|
Vol 17 - April 2008
RMI
Election 08 Manifesto
This document was
launched at a political forum on 26th March and is being circulated widely
amongst all stakeholders.
The need for a medicines manifesto was highlighted
following the release of the Government’s medicines strategy in late December.
Regrettably the accompanying action plan failed to provide a clear pathway
for improving New Zealanders access to modern innovative medicines.
“Urgent action is required to curb our continuing drift downwards”
says Dr Pippa MacKay, the Chairman of Researched Medicines Industry
Association. “New Zealand
is already near the bottom of the OECD when it comes to accessing
modern medicines and we are in danger of declining further if no action is
taken”, she said.
Responding to this challenge the RMI has
developed an Election Manifesto that asks the politicians to address three
key policy objectives:
1. Improved access to medicines.
2. An
attractive environment for R&D investment.
3. Efficient regulation of medicines.
Each objective is supported by a range of strategies
which identify the action required to reverse the downward slide on the
international comparisons.
To view a copy of the Election 08 Manifesto click here.
Election Forum
 Health
spokespeople from all political parties represented in Parliament (except
for New Zealand First and the Maori Party) fronted up to discuss the RMI
Election 08 manifesto at a forum in Auckland
held on the 26th of March.
Dr Pippa MacKay and Hon David Cunliffe
The participating audience of 120 people comprised clinicians, researchers,
DHB health administrators, Government officials, together with
representatives
from patient groups and
the pharmaceutical industry along with other health care product suppliers.
The RMI provided the parties with the manifesto and a
series of eight questions designed to assess what prospect patients needing
medicines would have under a new Government.
A full matrix of questions and answers is available on our website.
Click here
for a copy.
Future editions of the RMI e-zine will feature more questions and answers
as a lead-up to the General Election.
The following comments are excerpts of the responses to Questions 1 and 2.
1.
Increased funding for more medicines
The
first question sought Party intentions regarding increased funding for
medicines. This was in light of the diminishing share of Vote Health being
allocated for the purchase of medicines.
• Sue
Kedgley, Green Party. “... we believe that healthy food is
actually our best medicine and ... increasing the quality of the food we
eat, would have the most significant benefits in terms of improving public
health.”
• Jackie Blue, National Party. “National campaigned in 2005 on a promise to increase the
pharmaceutical budget, and I expect that this will also be reflected in the
2008 policy.”
• Hon David
Cunliffe, Minister of Health. “The only reason the relative share of the
health budget spent on medicines has decreased is because the health budget
as a whole has increased by a very great deal."
• Heather Roy,
ACT. “What we don’t
have for patients in our health system, in relation to access to
medicines, is choice. The real answer, of course, is to raise the wealth of
the nation.”
• Judy Turner,
United Future. “We
do believe the current level of funding is on the low side,
notwithstanding that we do believe that there probably does need to be a
cap on funding of medicines."
2. Unbundling PHARMAC
processes
The second question sought views on the
need for increased transparency of PHARMAC processes with a separation
between the evaluation of clinical merit and procurement functions.
L-R, Jackie Blue,
Heather Roy, Sue Kedgley,
Judy Turner, Hon David Cunliffe
• Jackie Blue,
National Party. “There
is no external evaluation of PHARMAC assessments, they are not made
available on their website and have to be accessed through official
information requests.”
• Hon
David Cunliffe, Minister of Health. “We probably have what is only a loosely semi-bundled system, and
we are moving progressively towards a more transparent system.”
• Heather Roy,
ACT. “We believe the pharmaceutical funding process is distorted
by this bundling. That independence between evaluations of clinical merit
and procurement must be independent, and that is enormously important.”
• Judy Turner,
United Future. “We
have been persuaded that there is adequate separation in the decision
making process between PTAC and PHARMAC."
• Sue Kedgley, Green. “Overall we are satisfied with the way PHARMAC operates and the independent
advice provided by PTAC.” .
|
|
This
newsletter is published on behalf of the
Researched Medicines Industry Association of New Zealand. The views and
opinions expressed in this publication are not necessarily those of the
RMI.
For further information:
Researched Medicines Industry Association
PO Box 10447 Wellington
Phone 04 499 4277
http://www.rmianz.co.nz
subscribe
unsubscribe
|
|
