Kerre Woodham: The Pharmac funding boost was the best solution

They promised they would. They said it would happen. I have to say it happened far sooner than I expected. Yesterday's post-Cabinet press conference saw Christopher Luxon, Shane Reti et al. announcing up to 26 new cancer treatments, alongside 28 other medicines to be funded as part of the government's $604 million health budget to honour National’s pre-election promise. The promise was made good on with knobs on. Some of the drugs will be available from October/November of this year. Others will be phased in as of next year and it is fantastic news.  

I don't want to be a Debbie Downer, but it will be too late for some families. And as medical oncologist Chris Jackson, cancer expert extraordinaire, said on the Mike Hosking Breakfast this morning, having the drugs available and funded is all very well and good but we need to ensure our infrastructure can deliver them.  

“We've never had any investment of this extent in the entirety of Pharmac’s history. I mean $600 million is a very, very, very big number and we have never had this many cancer drugs funded at once at any time. So despite the way we got here, I'm absolutely and utterly thrilled. There are still quite a few fishhooks though. You know, when you dump 26 cancer medicines into the system at once, the largest ever, you do create a bit of a capacity demand issue, and the cancer services are already pretty tight and there's a number of services around the country which have already got waiting lists in place. And so if we don't fund the infrastructure for them, the chemo units, the nurses and the like, then you can end up with cancer waiting lists in six to 12 months time. So we've got to be careful about how we do this.” 

Absolutely. I couldn't agree more. It is interesting how the coalition government resolved the issue of how they would get the cancer drugs to the New Zealanders they'd promised them to. They could either direct Pharmac to buy the drugs, and that's a whole can of worms. David Seymour, whose Pharmac’s Minister and National’s coalition partner was very reluctant to interfere with the decisions of Pharmac. He said as much on this show a couple of weeks ago. So he didn't want that kind of interference, ‘You must buy those drugs with this money’, and rightly so I think.  

Or you could set up a separate cancer drug buying agency that would have taken time and bureaucracy and faff. So, in the end the government had to fork out a whole lot more than they originally promised because Pharmac has a list of priority drugs it wants to fund, it only has so much money, and it must buy the drugs that will bring the greatest good to the most amount of people. Ultimately, there are other ways of doing it, but there are other considerations, but primarily that's what it must do. Look for the best deal on the best drugs that will deliver to the most amount of people. So they have a priority list, and some of those cancer drugs were in that priority list, but they were behind other drugs that weren’t for cancer. So Pharmac said all right, fine, we'll buy the drugs, but you have to give us the money that will allow us to get to their place on the list, if you see what I mean. To get to all the cancer drugs they promised they had to buy a whole lot of other drugs. So that means about 28 medicines that were not for cancer will now also be funded because they were ahead of those cancer drugs on the priority list. I think even though it's expensive, that is the right thing to do. You cannot, cannot, cannot politicise the Pharmac buying priority list, you just can't. As Chris Jackson said to Mike Hosking this morning, Pharmac may not be perfect, but it is the best option.  

“The last thing you want is pollies picking drugs. You certainly don't want Big Pharma getting large blank checks from the state, a

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:06):
You're listening to the Kerry Wood and Morning's podcast from
News Talk said, b.

Speaker 2 (00:12):
They promised they would, they said it would happen. I
have to say it happened far sooner than I expected.
Yesterday's post cabinet press conference saw Christopher Luxen Shane Retti
at Our announcing up to twenty six new cancer treatments,
alongside twenty eight other medicines, to be funded as part

(00:33):
of the government's six hundred and four million health budget
to honor national's pre election promise. I mean it was
the promise was made good on with knobs on. Some
of the drugs will be available from October November of
this year. Others will be phased in as of next year,
and it is fantastic news. I don't want to be

(00:58):
a Debbie downer, but it will be too late for
some families and as medical oncologist Chris Jackson, cancer expert
extraordinary said on the Mike Cost and Breakfast this morning,
having the drugs available and funded is all very well
and good, but we need to ensure our infrastructure can
deliver them.

