The number of pharmacies stocking the MS-2 Step medication increased from 2,228 to 4,107 after rules relaxed in 2023
  • Nath ( Nath@aussie.zone ) English
    2·
    10 hours ago

    Has access really changed anything, though? Not that I’m against the changes, but I feel like the data presented is missing something fairly crucial:

    By comparing pharmacy ordering data in the two years before and after the changes, researchers led by La Trobe University found by mid-2025, 49% more pharmacies were stocking the medication. There were 2,228 pharmacies stocking it before the policy change, rising to 4,107 by mid-2025.

    The number of postcodes with a pharmacy stocking the medication rose from 915 to 1,292 – or nearly half of all Australian postcodes – two years after the changes. Regional coverage increased from 23% to 35% of postcodes, while the proportion of stocking pharmacies in remote areas nearly doubled, rising from 12.5% to 22%.

    They can pull these stats, but not the overall dispensed stats? I get that more pharmacies stock MS-2 Step, but have more Australians actually accessed the drug? Being previously available at 2,228 pharmacies and on the PBS tells me that it was hardly difficult to access before.

    For whatever reason, the Guardian doesn’t link the source article, though they happily link to assorted international articles discussing MS-2 Step. It turns out the authors of the article itself didn’t ask/answer the question of whether more people are actually accessing it. The changes in distribution aren’t exactly what I’d call that big of a deal, either:

    It just feels that by omitting the dispensed figure, that the number hasn’t really changed, much. Which I’d actually take as a good sign, it would signal that people aren’t taking it any more lightly than they were previously. But from reading the original article, I don’t really feel like a lot has changed either. It’s not like you couldn’t get MS-2 Step before if you needed it.

    To me, the bigger change isn’t the number of pharmacies stocking it, rather: “Australia’s regulatory change allowed any appropriately qualified and trained health care practitioner (including nurse practitioners and endorsed midwives) to prescribe the medication and any pharmacist to dispense it.”

    This article comes off to me as engagement bait. Any article talking about abortion is going to get loads of online commentary saying “abortion good!”/“abortion bad”. It feels like that’s what they’re seeking - and look here we are discussing the article!