The community has a local chemist that hires from and provides for the town; a local chemist with a face and name that people know and trust. And, unfortunately, a chemist feeling the sting of a competitor’s cut, locked out of its own local market by an out-of-town supplier offering cheaper drugs.

Organisations grow larger and want to make a profit, but with that size comes the risk of too much distance from the people who first made it possible. While Warrigal will feel the business benefits of changing its preferred pharmaceuticals supplier, what will its residents feel when they no longer recognise the service for which they pay?

There is no denying that original, patented drug brands, in most cases, are more expensive than the generic brands that follows them, post-patent. And the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) can rightly assure the public as to the safety and validation of generic substitution in medicine. But while two drugs may be ‘bio-equivalent’, they are essentially different, not least in their pricing, packaging and pill shape.

For older patients, especially those with chronic health conditions, the reliability of medicines not only stems from their patent reputation, but from their recognisability, day to day, week to week. For those older patients who require multiple prescriptions, taking the wrong pill, or taking it at the wrong time, can have serious consequences.

There must be a case, from Warrigal’s perspective, for making the change; a saving and/or efficiency that justifies taking business out of the town to a business with a default generic drug supply policy. But the aged care company and the chemists are not the only players in this game. Also taking a seat at this table should be the people the change affects. But – where are they? Where’s their voice?

Both Warrigal and Capital Chemist spokespeople have said they know residents are worried about the change, but instead of further consultation, the changes are being pushed out on October 1. Such a big change – and, for aged care residents, it is a bigger change than it might be for the rest of the community – should have demanded multiple meetings and consultations with those affected.

Residents, and their allied health providers, should have had more time to consider and choose, not made to swallow it.