Vol 24 - May 2009
 
The Trans-Tasman Gap widens
  The gap between New Zealand and Australian access to innovative medicines has grown over the three years since the original comparative analysis on access to medicines in the two countries was reported in 2006.  The initial work was by Michael Wonder, from Novartis Pharmaceuticals Pty Australia.
  At the time he reported on access between May 1, 2000 and June 30, 2006, he found that 58 more innovative prescription-only medicines were funded in Australia than New Zealand during that period.
  Of the 78 new medicines funded in Australia during this time, Wonder found that only 20 of those were funded in New Zealand. 
  Updated analysis shows that since July 1, 2006 PHARMAC has funded nine of those 58 medicines.
  However, during the same period, a further 35 innovative new prescription-only medicines, that are still not funded in New Zealand, have since been made available to patients in Australia.
  The gap between the two countries has now reached 84; i.e. 84 more medicines have been made available to Australians through the PBS (the equivalent to our Pharmaceutical Schedule) than were made available here in the same time period.
 

What are Kiwis missing out on?
  The 84 medicines available to Australian patients that have not yet been funded in New Zealand cover the following conditions and diseases.
  • Thirteen new cancer medicines funded in Australia, but not New Zealand (up from five in 2006).
  • Fourteen new treatments of nervous system disorders including schizophrenia, depression and Alzheimer’s Disease (up from thirteen in 2006).  There is still no funded access to any medicine for Alzheimer’s Disease in New Zealand.
  • Five medicines for HIV/AIDS.
  • Several products for diseases of the cardiovascular/blood and blood forming systems. 
  • At least two new medicines for each of the following:
    - Renal disease
    - Diabetes
    - Hepatitis B
    - Osteoporosis
  • Other products for:
    - Epilepsy
    - Rheumatoid arthritis
    - Multiple sclerosis
    - Ophthalmology
    - Pain.
 
Critical CAC causes consultation?
  What triggered the PHARMAC review of the Consumer Advisory Committee?  Could uncomfortable questions raised about “how PHARMAC monitors the impacts of medication changes on consumers” have focussed attention on the Committee’s activities1?
  Could it have been criticism that “the focus groups in relation to consumers were insufficient to provide meaningful feedback1” and a statement that the committee was disappointed that a survey of consumers was not undertaken with regard to medication brand changes1?
  Whatever the reason for the review, the RMI thinks it is timely and should be given wider consideration by stakeholders than the calls for comment by PHARMAC.
  The RMI believes there should certainly be consumer advice to PHARMAC and to government (our ministers and the MoH), but we do not believe the consumer advisory function should be managed from within, and accountable to, PHARMAC.
  Dr Pippa MacKay said the approach should be strategic.  “There should be independent advice from consumers, and that advice should be directed to the minister, not the organisation that makes the decisions about which medicines should be funded.  The perception should reflect the fact of independence,” she said.
  “Government, the MoH and PHARMAC need look no further than the Australian model of a Pharmaceutical Advisory Council.  This should be a high level group with representation from patient groups, clinicians and the industry, reporting to the minister, not PHARMAC,” Dr MacKay suggested.
  “I have long thought it extraordinary that we have a widely representative, democratically elected group of people made up of around 26 patient groups in the Access to Medicines Coalition which is not represented on the Consumer Advisory Committee.  This is simply astounding!” Dr MacKay said.
  The RMI believes that a high level advisory group could provide a considerably sharper focus on priorities and community needs simply because each of the three representative sectors are immersed in the relevant issues on a day by day basis.
  Furthermore, the influence of any one sector would be outweighed by the others, so there would be little concern about undue influence from any particular grouping.
1 Reference Minutes of PHARMAC Consumer Advisory Committee Meeting, 3 October 2008.
 

 
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


  STOP PRESS
Budget and access to medicines for New Zealanders
  
  The promised extra $185.7m for medicines in the community over the next four years is a significant and welcome first step toward closing the growing gap between the number and quality of medicines available to Australians, as compared with those here in New Zealand,” said Dr Pippa MacKay, the Chairman of the Researched Medicines Industry Association (RMI).
  “However, the gap is substantial and has widened over the past few years.  Since June 2000 84 more medicines made available to Australians through the PBS (the equivalent to our Pharmaceutical Schedule) than were funded in New Zealand1.
  “We recognise the recession has imposed severe restrictions on any further new funding for medicines, so the RMI believes that two specific steps should be taken to ensure that the maximum value can be gained from the current budget.
  1. Review those medicines currently funded that are inexpensive and available from supermarkets.
  2. Publish and adhere to a List of Need i.e. the prioritised list of medicines recommended by PHARMAC’s clinical assessment committee (PTAC).
  “Given the Government’s commitment to move towards parity with Australia, some hard decisions are required, not the least of them being the issue of wide distribution of inexpensive over-the-counter (OTC) medicines with only a $3 co-payment - at the cost of denying modern, innovative prescription-only drugs,” she said.
1 Michael Wonder, Novartis Australia.
 
Ken Shirley resigns
  The RMI CEO Ken Shirley has given notice that he will be resigning from his position effective from June 19, 2009.  The Board has thanked him for his input during his tenure and are instigating a search for a replacement.
  “The RMI member companies face some major challenges globally and New Zealand is certainly not immune from those challenges,” Ken Shirley said.
  "It was particularly pleasing to see former members of RMI re-join the Association over the past two years as an expression of greater industry unity."
  “I have greatly enjoyed working with the many stakeholders associated with the RMI and wish all of them every success in ensuring that New Zealanders have access to a wide range of quality medicines at affordable prices.”


  
 

 

www.rmianz.co.nz

 

 



If you no longer wish to receive these emails, or you wish to update your profile, please click here.