|
Vol 18 - June
2008
Tweaking the PTAC
appointment protocols will not
deliver the necessary transparency Initial high hopes that the new national medicines strategy would cast some light on the opaque and clouded PHARMAC decision making processes have evaporated. Many submitters, including the
NZMA and the Access to Medicines Coalition, representing some 26
patient groups, called for a separation of clinical assessment from
the commercial imperatives of PHARMAC’s drug purchase
activities.
Indeed the NZMA said “the fact
that PTAC, in determining clinical efficacy blends the issue of
affordability into its decision-making has caused NZMA concern for
many years.”
The RMI’s Chief Executive
Officer, Ken Shirley said “the fundamental problem is that the
appointment of PTAC members and the operation of the Committee are
controlled by PHARMAC. The only way to achieve the level of
transparency and independence required is to change section 50 of
the Health and Disability Act to deliver a model similar to the
Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory
Committee.
The tweaking of appointment
protocols as proposed by Government is an inadequate response that
will not deliver any meaningful change. Is it attempting to
hoodwink us?
However, the lack of
transparency is really a symptom of the extraordinary contortions
PHARMAC has devised to ration medicines in the face of insufficient
funding.
Where the parties stand
on the issue of transparency
At the Medicines Political Forum
held earlier this year the health spokespeople of the political
parties responded to the following question:
“Do you believe that the
bundling of clinical assessments with procurement decisions distorts
the pharmaceutical funding process and do you support the
evaluations of clinical merit being made independently of the
procurement agency?”
The following are extracts of
their replies:
• Hon David
Cunliffe, Minister of Health. “We have a
semi-bundled system and are moving towards a more transparent
system.”
• Jackie Blue, National. “We do have concerns regarding this … there needs to be greater transparency.” • Sue Kedgley, Green Party. “We think that that the existing system is acceptable and that we wouldn’t be seeking a change.” • Judy Turner, United Future. “In the course of the work done in developing the medicines strategy we have been persuaded that there is adequate separation in the decision making between PTAC and PHARMAC.” • Heather Roy, ACT Party. “The independence between evaluations of clinical merit and procurement must be independent. That is enormously important.” Medsafe Fees
Medsafe is to undertake a review
of their fees following a complaint from the RMI to Parliament’s
Regulations Review Committee.
Medsafe increased their fees in
August 2006 by up to 700% in anticipation of the establishment of a
joint regulatory agency (ANZTPA) with Australia. However, the
Therapeutic Products and Medicines Bill which would have established
the ANZTPA was parked indefinitely in July 2007 as the Government
doesn't have the numbers to progress it.
The RMI argued that the fees
consultation document gave the reason for the increase as a
transitional arrangement in the lead up to ANZTPA. It
said this premise was no longer valid as ANZTPA was unlikely to
proceed. The RMI also argued that the methodology used to set the
new fees for medicines evaluation did not take into account the
actual costs incurred by Medsafe.
The RMI asked for the fees to be
revised to a level commensurate with the current situation in New
Zealand.
Medsafe acknowledged that the
circumstances which were projected to occur have not occurred and
has committed to a fees review. A consultation paper is expected
shortly.
| |||
|
The New Zealand Medical
Association (NZMA) issued a very thoughtful and balanced response to
the Government’s budget announcements welcoming some initiatives but
highlighting some serious omissions.
The RMI fully endorses the following observation of the NZMA “Also missing in the Budget was any indication of significantly increased funding for the Gvernment’s drug-purchasing agency PHARMAC. A good case has been made for the funding of many new pharmaceuticals, which would improve the health of many New Zealanders.”
Pharmaceutical researchers are now working on 750
medicines for cancer. Many are high-tech weapons to fight the
disease, while some involve innovative research on using existing
medicines in new ways.
Cancer charity starts research programme with drug 'borrowed' from industry The charity Cancer Research UK has started work
on its first clinical research programme in a new partnership
arrangement with the pharmaceutical industry. This enables it to
‘borrow’ candidate drugs that have been shelved by companies so it
can further explore their potential.
The cancer research charity and its commercial arm
Cancer Research Technology, is starting the programme with the
clinical development of tyrosine kinase inhibitor AZD0424, provided
by the drug company AstraZeneca.
Ref: BMJ 2008; 336:1155(24 May)
|
750 medicines and vaccines in development offer
hope in the fight against cancer
