Pages

Tuesday, February 3, 2026

Kerre Woodham: Are 12-month prescriptions too much for community pharmacies?


We thought we'd start with the new 12-month prescription rules. They came into force this weekend and are designed to save time and cut GP visits for patients. But community pharmacists say this could be the straw that breaks the camel's back because it's the latest in a raft of changes in a sector that is fighting to survive. 

The rules mean that people with long-term stable conditions can now get prescriptions of up to a year from their prescriber. And the government says this could save you up to $100 and more in GP fees annually. So that's got to be a good thing and you would think that the GPs would be in support of this too because if they have concerns about their patient's health and well-being, then they can say, well no, I'm not going to give you the one-year prescription, you'll have to come back more regularly. So they can decide. But if they do have an otherwise healthy patient, they can do the year-long prescription, then that frees them up for other patients.

They say that there are too many for them to deal with, the workload is too much. Hopefully this reduces the workload. But for pharmacists, they say the increased competition from Chemist Warehouse and Bargain Chemist, the moves to allow pharmacists to prescribe medicines, and now this, the year-long prescriptions. It's a lot of change that they're having to deal with. 

They say there's going to be no real financial change as a result of the year-long prescriptions, but what it may well mean is less foot traffic through the pharmacies and for these smaller neighbourhood pharmacies, it's the retail sales that help them stay viable in the wake of the competition from these huge hypermarket-type chemists. Health Minister Simeon Brown told the Weekend Collective though that it's a no-brainer that for certain conditions, annual prescriptions become the norm.

Ultimately, GPs and prescribers will make the decision on a case-by-case basis in consultation with their patients. And ultimately, it'll be people with long-term stable conditions who most likely are going to benefit. So for example, someone like myself, I've got asthma, it's a long-term stable condition. In consultation with my GP, those would be the conversations. You think about diabetes, epilepsy, other conditions as well where there's patients with a long-term condition. At the moment, they're having to go back to their GP every three months to get their prescription renewed. Well, actually under this new policy, they'll be able to the GP will be able to give them a 12-month prescription. They'll still have to collect their medication from the pharmacy every three months, but it will save them that prescription renewal and of course the cost and time that goes alongside that for what is medicines that they need and have had probably for many years.

I would have thought absolutely that GPs would think, yes, excellent. You know, I've got healthy patients who have asthma, here's your year-long prescription and now I can see those that need more time. 

I was amazed at the number of people when we first talked about the proposed changes, I was amazed at the number of people who had a real relationship with their chemist.

Like to me, I've got a lovely chemist just up the road and I quite like her, but if I'm in the mall, I'll pop into the Chemist Warehouse and pick up all sorts of things. They have a range of products at really low prices and then I'll pick up things that I might otherwise have got at my neighbourhood chemist. 

But there were people who were passionately loyal to their neighbourhood chemist because they might have diagnosed conditions that GPs had missed or picked up on prescription errors that GPs and more than one caller phoned in about that. And they say that their chemist provide excellent holistic care. They were really really loyal to their neighbourhood chemists. They were really worried that the supermarket chemists were going to put their local pharmacists out of business. 

But at the same time, when you have to make an appointment every three months to see your doctor or to check in with your doctor, pay your $25 to get a repeat of a prescription that you know you need and you know you're going to need for a long time, it makes sense. You know, this is a common sense piece of legislation I would have thought. And sometimes you have to accept that you cannot subsidise an arm of a business, of an industry, of a profession just to keep it going. 

You know, should patients with long-term conditions be paying more, be paying $100 each on average more just to keep an arm of a business going? No, unfortunately. You know, if your local chemist is good enough, surely they will stay in business because you will keep going back there. You know they need your support to survive, so you will go.

The changes I think are good and surely if, you know, you might not see a patient as often if there's year-long prescriptions, but once pharmacists are able to prescribe for certain conditions, surely that will see a lift in business. I think it's a good thing overall for New Zealanders and the professions are just going to have to adapt to survive. 

0800 80 10 80 is the number to call. I'd really love to get your feedback on this one, especially if you are involved in as a pharmacist or working in a pharmacy. How are these changes really going to affect you? Sometimes I think when the media approaches sectors for comment, they'll find reasons to be against something just for the sake of it, just because it seems to be that's what you do. Very seldom do you go, yep, this is brilliant. Yep, there might be a bit of foot traffic falling off, but we'll see that pick up when we're able to prescribe medicines. I don't know, I would very much like to hear from you on this one.

Kerre McIvor, is a journalist, radio presenter, author and columnist. Currently hosts the Kerre Woodham mornings show on Newstalk ZB - where this article was sourced.

3 comments:

Clive Thorp said...

There seems to be a really basic misunderstanding being pushed by the 'community pharmacists', who according to Kerry are fearful of less 'foot traffic'. Yet the Minister is quoted as saying you will still have to go to the pharmacy to pick up your prescription every three months. It's the doctors who will have less revenue from this, not pharmacists. I will save $99 a year, because instead of paying $33 four times a year for my statins, I will pay $33 only once a year. Doctors claim this is only cost recovery - we will see soon whether they really want to keep this revenue.

The Jones Boy said...

McIver quotes some unidentified pharmacists as saying annual prescriptions "may well mean .. less foot traffic through the pharmacies..". This is apparently a threat to their livelihoods due to lower impulse buying of non-prescription items. Yet McIver then quotes the Minister as saying "They'll still have to collect their medication from the pharmacy every three months". So I find those two statements hard to reconcile. If the customers still have to pick up their meds every three months, nothing has changed for the pharmacist. The management of repeat prescriptions is already a bog-standard part of every pharmacist's job. What has changed though is the elimination of three of the four quarterly prescription fees currently charged by the GP. As a sufferer from a long term condition I am on specific medication for life. I never go near the GP but simply request my quarterly top-up online through the Manage-my-Health app. My GP dutifully emails the scrip to the pharmacist who fills it for collection at my convenience. I don't go near the GP yet that $25 fee is charged, every three months. I naturally can't see what value is added by the GP that warrants charging a fee. All they do is verify my existing entitlement, something the pharmacist should already know from their records. If my pharmacist can't make a living from dispensing, then that's a totally different issue.

Clive Thorp said...

Well, we have seen sooner than even I expected that at least my doctors have seen the repeat script review as a nice little earner. I paste in the email I received today from my doctors' group, all cloaked in defensive medical professional finger-wagging.

Only available for patients on a single medication.
It is not suitable for patients over the age of 65.
It is not applicable for patients prescribed controlled drugs.
This change does not affect how your pharmacy dispenses medication. You will still collect your medication every 3 months, and medicines will not be issued early.
Currently at each repeat prescription, a review is carried out. This includes a review of your medical records, any recent hospital discharges, and any ongoing monitoring requirements. (I don't believe this.)
So, I have a single prescription, a statin that has been the same dose for over 10 years. But I am over 65, so they are putting up a barrier. And a financial one as well: I have to pay $71 for a consultation to save $99pa, if I can get round their odd 65 year-old rule. Who says so?

There is one key issue for them: they are in great fear of the Health and Disabilitiy Commissioner. It may be necessary to get some clarity from this office, because it hammers what it sees ex-post, with lovely hindsight, any mistake it feels a doctor may have made. I think this must be driving the tone of my communication, not just revenue loss.

Post a Comment

Thank you for joining the discussion. Breaking Views welcomes respectful contributions that enrich the debate. Please ensure your comments are not defamatory, derogatory or disruptive. We appreciate your cooperation.