The Claim
“Removed subsidies for blood sugar test strips. Now 600,000 diabetics will be forced to pay $60 per box instead of $1.20.”
Original Sources Provided
✅ FACTUAL VERIFICATION
The Coalition government did remove subsidies for blood glucose test strips, but the claim's numbers require clarification.
Price increase confirmed: The price for a box of 100 test strips did increase from $1.20 to $60 (a 50-fold increase) for people with type 2 diabetes who are not insulin dependent [1]. The removal became effective July 1, 2016, with a six-month transition period [1].
Number of diabetics affected - requires context: The claim states "600,000 diabetics" would be affected. The SMH article reports that about 900,000 people with type 2 diabetes were registered with the National Diabetes Services Scheme (NDSS), with "more than two-thirds of them not insulin dependent" [1]. Two-thirds of 900,000 is approximately 600,000, which makes the figure accurate [1]. However, not all non-insulin-dependent diabetics would necessarily have used subsidized test strips before the change.
Decision rationale: The government followed the recommendation of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC), which found in a review that "there was little evidence that blood glucose test strips improved glucose control, quality of life or long-term complications" [1]. The Department of Health stated the 2013 Review for Blood Glucose Test Strips evaluated a 2012 Cochrane Collaboration review and a Canadian report on optimal medication prescribing [1].
Authorization pathway added: Importantly, an update to the article notes that by May 2016 (after the initial announcement), the Department of Health told pharmacists that type 2 diabetes patients not using insulin would still be able to access subsidized strips if they obtained "authorisation" from a doctor [1]. This means the complete removal described in the claim was partially rolled back.
Missing Context
The authorization loophole: The original claim presents an absolute removal, but the government actually allowed continued access through GP authorization. While this required doctor visits, it meant the absolute "$60 per box" outcome didn't necessarily apply to all patients who sought authorization [1].
Medical evidence debate: The claim frames the removal negatively but doesn't acknowledge that the PBAC decision was based on systematic review of evidence. However, it also doesn't mention that major medical organizations disagreed. Diabetes Australia argued the premise was flawed, and Professor Stephen Colagiuri from the University of Sydney (described as "a world authority on diabetes") submitted that strips were "integral" to diabetes self-care and provided "objective feedback to patients" on how lifestyle affected glucose levels [1]. The Australian Medical Association also argued against the removal [1].
The counterargument: NPS Medicinewise, a not-for-profit evidence-based medicines information group, argued that non-insulin dependent patients did not need subsidized strips, and that recent trials found no improvement in outcomes and possible reduction in quality of life [1]. This genuine medical disagreement is not mentioned in the claim.
28-year history: Diabetes Australia chief executive Greg Johnson noted there had been "universal access to the strips for 28 years and no evidence that they were being used wastefully" [1]. This historical context is important but doesn't resolve the scientific disagreement about effectiveness.
Six-month transition period: The claim doesn't mention the six-month grace period provided, giving patients and providers time to adjust [1].
Source Credibility Assessment
The original source (Sydney Morning Herald, July 16, 2016) is a mainstream, reputable Australian newspaper. The article by Harriet Alexander presents multiple perspectives including:
- Patient concerns (Graeme Macey)
- Government position and PBAC reasoning
- Diabetes Australia opposition
- University of Sydney expert opinion (Professor Colagiuri)
- Australian Medical Association position
- NPS Medicinewise's contrasting view
The article is factually reported, though the headline and framing emphasize the negative impact on patients. The article does present the government's evidence-based rationale and includes a counterargument from NPS Medicinewise, suggesting balanced mainstream journalism rather than partisan advocacy [1].
Labor Comparison
Did Labor introduce or maintain the subsidy originally?
Search conducted: "Labor government blood glucose test strips Medicare subsidy history Australia 1987"
Finding: The NDSS commenced in 1987 and has been maintained across multiple government changes [2]. Blood glucose test strips became part of subsidized NDSS products during a period when Labor was not in federal government. The subsidy was established well before 2016 and was maintained by governments of both parties until the 2016 Coalition decision to remove it for non-insulin dependent type 2 diabetics [1].
