The term “lobbying” — which describes an interest group’s attempt to influence government decision-making — stems from these efforts having originally taken place in a legislative chamber’s lobby.
These days, lobbying occurs through the media as much as it does face to face. Why pressure politicians when you can get the electorate to do it for you? The megaphone tactic has become ritual whenever a government proposes to do something that business doesn’t like.
The campaigns are getting more and more fantastical. Who can forget Gina Rinehart and Andrew Forrest warning that the Rudd government’s proposed resources super profits tax (RSPT) would subject the country to economic doom (with Forrest even cosplaying in yellow-and-blue overalls)?
Or the media campaign from Australian ophthalmologists that warned that grandma wouldn’t be able to get her eyes attended to if the government reduced the eyewatering Medicare rebate for cataract surgery — a campaign that some commentators labelled as “blackmail”?
Unfortunately, these scare campaigns usually work, so the nonsensical doomsaying is rarely exposed. The RSPT was scrapped (resulting in billions of budget earnings foregone and heralding Rudd’s demise). The health minister backed out of the rebate reduction, meaning that the veracity of the doctors’ threats was never tested.
But recently we have had a case of the government calling the lobby’s bluff, resulting in… the opposite of the group’s warnings.
Readers may recall that, in 2023, the government announced changes to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme that would allow patients to collect 60 days’ worth of common prescription drugs (up from 30 days), saving consumers (and the government) time and money.
The Pharmacy Guild of Australia (PGA), whose members faced the prospect of fewer prescription fees and reduced foot traffic for incidental purchases, came out swinging.
PGA president Trent Twomey — in his customary pharmacists’ tunic (these guys love dressing up, don’t they?) — decided to really go for it, openly weeping as he warned of drug shortages (odd, seeing as only the frequency, not volume, of drugs dispensed would be affected) and of imminent pharmacy closures as a result of this modest policy tweak.
Thankfully, the government didn’t cave in, perhaps because the policy was such a no-brainer win for consumers, or because the Australian Medical Association supported it (if only to wither pharmacists’ influence and power).
The change was introduced in September 2023, and not only have there been no medicine shortages since, but also applications to open new pharmacies are 50% higher than in the same period last year.
PGA jumped the shark on this occasion, but the lesson is that when lobby groups offer threats about policies they don’t like, don’t take them seriously.
No, Minerals Council of Australia (and its political mouthpieces), reducing our coal exports will not result in India’s poor remaining destitute (it is, in fact, the poor who are most affected by climate change).
No, Australian Medical Association, giving health insurers some say on how care is delivered will not compromise patient outcomes any more than is the case already — and nor will giving pharmacists the ability to prescribe medication for certain conditions result in anything other than making life easier for some patients.
No, aged care lobby, more transparency and accountability will not result in the sector’s collapse.
And no, Gerry Harvey and the Business Council of Australia, a levy to improve workers’ mental health will not “harm growth“. In fact, the opposite is more likely.
We need to treat these utterances as the self-serving hyperbole that they are. In fact, the level of exaggeration is a good indicator of how much the proposed change will benefit the rest of society.
So, thank you, Twomey and the PGA, for your overreach on this one. We can point to you as an example the next time a lobby group reaches for the megaphone.
And we we rejected the referendum for Voices to Parliament, which might have represented the only honest lobbyists in Canberra
And to think pharmacists are supposed to be one of the trusted professions !!
Pharmacists are trusted in most cases. The people who own chains of pharmacies….? Not so much.
They’re all pharmacists too. That’s why with big chain pharmacies you’ll see several names on the door, they tend to be owned by the overall owner and a few more local partners, and they’ll be the pharmacist in the store at least some of the time.
Usually yes but some year ago my previous pharmacist and I had a faint out.
I was unhappy with him selling homoeopathic teething mixture for babies. I acknowledge the fact that homeopathy can be useful via the placebo affect for some conditions but that a baby would not benefit in any way, as it wouldn’t experience the placebo affect and so the parent was causing the baby pain and distress by using such nonsense potions.
