Most transparent government ever!
One source of truth!
Hipkins and Ardern - the most deceitful PMs in NZ’s history.
Printable View
As I understand it though its not pooled with other funding. Its ring fenced for those specific treatments. All other funding should not be effected. If someone qualifies then they get a funded treatment. I suppose your argument is though that that Cancer treatment funding *should* be pooled with funding for other illnesses and and treatment determined on a as needed basis.
Note that Chris Jackson also said he believes the funding better directed to the pipeline of training specialist health care workers. Not the funding of a new hospital, etc, per se but rather the specialist training required for Oncologists, etc.
Either way I think the funding should be redirected away from those that can afford a $5 prescription and toward specialists or specialised treatments. I do not know enough to have a real informed opinion on the politics of PARMAC
Good luck with your cancer battle, I wish you all the best and hope you can defeat it once and for all.
With regards to your statement as follows: "but there is an issue here around who decides to prioritise where health funding goes & there are many other illnesses & patients who need funding. Do we suddenly let politicians decide these priorities because they too can be heavily influenced by personal circumstances."
- I still fail to see the validity on this 'personal circumstances' hobby-horse that you on when it comes to politicians and their relationship with PHARMAC. But if you really do believe that people will invariably direct funding towards measures aligned to their 'personal circumstances', then how do you know that this 'fact' is not influencing the decision making of the decision makers at PHARMAC?
- Surely politicians set up PHARMAC in the first place. It did not spring into being of its own volition.
- Surely politicians change parameters all the time, such as when Labour changed the mandate of the (independent) Reserve Bank, and now we see a Labour policy that (arbitrarily) would see GST removed from fresh fruit and vegetables but remain applied to numerous other food products.
The $5 prescription charge should be ditched as a policy.
It would turn pharmacists into receptionists which they didn't train to be (and adds paper to landfill) for the sake of five bucks.
As you well know, the highlighted part of your statement is completely wrong. We currently have access to medical service based on race, so the current Government has indeed made decisions about which patients get service.
I'm sorry to read about your personal health battles and wish you a speedy and full recovery.
Cheers LN, thanks for the encouragement, & much appreciated.
There's probably a few on here who would be pleased to see the back of me, ha, but hope to be around for a while yet!
There's some great new effective cancer drugs, we just need more funding & of course I'm really pleased Chris Luxon is switching funding for everyone for prescription charges, to fund more cancer treatments. Those on Community Service cards & those on Super still getting free prescriptions I think.
Re PHARMAC, its quite a large independent organisation with a senior group of medical people & others making decisions based on strict criteria, informed research, feedback etc & those decisions are often challenged & have to stand up to scrutiny.
I just can't imagine letting politicians like say, Kelvin Davis or Chris Bishop (ironically a tobacco lobbyist in a previous life) or David Seymour dictating which new drugs or medical treatments will be funded from the health budget.
We see in America there's a lot of lobbying by powerful pharmaceutical companies of politicians & doctors, e.g. just look at the opiate disaster.
However, I don't want to over-egg this, and not suggesting for a moment there's anything wrong here.
Pharmac have placed NZ as the last country in the OECD to get drugs fully funded from the time they are released for use. Charts to come. Fact is, Pharmac are focused on cost, not patient outcomes.