The health department has released its incoming ministerial brief to the reappointed Mark Butler, revealing internal government discussions over the future funding of new PBS listings, and hinting at limiting the implementation of the HTA Revie...

In a country as wealthy as Australia, how is it fair or equitable that some can pay for new treatments, while most are forced to wait, while the government uses a laborious multi-year process to negotiate the best deal for itself? We are forced...

Adding disability to health in an already full ministerial bandwidth and funding challenges. Trade policy and the PBS, and a presentation on the human consequences of our decision-making. Can a targeted diagnostic screening and the strangest pa...

A busy two weeks with an election and the addition of disability and the NDIS to the health portfolio. What does it mean? The credulous reflex response to comparisons between the US and Australian health systems. Why is denying access and out-o...

What is the balance between building national sovereignty in health and protecting patient safety and community confidence in new technologies? Do we need to be careful? An election brings back memories of 'future' funds past.

The health election debate mainly concerned bulk billing. New bureaucracies are rarely the solution to anything, and the challenge of faster funded access to new health technologies, particularly when advisory committees with power appear oppos...

Australia's election is two weeks in, and we're having trouble engaging. How positional power and 'expertism' can be confused and the value of a transparent and open forum.

The industry's 'Faustian bargain' on the 'sanctity' of the PBS, the challenge so many have in being clear about the problem, and why Pathology Australia provides an important lesson. Another wrong political message on newborns, why dentists mig...

US criticism of the PBS is like catnip for some people, they can't resist it, even if it's the same criticism articulated by multiple Australian stakeholders and the health minister. The strange secrecy over the government's review of arrangeme...

A total victory for pharmacy with the prime minister's appearance at their showcase annual event. We discuss the confected outrage over US interest in the PBS, which is hardly new, and why the industry needs to lead this debate because its repu...

Medicines Australia will be appointing a new chair. To what extent does it matter? The participation model means that the industry might be effectively shackled to the 'change' table rather than having a seat at it. The government has worked it...

A review of Senate Estimates, with irritating warnings, too much passivity, and passive-aggressive responses (0.00-4.50). Revelations on how oral contraceptives navigated the funding process and the drivers of that outcome (4.51-14.10). We disa...

A serious discussion about reforming Australia's use of health technology assessment should start with patient rights and the imposition of new obligations on advisory committees and decision-makers. The signs of institutional capture and the d...

A major structural shift in the PBS with the government moving to break a long-held article of faith (00:10-9:30). Why can't we debate HTA using some plain language and straight talking (9:30-20:20)? Research grants about patients that patients...

Genetics and genomics are the focus of this week's episode. It was a significant week with the release of one organisation's pre-budget submission and a new national framework. Not everyone is happy, but is the criticism fair?

Although the pandemic ended over two years ago, the more we learn about what happened, the more we need the promised Royal Commission.

We return in 2025 with a discussion about our recently published special series on achieving change, arguing for it in a system that treats patients as servile to the government's focus on securing the best deal for itself, moral hazards, and b...

A government review's six-year-old recommendations led to the decision to fund an unapproved and unapprovable product over an approved medicine. The document is the first in a series that ended with an unprecedented workaround on patient safety...

International comparisons can work both ways, the incredibly disrespectful and dismissive 'let them eat cake' attitudes of two key advisory committees and a welcome ministerial intervention that should be more broadly applied. We also answer so...

There was quite a bit of eminence this week in the public discussion about access to health technologies. Some personal and wider reflections on the role of prejudice in funding and reimbursement decisions.

We draw a line between some very careful use of language by small 'g' government officials that clearly connects some recent processes and events. It could be a coincidence, but it's remarkable and very convenient. Everything happens for a reas...

It's another week of debate over PBS deferrals. Unfortunately, there appears to be an effort to limit public discussion. Given the obvious risk to patients and the implications for the access agenda, which is flailing against the backdrop of de...

The health department calls them 'holdover' submissions, but they're deferrals. Its strange language does not change the fact that this situation, decided without consultation, could have negative and long-lasting consequences for the world's s...

A special edition focused on the disappointing and unacceptable outcome on the proposed simplified and faster process for immunotherapies. The institution has revealed a disturbing attitude to patients shrouded in an ability to deliver change.

After a short break, we are back, and there is a lot to discuss. Recommendations to fund unapproved and unapprovable therapeutic interventions, continued disappointment on newborn screening, and a proposed misinformation law that is significant...