The AMA doesn’t deny that healthcare is increasingly difficult to access, but it does question why the government seems laser-focussed on one solution only.
Australia’s medical association is publicly questioning why the pharmacy council is treating pharmacist-led prescribing as a done deal, calling its 2025 consultation on a prescribing endorsement “short-sighted and premature”.
The consultation itself looked at a new pharmacist capability framework and was a collaboration between the Pharmacy Board of Australia and the Australian Pharmacy Council, which fills a similar role to the Australian Medical Council.
When implemented, the framework will describe the entry-to-practice requirements for safe professional practice in any pharmacy practice setting. Functionally, it will dictate what content is required for a university to create a pharmacy degree.
Normally, this wouldn’t be worth commenting on. What has piqued interest, though, is that the consultation paper attached to the framework talks very specifically about prescribing.
“Incorporating prescribing into the draft Framework is a logical and necessary step to reflect the current and future role of pharmacists in Australia’s healthcare system, ensuring that future pharmacists at registration have the capabilities to meet evolving healthcare needs,” the paper said.
“It is noted that in addition to having the capabilities to undertake prescribing, pharmacists are also required to align with relevant state and territory legislation and Board Guidelines.”
The draft framework includes a capability section on prescribing and deprescribing which includes entry-to-practice indicators like “assess and analyse clinical and medication-related information, formulate diagnosis, and document findings and decisions clearly, accurately, and in accordance with current jurisdiction-specific legislation”.
This did not win points with the AMA.
“The proposed framework states the inclusion of prescribing as a capability reflects the current and future role of pharmacists in meeting the evolving needs of Australia’s healthcare system,” the AMA wrote in a submission released this week.
Related
“It also cites ongoing pharmacy prescribing pilots and trials as evidence supporting increased public access to health services.
“However, as the proposed framework itself recognises, these preliminary programs are at different stages of implementation, and they remain fragmented across different state and territory governments.”
The programs themselves, as the AMA notes, are heterogeneous in terms of protocols, guidelines and even the types of conditions covered.
It also questioned whether adding new prescribers to the health workforce would actually solve healthcare access issues.
“… The AMA is frustrated the only proposal being considered to address these issues is to widen access to independent prescribing to an ever-increasing cohort of health professionals,” the AMA said.
“Using healthcare access and workforce shortages as reasons to pursue non-medical prescribing is unacceptable and reckless, because this disregards the safety of the patient, which must be the highest priority.”
What’s more, medicine is not the only health profession facing workforce issues.
“In addition to their current scope of practice, pharmacists would need to exercise clear judgement of accountability and responsibility in diagnosing, monitoring, and evaluating patients for adverse events, and bear the full risk of their prescribing decisions,” the AMA said.
“Australia is facing a shortage of pharmacists that is forecast to reach a gap of 2,869 full time equivalent positions next year and expanding the scope of practice for pharmacists would only strain the system further.”
Some of its more specific gripes with the proposed pharmacist capability framework were that it did not address the inherent conflict of interest in prescribing and dispensing and that there was no practical guidance on anti-microbial resistance.
