Opposition to prescription fee grows

Press, 12 March 1982, Page 2

Opposition to prescription fee grows

1 .PA Wellington t Nurses yesterday joined I opposition to the GovernI ment’s suggestion of a 50c . charge for prescriptions, saying that they were particuf larly concerned about children, beneficiaries, the chronically sick, and preg- [ nant women. > The president of the ; Nurses’ Association, Ms ’ Marie Burgess, said that such people had to be excluded from a charge. Earlier, the executive director of the Chemists' Guild, Mr Bruce Jenkin, had said that the average visit to a chemist to fill a doctor’s prescription would have to cost about $l.BO if the Government was to save $46 million a year. This would have to be on top of charges, averaging $l.lO, which were already levied by the Government on about 7 per cent of the 27 million prescriptions filled each year. If, as the Minister of Health (Mr Malcolm) had said, there might be reimbursements for chronically ill or severely disadvantaged people, the average cost for others would have to be higher if the savings target was to be met. Mr John Ferguson, secretary of the Pharmaceutical Society, the chemists’ professional organisation, said that the proposed charges would impose another barrier to

Mr John Ferguson, secretary of the Pharmaceutical Society, the chemists’ professional organisation, said that the proposed charges would impose another barrier to

entry into primary health care.

“We have already had three Ministers of Health in the last three governments saying they want to transfer emphasis from hospitals to primary health care,” he said. “If these charges deter people from getting medical treatment, it may mean more people will require expensive treatment in hospital. “Whatever the cost of drugs, we are talking in cents a day. If people are in hospital, it involves hundreds of dollars a week.”

Mr Ferguson said it looked as though Mr Malcolm was trying to make a totAl 3 per cent saving on the $l5OO million health vote on the one item.

Ms Burgess said that the proposal demonstrated a further erosion of the so-called free health service for which New Zealand had gained international renown.

The Nurses’ Association was also concerned about the Government’s lack of consultation on the proposal. Nobody had been asked about the financial hardship the proposed changes would bring to some people. The administrative costs of altering the system also needed to be thoroughly researched before anything was implemented.