According to the Department of Health, this represented a 29% reduction and was "the first time in 75 years the general co-payment under the PBS has fallen" [2].
Subsequently, on 1 January 2026, a further reduction was implemented, bringing the general co-payment to $25, representing an additional 20% reduction from the frozen rate [4].
According to Minister Butler's media release from 2 January 2025, "consumers saved $1.1 billion from cheaper medicines" through the January 2023 price reduction and related measures [5].
However, this is a cumulative figure spanning multiple initiatives implemented over time:
- July 2022: PBS Safety Net threshold reduced by 25% (enabling 66 million free prescriptions)
- January 2023: General co-payment reduced from $42.50 to $30
- September 2023: 60-day prescriptions introduced (estimated $250 million savings in 2023 alone)
- January 2025: Co-payment indexation frozen (estimated additional $500 million savings)
The government has updated this figure.
It is important to note that "savings" in this context refers to the out-of-pocket cost reductions for patients, not budget savings to government (government/PBS absorbs the cost reduction).
According to Minister Butler's media release from 2 January 2025, "Since July 2022, 66 million prescriptions have been issued for free and without any cost to patients, because of that lower Safety Net threshold" [5].
The Safety Net threshold was reduced from $326.40 to $244.80, enabling eligible patients (pensioners and concession cardholders) to reach free prescriptions faster [7].
The benefits are distributed unevenly:
**Concession cardholders** (pensioners, welfare recipients, low-income earners) were already paying only $7.70 per prescription under the PBS concession scheme [8].
They do not benefit from the $12.50 reduction claimed in the headline; instead, they benefit from the price freeze announced in January 2025, which prevents their concession rate rising with inflation through 2030 [3].
The narrative conflates two distinct groups receiving different benefits.
**General Medicare cardholders** (employed workers, moderate-to-high income earners) receive the $12.50 reduction from $31.60 to $25.
This group's benefit is genuine but is presented as if it applies to all Australians equally.
**High-income earners and people with private insurance** face different cost structures and are barely discussed in government messaging.
The government and Labor messaging emphasize the price reduction and savings figures but provide no evidence that the price cut has actually improved medication access.
As of the most recent public statements, there is no published data showing:
- Changes in prescription-filling patterns following the January 2023 price reduction
- Reduction in the number of Australians deferring or skipping prescribed medicines due to cost
- Health outcome improvements attributable to improved access [9]
Pharmacy advocacy groups, while supporting the measures, have indicated that more needs to be done.
The CSIRO reports that Australia ranks 4th of 14 OECD countries in terms of out-of-pocket prescription costs among countries with universal pharmaceutical subsidies [11].
While the reductions move Australia toward better alignment with OECD peers, this is not presented as "catch-up reform" to international standards—it is framed as a standalone achievement.
The claim focuses exclusively on the co-payment, omitting significant additional cost barriers:
**Brand premiums**: Some PBS medicines include manufacturer brand premiums that patients must pay beyond the co-payment [12].
**Non-PBS medicines**: Medicines outside the PBS schedule require 100% out-of-pocket payment from patients, with no subsidy.
The co-payment reduction does not apply to these [12].
**Safety Net threshold**: Patients must reach $1,748.20 (general) or $277.20 (concession) in out-of-pocket expenses before becoming eligible for free medicines [8].
Many patients, particularly those with chronic conditions requiring multiple prescriptions, must accumulate significant expenses before accessing free medicines.
The government's framing of co-payments being "at their most affordable since 2004" [6] implicitly acknowledges that prices have risen significantly despite the PBS model, only now being partially reversed.
The claim presents three separate initiatives (2022 Safety Net reduction, 2023 price cut, 2025 freeze) as components of a single "achievement," maximizing the appearance of action.
With Australia's population at approximately 26 million, the $1.1 billion savings (through November 2024) represents approximately $42.31 per capita over approximately 21 months, or roughly $24 per person per year.
For a typical Australian filling 5-10 prescriptions annually, the actual benefit ranges from $12.50-$125 annually, depending on whether they qualify for concession rates or have frozen prices [5].
Australia's median house price to income ratio has worsened, energy and grocery costs have accelerated beyond wages, and rental costs have surged [13].
Countries such as Germany, Belgium, and France maintain lower co-payments or fully subsidized prescriptions for larger portions of their populations [11].
Surveys indicate that up to 10% of patients in fair or poor health continue to defer or skip prescribed medicines due to cost, even after the reduction [14].
These measures were not initiated by Labor policy development but were substantially driven by advocacy from the Pharmacy Guild of Australia's "Affordable Medicines Now" campaign [10].
The measures also align with a global trend toward co-payment reduction in developed nations, positioning this as catch-up reform rather than policy innovation.
The specific figures are factually accurate, but the framing obscures several important realities: benefits are unequally distributed (concession cardholders already paid less and benefit primarily from the freeze, not the reduction); real-world impact on medication access is unproven; the claim conflates three distinct measures implemented over different timeframes; and significant barriers to medication access remain unaddressed.
The claim is technically true but implies greater systemic benefit than evidence supports and omits crucial context about who benefits and by how much.
The specific figures are factually accurate, but the framing obscures several important realities: benefits are unequally distributed (concession cardholders already paid less and benefit primarily from the freeze, not the reduction); real-world impact on medication access is unproven; the claim conflates three distinct measures implemented over different timeframes; and significant barriers to medication access remain unaddressed.
The claim is technically true but implies greater systemic benefit than evidence supports and omits crucial context about who benefits and by how much.