Medicare review leaves government ‘watching people suffer’

A review intended to reduce wait times for new and essential medical treatments is at risk of placing savings over patient outcomes, health advocates warn.

Liberal senator Anne Ruston has urged the government to take on the HTA review’s outcomes. Picture: Dan Peled / NewsWire

Health advocates fear a recommended overhaul of the system for acquiring medicines could preface further cost-cutting, provided it is not left “collecting dust”.

The Health Technology Assessment review’s final report was handed down this week, providing the Albanese government with a road map to cut the time in which new treatments are made available and affordable.

Spanning 50 recommendations, it walks through the method by which funding should be allocated under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, Medicare Benefits Schedule, National Immunisation Program and the Life Saving Drugs Program.

The HTA system has faced sustained criticism from patients and producers alike for providing a process deemed too lengthy and bureaucratic, while failing to meaningfully include consumers.

The Albanese government pledged to form an implementation group to review and carry out recommendations.

Better Access Australia told The Weekend Australian it supports the review’s aspiration to end the lengthy haggling between pharmaceutical companies and the government, but found the majority of the recommendations ineffectual.

The review found patient groups such as First Nations Australians were seeing inequitable access and recommended the establishment of a First Nations advisory committee who could hand advice down to departmental authorities.

“Savings are important, and supported by BAA, but they were not the primary objective of patients going in to this review, and yet they will be the primary outcome,“ chair Felicity McNeill said.

“What this report will do is add 50 recommendations to the list of over 100 already awaiting consideration from the Novel Technology review of 2021, while introducing price cuts, increasing the cost of applications and watching people suffer irreparable and irreversible health damage.”

Ms McNeill took issue with the government’s response following the release of the review, which emphasised a primary focus on minimising spending, pointing to blown-out wait times on shingles treatment Shingrix as an example of poor prioritisation.

Felicity McNeill is the chair of Better Access Australia and a former head of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme.

“Every dollar invested in health is not an opportunity cost, it is an opportunity for better health, a better future, improved equality and better productivity,” she said.

“The HTA review does not deliver the change Australia’s health system needs. It will not change the delays to access for the majority of medicines, diagnostics and technologies in Australia.”

Health Minister Mark Butler maintained the importance of reducing spending.

“The goal is faster access to the best therapies, at a cost patients and the community can afford,” he said. “Value for money remains paramount, because value is at the heart of patient benefit.”

Australian Patients Association ambassador Nick Coatsworth.

The Australian Patients Association argued taxpayers could end up paying greater fees for the medicines of a select few, which could be limited in their efficacy testing.

“Access to the latest drugs is always welcomed; the challenge will be to ensure the pharmaceutical companies support the post-marketing evaluation of those same drugs,” APA ambassador Nick Coatsworth said.

Opposition health spokeswoman Anne Ruston called for a timeline for implementation to prevent recommendations being neglected.