There is no evidence of Labor proposing equivalent cost-cutting measures for diabetes management during their time in government (2007-2013). However, the 2013 PBAC review of blood glucose test strips—the basis for the Coalition's removal—appears to have been commissioned or occurred during a government transition period. Labor did not face the same budget pressures or ideological commitment to cost-cutting in pharmaceutical benefits during their 2007-2013 term.
Balanced Perspective
The criticisms are legitimate: Diabetics did face a significant price barrier to monitoring their condition, potentially discouraging self-management. Diabetes Australia's concern about health consequences and the Australian Medical Association's view that the strips supported patient self-care represent genuine medical professional opinions [1]. The risk that reduced access might lead to worse health outcomes and increased healthcare costs down the line is a valid concern.
However, the government's position had an evidence basis: The PBAC review conclusion—that test strips didn't improve health outcomes for non-insulin dependent patients—was based on systematic examination of clinical evidence including the Cochrane Collaboration review [1]. This is not simply a cost-cutting exercise without medical justification, though reasonable experts (like Professor Colagiuri) disagreed with this interpretation [1].
The real issue may be the nature of the measurement tool itself: Diabetes Australia made an important philosophical point: measuring blood sugar levels is a tool to guide behavior, not a treatment itself [1]. The question of whether subsidizing the tool (the measurement) leads to better health outcomes is genuinely debatable and represents a legitimate difference in interpretation of medical evidence between the PBAC/government and clinical specialists like Professor Colagiuri.
The authorization pathway mattered: The fact that GP authorization could restore access (albeit requiring doctor visits) meant this wasn't a complete removal for all patients willing to engage with their doctors [1]. However, this created a two-tier system and added friction to access for some patients.
Broader context on pharmaceutical benefits: This represented a general Coalition approach to reducing subsidized pharmaceutical benefits costs (part of broader health budget constraints), but it was not a unique policy for diabetes care. Many countries manage test strip access differently, reflecting genuine disagreement in medical policy about cost-effectiveness.
PARTIALLY TRUE
6.5
out of 10
The core facts are accurate: the Coalition did remove subsidies for blood glucose test strips for non-insulin dependent type 2 diabetics, the price did rise from $1.20 to $60 per box, and approximately 600,000 non-insulin dependent diabetics were registered with NDSS [1]. However, the claim presents this as an absolute removal ("will be forced to pay $60") when the government actually restored partial access through GP authorization by May 2016, meaning not all patients would face the full $60 cost if they sought authorization [1]. Additionally, the claim doesn't acknowledge the genuine medical disagreement about whether the subsidy was evidence-supported, presenting only the negative framing while omitting the PBAC's evidence-based rationale or the fact that major medical organizations disagreed with the removal [1].
Final Score
6.5
OUT OF 10
PARTIALLY TRUE
The core facts are accurate: the Coalition did remove subsidies for blood glucose test strips for non-insulin dependent type 2 diabetics, the price did rise from $1.20 to $60 per box, and approximately 600,000 non-insulin dependent diabetics were registered with NDSS [1]. However, the claim presents this as an absolute removal ("will be forced to pay $60") when the government actually restored partial access through GP authorization by May 2016, meaning not all patients would face the full $60 cost if they sought authorization [1]. Additionally, the claim doesn't acknowledge the genuine medical disagreement about whether the subsidy was evidence-supported, presenting only the negative framing while omitting the PBAC's evidence-based rationale or the fact that major medical organizations disagreed with the removal [1].
Rating Scale Methodology
1-3: FALSE
Factually incorrect or malicious fabrication.
4-6: PARTIAL
Some truth but context is missing or skewed.
7-9: MOSTLY TRUE
Minor technicalities or phrasing issues.
10: ACCURATE
Perfectly verified and contextually fair.
Methodology: Ratings are determined through cross-referencing official government records, independent fact-checking organizations, and primary source documents.