Herceptin Update

National has confirmed it’s policy that it will fully fund the 52 week Herceptin course instead of the 9 week one currently funded by Pharmac. This is good news for women, although Labour doesn’t seem to think so, calling it a “ludicrous” ad-hoc medicines strategy. As I have blogged on a number of occasions (just search on Herceptin to see all the posts), the only thing ludicrous about funding Herceptin properly is the ludicrous amount of time it has taken to get there. Frankly, I would vote National just for this (given the lack of other policy differentiation!) I believe Pharmac’s take on this has been one of the most egregious and deliberate abuses of medical analysis I have ever seen.

“But Mr Key argued the decision was actually all about money.

““It’s a good chunk of their budget – they’re not going to fund it unless we put up the money, and we’re putting up the money.””

John Key was 100% on the money (literally) because it was “all about money”. Pharmac tried to dress it up as proper medical analysis, but that argument was suspiciously thin. Oddly, Labour was criticising National for interfering with Pharmac’s autonomy:

“It was better to let Pharmac decide what drugs it would back, Labour said.”

Given Labour’s propensity for interfering in public service matters, this is an absurdly hypocritical stance. It is also mistaken. The one place you do want to interfere in public service decisions is in the place that they are getting it palpably wrong. I don’t simply mean “wrong” in the sense of “not good for the party in power” but wrong as in “a bad decision that many (unpartisan) experts disagree with”.  That Labour has had severe problems telling the difference between these two, is one of the reasons their administration has been in so much trouble over the past few years.

The Herceptin funding is part of a deal to streamline the acceptance and funding of new medications, alleviating some of the frustrations that many feel at the over-cautious attitude of Pharmac. This, in itself, will help to retain specialists in some fields, particularly oncology (cancer specialists), who are continually being held back from using the most effective medications due to slow registration and funding.  

I frequently see Australians over on holiday in the emergency department. When they show me their list of medications, commonly half of it is not available in this country. Some of that reflects different prescribing practices, but much is due to the lack of choice available in New Zealand. Labour tried to intimate (without evidence) that National may do away with the $3 prescription charge (I find this unlikely). However, paying $3 a prescription item may seem like a good deal – until you have to spend the rest of your life with side effects from a drug because your doctor cannot try another. Or until your chances of surviving a life-threatening disease are lower than they would be in Australia.

Do you really want to buy your medicines from the $2 shop?

PS

Stuff has an excellent little article on breast cancer myths that is well worth a read.

BustedBlonde has a nice graphic on how Herceptin works.

Related posts: