Page 2768 - Week 11 - Tuesday, 20 October 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
This statement is interesting, taking into account the latest document Mr Berry has produced in relation to the costs of methadone through pharmacies. The document again suggests, using the same criteria as the health centre approach, that the cost of providing methadone via pharmacies for the same 116 patients as in the Berry approach will be - wait for this - the very minimal cost of $219,480 in a full year. It is hardly a minimal amount. (Extension of time granted) You have to ask the question: Who is right? Is it Mr Berry, before he had the dramatic change of heart, or is it his own department in their submission - it was not just from the department, by the way; it was a committee of all interested parties - on the distribution of methadone through pharmacies.
I have quite a lot of other things to say here, so I will get rid of the figures. One of the interesting things in the costings of pharmacy is that they have costed a nurse - a full-time RN1 - into the pharmacy proposal, but nobody has suggested what the nurse would do. I cannot imagine what it could be. They have also costed in 12 hours' worth of the medical practitioner, even though in the private approach there is absolutely no reason why a general practitioner in private practice could not do that job and therefore the cost would be covered under Medicare. Instead of one counsellor, we have 1.5 counsellors. It would appear that you need only one counsellor if it is done through health centres but you need 50 per cent more again if it is done through pharmacies. It is very hard to understand why that is. You also need one full-time SOC at $45,600. This is the position that the Alcohol and Drug Service said was unnecessary because it already existed.
It would appear, looking at all those things and looking also at the $30,000-odd they have put aside for computer hardware, when every pharmacy in the ACT is computerised, that by going down the pharmacy track we could save around, to be conservative, $150,000. Would you not think the Government would want to do that? But, no, we are not going to do that because we might lose control.
Mr De Domenico: Because caucus told us not to do that.
MRS CARNELL: It is all about control, Mr De Domenico. It would appear to be patently obvious that Mr Berry's figures are fabricated, and I mean fabricated, and it is sad that he has chosen to politicise such an important issue. The Liberals will not be doing that and therefore will be supporting the Government's Bill. Although Mr Berry's costings for providing pharmacy through health centres are obviously incorrect, there is nothing inherently wrong with health centres being used for the purpose, as long as the Drugs of Dependence Act is complied with and the clients' needs are met - something that is very important to the Liberals.
Mr De Domenico: So, we are not actually going against their Bill. We are supporting their Bill.
MRS CARNELL: That is right; we are supporting their Bill. The purpose of both pieces of legislation is to give a greater choice for methadone-dependent patients and to provide more places on the methadone program. If the Government truly supports this very real attempt to improve the lot of methadone clients and to reduce the harmful effect that an uncontrolled heroin habit has, both on the user and on the wider community, they will also support both pieces of legislation.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .