Cargando…

An evaluation of the Australian Community Pharmacy Agreement from a public policy perspective: industry policy cloaked as health policy?

BACKGROUND: A series of Community Pharmacy Agreements (Agreements) between the Federal government and a pharmacy-owners’ body, the Pharmacy Guild of Australia (PGA) have been influential policy in Australian community pharmacy (CP) since 1990. While ostensibly to support the public’s access and use...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Jackson, John K., Scahill, Shane L., Mintrom, Michael, Kirkpatrick, Carl M.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10258961/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37308959
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40545-023-00571-y
_version_ 1785057568012369920
author Jackson, John K.
Scahill, Shane L.
Mintrom, Michael
Kirkpatrick, Carl M.
author_facet Jackson, John K.
Scahill, Shane L.
Mintrom, Michael
Kirkpatrick, Carl M.
author_sort Jackson, John K.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: A series of Community Pharmacy Agreements (Agreements) between the Federal government and a pharmacy-owners’ body, the Pharmacy Guild of Australia (PGA) have been influential policy in Australian community pharmacy (CP) since 1990. While ostensibly to support the public’s access and use of medicines, the core elements of the Agreements have been remuneration for dispensing and rules that limit the establishment of new pharmacies. Criticism has focused on the self-interest of pharmacy owners, the exclusion of other pharmacy stakeholders from the Agreement negotiations, the lack of transparency, and the impact on competition. The objective of this paper is to determine the true nature of the policy by examining the evolution of the CPA from a policy theory perspective. METHODS: A qualitative evaluation of all seven Agreement documents and their impact was undertaken using policy theories including a linear policy development model, Multiple Streams Framework, Incremental Theory, the Advocacy Coalition Framework, the Theory of Economic Regulation, the Punctuated Equilibrium Framework, and Elite Theory. The Agreements were evaluated using four lenses: their objectives, evidentiary base, stakeholders and beneficiaries. RESULTS: The PGA has acted as an elite organisation with long-standing influence on the policy’s development and implementation. Notable has been the failure of other pharmacy stakeholders to establish broad-based advocacy coalitions in order to influence the Agreements. The incremental changes negotiated every 5 years to the core elements of the Agreements have supported the publics’ access to medication, provided stability for the government, and security for existing pharmacy owners. Their impact on the evolution of pharmacists’ scope of practice and through that, on the public’s safe and appropriate use of medication, has been less clear. CONCLUSIONS: The Agreements can be characterised predominantly as industry policy benefiting pharmacy owners, rather than health policy. An emerging issue is whether incremental change will continue to be an adequate policy response to the social, political, and technological changes that are affecting health care, or whether policy disruption is likely to arise.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10258961
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-102589612023-06-13 An evaluation of the Australian Community Pharmacy Agreement from a public policy perspective: industry policy cloaked as health policy? Jackson, John K. Scahill, Shane L. Mintrom, Michael Kirkpatrick, Carl M. J Pharm Policy Pract Research BACKGROUND: A series of Community Pharmacy Agreements (Agreements) between the Federal government and a pharmacy-owners’ body, the Pharmacy Guild of Australia (PGA) have been influential policy in Australian community pharmacy (CP) since 1990. While ostensibly to support the public’s access and use of medicines, the core elements of the Agreements have been remuneration for dispensing and rules that limit the establishment of new pharmacies. Criticism has focused on the self-interest of pharmacy owners, the exclusion of other pharmacy stakeholders from the Agreement negotiations, the lack of transparency, and the impact on competition. The objective of this paper is to determine the true nature of the policy by examining the evolution of the CPA from a policy theory perspective. METHODS: A qualitative evaluation of all seven Agreement documents and their impact was undertaken using policy theories including a linear policy development model, Multiple Streams Framework, Incremental Theory, the Advocacy Coalition Framework, the Theory of Economic Regulation, the Punctuated Equilibrium Framework, and Elite Theory. The Agreements were evaluated using four lenses: their objectives, evidentiary base, stakeholders and beneficiaries. RESULTS: The PGA has acted as an elite organisation with long-standing influence on the policy’s development and implementation. Notable has been the failure of other pharmacy stakeholders to establish broad-based advocacy coalitions in order to influence the Agreements. The incremental changes negotiated every 5 years to the core elements of the Agreements have supported the publics’ access to medication, provided stability for the government, and security for existing pharmacy owners. Their impact on the evolution of pharmacists’ scope of practice and through that, on the public’s safe and appropriate use of medication, has been less clear. CONCLUSIONS: The Agreements can be characterised predominantly as industry policy benefiting pharmacy owners, rather than health policy. An emerging issue is whether incremental change will continue to be an adequate policy response to the social, political, and technological changes that are affecting health care, or whether policy disruption is likely to arise. BioMed Central 2023-06-12 /pmc/articles/PMC10258961/ /pubmed/37308959 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40545-023-00571-y Text en © The Author(s) 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research
Jackson, John K.
Scahill, Shane L.
Mintrom, Michael
Kirkpatrick, Carl M.
An evaluation of the Australian Community Pharmacy Agreement from a public policy perspective: industry policy cloaked as health policy?
title An evaluation of the Australian Community Pharmacy Agreement from a public policy perspective: industry policy cloaked as health policy?
title_full An evaluation of the Australian Community Pharmacy Agreement from a public policy perspective: industry policy cloaked as health policy?
title_fullStr An evaluation of the Australian Community Pharmacy Agreement from a public policy perspective: industry policy cloaked as health policy?
title_full_unstemmed An evaluation of the Australian Community Pharmacy Agreement from a public policy perspective: industry policy cloaked as health policy?
title_short An evaluation of the Australian Community Pharmacy Agreement from a public policy perspective: industry policy cloaked as health policy?
title_sort evaluation of the australian community pharmacy agreement from a public policy perspective: industry policy cloaked as health policy?
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10258961/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37308959
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40545-023-00571-y
work_keys_str_mv AT jacksonjohnk anevaluationoftheaustraliancommunitypharmacyagreementfromapublicpolicyperspectiveindustrypolicycloakedashealthpolicy
AT scahillshanel anevaluationoftheaustraliancommunitypharmacyagreementfromapublicpolicyperspectiveindustrypolicycloakedashealthpolicy
AT mintrommichael anevaluationoftheaustraliancommunitypharmacyagreementfromapublicpolicyperspectiveindustrypolicycloakedashealthpolicy
AT kirkpatrickcarlm anevaluationoftheaustraliancommunitypharmacyagreementfromapublicpolicyperspectiveindustrypolicycloakedashealthpolicy
AT jacksonjohnk evaluationoftheaustraliancommunitypharmacyagreementfromapublicpolicyperspectiveindustrypolicycloakedashealthpolicy
AT scahillshanel evaluationoftheaustraliancommunitypharmacyagreementfromapublicpolicyperspectiveindustrypolicycloakedashealthpolicy
AT mintrommichael evaluationoftheaustraliancommunitypharmacyagreementfromapublicpolicyperspectiveindustrypolicycloakedashealthpolicy
AT kirkpatrickcarlm evaluationoftheaustraliancommunitypharmacyagreementfromapublicpolicyperspectiveindustrypolicycloakedashealthpolicy