ele Ludemann is a North Otago farmer and journalist, who blogs HERE - where this article was sourced.
5 comments:
Indeed, I have one that is presribed for a three month period and as I am on them for life I have no choice. Either way I have to get a script every three months by emailing the doctor which costs $50.00 for them to email that to the pharmacy of choice. Annually I have to see the Dr. to ensure I am who I am. That costs $70.00 so all in all for the hassle of it all I pay annually $220.00.
The college of GPs isn’t interested in what is good for the public in this case but rather its bottom line only. It is the same when it comes to many well-trained overseas professionals being unable to work in NZ in their profession. They want a limited supply of qualified staff so they can charge more. It is time to start treating them like the grifters they’ve become.
I think that Elle is missing the point.
The College of GPs is talking about revenue ie turnover. Which in any business must well exceed costs in order to remain viable.
If there is only 1 opportunity per year to charge the patient for prescribing (the act of which includes diagnosis, monitoring, testing, and taking responsibility for the outcomes both positive and negative of that prescribing), instead of four opportunities when the prescription is generated every 3 months. The ‘annual visit’ spoken of may be a break even exercise or even a loss in terms of time taken in the medical practice, and the subsequent repeat prescriptions may subsidise that annual visit.
If you take away the repeat prescription revenue opportunities, then logically the price of the annual visit must increase accordingly or the practice will be unsustainable.
Thinking logically, generating a prescription repeat is much quicker than initiating treatment but does require a moment of reflection (is this still appropriate, is there anything else I should be checking or reviewing?) so switching to annual prescribing would need a longer term mindset, a higher charge to the patient, and a change in systems to accommodate the checks and balances that are currently happening into the new model.
I would also comment that the scenario described above is very simple, when there are many patients who are extremely complex and to have to manage annual prescribing for complex patients is probably asking for trouble.
I don't think it is very ethical.
Writing a prescription saying one thing and instructing the patient to do something different.
That sort of behavior is actually fraudulent.
If that is now how the NZ medical profession behave and act to save "time and money" then it is absolutely abhorrent and also risking patients' lives.
Shameful.
All about the dollars for GPs.
Post a Comment