The pharmacist staff that that’s what people wanted. I disagreed and said he was betraying his profession and the trust that people put in his knowledge. He wasn’t happy to say the least but he knew what I was saying. He chose profit over duty of care.
I have always been offended when I see homeopathic and naturopathic ‘treatments’ for sale in pharmacies. Pure cash flow, no benefit to the patient at all. I would prefer to deal with a pharmacy that doesn’t sell this woo, but I can’t find one!
The Lobbying Industry in Canberra is the second largest Employer in the ACT. Imagine that.
Paid for by Businesses and other groups to try and convince Government and the Public a bunch of half truths coupled with fanciful lies.
It recently struck me that charities would do better than to harass people at shopping malls, by employing a couple of full time lobbyists instead.
Oh, and Lamb Roasts were recently down to $8 a kilo, not $100!!
And it turns out, electric utes DO have “a lot of grunt”!
All of this crappy hyperbole, should be called out for what it is…..lies!!!
I was about to call you out in the lamb thing, but it turns out you’re correct. I can start to eat it again. LOL
Not where I live. Still around $14/kg.
Shouldn’t there be some sort of consequence for repeatedly being found to abuse a platform to spread disinformation?
Given all the moral panics we have to suffer over relatively inconsequential matters, and the kneejerk responses, say for example, locking people up for using drugs, perhaps a proportional response in keeping with this threat could be the firing squad.
Never get between a lobbyist and a politician.
Never get between a “ health economist” and the abomination which is managed care. Clinicians must decide treatment not private insurers. Yes, over -servicing happens,( which we’re addressing) but ultimately, who do you want deciding what investigations/ treatment / operations you need? An insurer out to cut costs or your doctor/ clinician?
Just ask Americans how well managed care works. You know those apocryphal tales of “ we had to sell the house because my dad needed an operation? “. They’re not ubiquitous for nothing.
Imagine if the $7 billion the government hands over to the private health insurance “providers” was instead used to properly fund Medicare.
But won’t somebody think of the army of parasites?
Imagine if all those who pay premiums to avoid long waiting lists ( the usual motivation) were suddenly forced back into the public system. That billion would barely touch the sides. People forget that the private health system in Australia helps to take pressure off the public one. Those who can afford it need their insurer to listen to their doctor, not the bean counters.
I think it is debatable that the private health system in Australia helps to take pressure of the public one. What the private health system does is:
Private health system is not actually a stand-alone health system, it cannot survive without public system back-up.
Furthermore, no premium holder actually gets to have their surgeon of choice in their private hospital of choice.
The BIG mistake was for government to do private health rebates. The next bigger mistake will be for health insurers to get their hands on managed care. The USA has managed care and what a horrible experience is the USA system. However, managed care model does make LOTS of money for a small number of people.
What a surprise that the private health system is a business. Not. However, the fact remains it caters for a sizeable section of the public. That gives Medicare more ability to handle more public patients. That is indisputable. However, an insurer should never have the final say on what procedures etc a patient requires. That is a clinical decision,. We’re talking managed care here and its implications, not the ordinary day to day decisions of private hospitals re admissions.
Even more surprising that the business of private health system needs government intervention. The “business’ of private health system could not survive without Medicare and Health Insurance Rebate. More rent seeking than stand alone “business”.
spot on
Not to mention the rebates to consumers.
You might want to check the definition of ‘apocryphal’
You might consider making a relevant comment.
Hi Catherine thanks for reading.
Would urge you to the read the linked article in the para you’re referring to
https://uat.crikey.com.au/2021/07/02/private-health-care-reform/
We have plenty of evidence showing that clinicians often do not make optimal decisions. The problems with US health care is not managed care per se, which works well in highly-rated systems like Israel, the Netherlands, and in the States as well with organisations like Kaiser-Permanente and BSBC. The US problem is essentially threefold: regulatory capture (pharma and hospital lobby on Capitol hill), it is highly fragmented especially on the demand (payer) side, and (most fundamentally) it is built on the assumption that the market is the best way to allocate resources. Another problem is that health insurance is linked to employment, which distorts labor markets and contributes to the fragmentation, leading to the loopholes you describe.
cheers
LS