Speaker 3 (01:16):
We've never had any investments of this extent in the
entirety of fire accesstory I mean, six hundred million is
a very very very big number and we have never
had this many cancer drugs funded at once at any time.
So despite the way we got here, I'm absolutely utly thrilled.
There are still quite a few fishops though. You know,
when you dump twenty six cancer medicines into the system
at once, the largest ever, you do create a bit

(01:37):
of a capacity demand issue, and the cancer services are already
pretty tight, and there's a number of services around the
country which have already got wading lists in place, and
so if we don't fund the infrastructure for them, the
chemo units, the nurses and the light, then you can
end up with cancer waiting lists in six to twelve
months time. So we've got to be careful about how
we do this.

Speaker 2 (01:53):
Absolutely, I couldn't agree more. It is interesting how the
coalition government resolved the issue of how they would get
the cancer drugs to the New Zealand as they promised
them to. They could either dire wrecked far Mac to
buy the drugs and that's a whole can of worms.
David Seymour, who's farmac's minister and National's coalition partner, was

(02:14):
very reluctant to interfere with the decisions of FARMAC. He
said as much on this show a couple of weeks ago,
so he didn't want that kind of interference. You must
buy those drugs with this money, and rightly so, I think,
or you could set up a separate cancer drug buying
agency that would have taken time in bureaucracy and faf

(02:36):
So in the end, the government had to fork out
a whole lot more than they originally promised. Because far
MAK is a list of priority drugs that wants to fund.
It only has so much money, and it must buy
the drugs that will bring the greatest good to the
most amount of people. Ultimately, there are other ways of

(02:57):
doing it, but there are other considerations, but primarily that's
what it must do. Look for the best deal on
the best drug that will deliver to the most amount
of people. So they have a priority list, and some
of those cancer drugs were in that priority list, but
they were behind other drugs that went for cancer. So

(03:17):
FARMAC said, all right, fine, we'll buy the drugs, but
you have to give us the money that will allow
us to get to their place on the list. If
you see what I mean to get to all the
cancer drugs they'd promised, they had to buy a whole
lot of other drugs. So that means about twenty eight
medicines that were not for cancer will now also be

(03:39):
funded because they were ahead of those cancer drugs on
the priority list. I think, even though it's expensive, that
is the right thing to do. You cannot, cannot, cannot
politicize the Farmac buying priority list. You just can't. As

(03:59):
Chris Jackson said to Mike Cosking this morning, Farmac may
not be perfect, but it is the best.

Speaker 3 (04:05):
Option you want is Polly's picking drugs. You certainly don't
want big farmer getting large blank checks from the state,
and you don't want those who tell the biggest story
through the media to que jump. What we've had here
is by lifting out farm X budget, you've had cancer
hasn't q jumped all the other medications. It has been
twenty six drugs plus fifty total, so other areas have

(04:27):
benefited too. It's cost them an awful lot of money
because of the political problem they've created. It would have
been cheaper to do it another way, and I'm really
really pleased how we've landed. We need to make sure
the implementation's done well now, because if it's not, we're
going to create another problem just down the line.

Speaker 2 (04:42):
Yeah. Absolutely, and that's what he was saying. All very
well and good to get the drugs, but you need
to have the infrastructure so they can get to the
people who need them. So I would love to hear
from you on this one. Is this the best solution?
I think it is. It is expensive, of course it's expensive.
But you can't prioritize drugs just because you've got somebody

(05:03):
fashionable and trendy who can promote their drug over others.
They get more media attention than others. There are less
sexy diseases, less sexy drugs that don't get their attention.
But the people who have the disease need it. The
people who have the affliction need that particular drug, And

(05:26):
why should they be further down the list simply because
they can't get the right noise behind lobbying. It's got
to be independent, it's got to be free of government interference.
And if it means that more people will have their
drugs funded, will so well and good. You are a
lot of these people who need the drugs have not

(05:50):
brought this upon themselves, you know, it's just a roll
of the dice. It is fate that means they end
up with a life changing or life threatening disease or
illness that a drug can alleviate. Afford that drug, they die.
They can't afford that drug. They live a life of
perpetual misery. Surely this has got to be good news.

Speaker 1 (06:13):
For more from carry Wood and Mornings, listen live to
News Talks a B from nine am weekdays, or follow
the podcast on iHeartRadio.