The 'Dispatched' Podcast

This is a podcast without any mention of that HTA Review! Delegated decision-making is a significant feature of Australia's health system. How can advocacy and any push for change be effective without understanding how delegation works? The reality is that when a minister delegates a decision-making power, they formally remove themselves from the decision.

Where do we start? Last year, the minister described Australia's HTA decision-making as clunky and agreed that it led to unnecessary deaths. How does that admission sit with his latest appointments? We start putting together the pieces of a worrying puzzle and constructing a timeline.  

The Albanese Government has committed an additional $3 billion for the new Community Pharmacy Agreement. The details are yet to come, but the statement and confirmed financial commitment reflect a Cabinet-endorsed Budget decision. Health Minister Mark Butler said he would now engage with "other stakeholders with an interest in the pharmacy sector to finalise separate arrangements". What do people think that means? We discuss that process, that the money will probably need to be found, and the underlying anger across pharmacies that has seen one group excluded from this year's APP conference.

We discuss speculation surrounding the new Community Pharmacy Agreement and why successive governments support the framework approaching its 35th year. Community pharmacies are a good partner for the government, and so is the industry, but for a very different reason. We also urge the industry to be true to its stated commitment to patients and publicly explain its concerns about the HTA review options paper.

The industry must be congratulated for firming up its criticism of the HTA Review options paper, and it should start speaking publicly about its concerns. The history and how agreements with the federal government have evolved over time. Another disappointment on newborn screening.

Nothing frustrates an advisory committee more than the word 'advisory'.  Why any extended powers will be used to their full extent and not in the way many people would like.

The consultation process for the HTA Review options paper upfront invalidates the input of companies, patients and clinicians with an unprecedented 'declaration' process that defines any relationship or expression of a lived experience as a conflict.

It was not an easy or enjoyable decision, but the stakes are very high for Australian patients, given the apparent risks to the future of funded access to health technologies. We also discuss Senate Estimates, a new argument to excuse non-action on newborn screening, Medicare bulk-billing and teddy bears, and the right to disconnect.

With just nine days remaining for stakeholders to submit their feedback on the Health Technology Assessment Review options paper, patients must have access to all pertinent information.

BioPharmaDispatch interviewed Medicines Australia chief executive and reference committee member Liz de Somer on 31 January. The interview was published on 1 February. Medicines Australia approved all included quotes.

The association now appears reluctant to answer questions about its approach to the review's options paper. This reluctance is compounded by a general lack of transparency and secrecy regarding the conduct of a review that has long-term implications for major Australian public health programs.

The importance of this process to patients goes beyond the needs of any individual or organisation.

To assist patients and other stakeholder groups in providing feedback on the options paper, BioPharmaDispatch is publishing the unedited interview recording, which was on the record, to enable a broader understanding of the discussion and the industry's approach to the review.

You will hear an honest and, at times, uncomfortable discussion about the review that reveals the challenges confronting reference committee members whose contributions are covered by non-disclosure agreements. With just nine days to go, listeners and particularly patients might contemplate whether this 'privileged' secrecy approach to policy-making is appropriate for our public health programs.

We understand that Medicines Australia also recorded the interview and would encourage the association to release their recording. This would confirm the unedited veracity of this recording.

The 'Swiss cheese' theory might explain why history is constantly repeating itself and why action is required to avoid the worst aspects of the proposals in the HTA Review options paper.