As a result of the review of Pharmac out today, the Government is about to change something quite fundamental about Pharmac.
Up till now, Pharmac has tried to get the best health outcomes from available funding which essentially means trying to help as many Kiwis as possible with the limited money it has.
So, let’s say it had $100 to spend on cancer treatment. Up till now what it would do is buy cancer drugs for let’s say 100 of us.
But now, its criteria is being changed.
And it has to consider whether it’s doing enough to help "priority" populations, being Māori, Pacifica and disabled communities.
So, instead of helping 100 of us, it now might have to spend that $100 on helping, say, only 5 of us.
Which means this actually increases the number of us who miss out on drugs.
The example that’s used is that Pharmac funds Keytruda for melanoma but not lung cancer.
Māori don’t get melanoma as much but they do get more lung cancer, so Pharmac should fund it for lung cancer.
I'm not going to argue against funding lung cancer treatment.
But what I am going to point out is that that decision is not without consequences.
The money has to come from somewhere.
Which means some other drug which helps a greater number of people will now not be funded for that number of people.
I'm not sure that in the long run, we will consider this wise.
Because that means more people will go without drugs, which may in fact end up costing us more. Because people who don’t get drugs either fund them themselves or end up sick or dying, which means in hospital or palliative care.
Pharmac only has so much money to spend. Surely the smartest thing is to spend it on as many Kiwis as possible. Surely the smartest thing to do is to reduce the number of people who miss out. Why would we change that?
Heather du Plessis-Allan is a journalist and commentator who hosts Newstalk ZB's Drive show.
So, instead of helping 100 of us, it now might have to spend that $100 on helping, say, only 5 of us.
Which means this actually increases the number of us who miss out on drugs.
The example that’s used is that Pharmac funds Keytruda for melanoma but not lung cancer.
Māori don’t get melanoma as much but they do get more lung cancer, so Pharmac should fund it for lung cancer.
I'm not going to argue against funding lung cancer treatment.
But what I am going to point out is that that decision is not without consequences.
The money has to come from somewhere.
Which means some other drug which helps a greater number of people will now not be funded for that number of people.
I'm not sure that in the long run, we will consider this wise.
Because that means more people will go without drugs, which may in fact end up costing us more. Because people who don’t get drugs either fund them themselves or end up sick or dying, which means in hospital or palliative care.
Pharmac only has so much money to spend. Surely the smartest thing is to spend it on as many Kiwis as possible. Surely the smartest thing to do is to reduce the number of people who miss out. Why would we change that?
Heather du Plessis-Allan is a journalist and commentator who hosts Newstalk ZB's Drive show.
4 comments:
"Surely the smartest thing to do is to reduce the number of people who miss out. Why would we change that?"
Answer: because we have a racist government that now looks at every single policy, including health and the funding of drugs, through its pro-Maori (and some pro-Pacifica) racist tinted glasses and firstly decides what they need.
Then it looks at what's left and gives it to the rest of us. Unfortunately, our Maori caucus, the Maori Party and the Greens can't give Maori enough so ultimately they end up with a huge amount more per capita from government than the rest of us.
By the way, the rest of us contribute much more in taxes per capita.
This above comment is so true. Maori are getting lions share of everything. The argument that they have less access to healthcare than everyone else is humbug. Many just can’t be bothered caring for themselves. KFC etc. it’s a teaching problem. What about the rest of the country sick people who contribute taxes and get nothing in return but see Maori get priority. It’s all nonsense. All the adds on TV re vaccinations talk to whanau all the winter flu shots”free to Maori over 55” the govt has lost it! All NZ’ers should be treated the same.
The makeup of the INDEPENDENT review panel would suggest that this will be another "nothing to see here" farce.
The panel is stacked with three inequality/equity researchers from Otago Medical School.
Leanne Te Karu was a co-author of the gout research discredited here a while ago ...
https://breakingviewsnz.blogspot.com/2021/07/effi-lincoln-gout-and-treaty-driven.html
The panel makeup would suggest Ayesha Verrall's influence.
The others, Frank McLaughlin, a lawyer comrade of Little's from NZUSA days, Heather Simpson, Helen Clarks ex Chief of Staff, and Sue Chetwin anointed with NZOM gong, the Trojan horse chair.
The unwell and dying are about to become political footballs in the game of equity politics.
And let's not forget those poor souls who through unlucky happenstance contract a severely debilitating disease or terminal illness, the drugs for which are not Pharmac funded. So they either accept their fate or self-fund their medication, which more often than not is very expensive. Those maybe the breaks, but for a Government then to clip the GST ticket that, in my view, is unconscionable and just plain heartless. Our PM has made much about being "kind", but in this instance it's actions not words that count. And while you may casually dismiss this, don't forget, tomorrow it could be anyone of you or your dearest in this situation.
Post a Comment
Thanks for engaging in the debate!
Because this is a public forum, we will only publish comments that are respectful and do NOT contain links to other sites. We appreciate your cooperation.