Kinda legal question.........

[dazzler]

Absolutely right. It has to work both ways. Now we are in agreement.

You n me....peas in a pod

[Driver]

You n me....peas in a pod

We-e-ll, up to a point. I mean, we don't see eye to eye on everything

GO EAGLES!!!!

[dazzler]

Eagles

[silentC]

Firstly, Silent, I'm sorry but the reason they charge you the lower price (on the first item) is a code of practice, not the law. Secondly, against the law to profit from another's mistake?!! Lets see the reference for that one! There are laws regarding unconscionable conduct but they don't quite cover such a broad stement.

1. When I did my Commerce subject at high school, we were taught that the shop had to honour the marked price. Maybe that has changed, dunno not into retail.

2. I never said that it was against the law to profit from another's mistakes. Go back and read the posts and don't attribute other people's comments to me.

Here comes our poor friend, wha ha ha, this is really expensive medicine so I will trick him by making him pay 10% value of the product a couple of times till hes hooked and then screw him......wha ha ha.....

Get a life.

He made a mistake.

Yeah good one mate. Nobody is saying that he tried one on, although I reckon he is now. My local chemist is a good bloke too, well respected. It's not about that, it's about who should pay for his mistake. Why should it be the customer?

[Pulse]

Guys, a pharmacy is a shop but the dispensing of medications is not like selling petrol. Medications are not just inventory with a wholesale price and a sale price with the profit going to the retailer.

Sturdee was on the money, drugs are dispensed under PBS guidelines, and the PBS subsidises the cost leaving you around $30 to pay. Your doctor should have prescribed it under these guidelines. If not then your doctor really should have let you know what you were up for. This is called informed financial consent to your treatment. You should have been given the option to discuss this treatment and cheaper alternatives.

Speak to the pharmacist and ask why it wasn't covered by the PBS. then discuss this with your doctor, I'm sure you will find a solution.

Cheers
Pulse

[Pulse]

it's about who should pay for his mistake. Why should it be the customer?

Silent I agree, but the point is that the government has not agreed to fund the medication outside of particular indications.

Who's fault is it?
little Johnnies?
the pharmaceutical advisory commitee for strict PBS guidelines?
the prescriber?
the drug company?

The pharmacist and Neil are caught in the middle. I hope it works out OK.
Cheers
Pulse

[Wood Butcher]

Silent I agree, but the point is that the government has not agreed to fund the medication outside of particular indications.

Who's fault is it?
little Johnnies?
the pharmaceutical advisory commitee for strict PBS guidelines?
the prescriber?
the drug company?

The pharmacist and Neil are caught in the middle. I hope it works out OK.
Cheers
Pulse

I think that in this case it is wholely the fault of the pharmacist for not knowing his product and its worth.

Personally given the amount of computerisation in pharmacy nowadays and constant linking with government managed systems to update product information I'm amazed it happened.

[Sturdee]

Personally given the amount of computerisation in pharmacy nowadays and constant linking with government managed systems to update product information I'm amazed it happened.

I tended to agree with that until I looked at a PBS prescription form.

The form states that you certify that the info relating to any entitlement to free or concessional pharmeceutical benefits is not false or misleading. It also states (in the fine print :eek: ) that the info on the form will be used to assess your entitlement to benefits under the PBS and determine the payments due to pharmacists.

This reinforces my view that legally the chemist supplies the medicines at retail cost and after your claim is actually received by Medicare (or Veterans affairs etc) your entitlement to PBS concession is calculated and the chemist is reimbursed for the difference between what you paid and the cost of the medicine.

Any entitlement to PBS is with you, the claimant, as it varies between different people (being health care card holders and/or safety net holders) and the type of approved medicine.

Again I believe that, notwitstanding normal practices, the Act will require the chemist to be paid by Neil. Maybe Neil will have a claim against his Doctor for not pointing out that the course of medicine may not be covered by the PBS which if he had would have given Neil the chance to say no.


Peter.

[silentC]

It's a shame Naomi has quit. She would have loved this story.

[Rossluck]

I guess you never really know the full story when you get a description from one side only. I went through a similar thing with a chemist in Mt Isa. I ordered a packet of ten sheets of Cibachrome photographic paper (the spelling looks wrong, doesn't matter) and they accidently orded ten packets. They tried, pretty well demanded, that I buy the whole lot, but as I pointed out to them, photographic paper isn't meant to sit on the shelf of a shop in Mt Isa's heat, and if they wanted to sell it to me they had to let me take it home and stick it in my fridge and pay it off in installments. They wouldn't do it, so I bought my pack of ten and left.

I felt at the time that the mistake was theirs, and I think that that's the case here. I tried to do the decent thing, and I think that the same effort should be made in the case of the drugs in this instance. But, if the chemist won't come to the party, bye bye.

[Pulse]

Rossluck, this isn't a simple case of mismarking the price, this involves government subsidy and the doc's prescription. Your doc didn't recommend the photograph paper to you, nor did the government refuse to refund 95% of the price.

I don't think its a simple issue between a retailer and customer. I think the fundamentals are different here, I'll be inerested to see what happens.

Cheers
Pulse