Healthy Skepticism Library item: 4509

Warning: This library includes all items relevant to health product marketing that we are aware of regardless of quality. Often we do not agree with all or part of the contents.

Publication type: news

Schneemann K.
Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme reform can foster medical innovation
The Australian Newspaper 2006 Apr 24
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,18904562-7583,00.html

Notes:

Ralph Faggotter’s Comments:

Using the smokescreen of a series of motherhood statements about finding cures for cancer, Parkinson’s disease and diabetes (the same statements we have been fruitlessly listening to for several decades), and riding into battle on the coat-tails of ‘Ian Frazer’s globally recognised cervical cancer vaccine’, the chief executive of Medicines Australia (MA), makes a naked plug for greater government protection of the pharmaceutical industry in a manner which would make the most ardent agrarian protectionist blush.

Like the Chairman of MA (see HS Library number: 2371), his opinion piece inevitably involves an attack on the PBS (Pharmaceutical Benefit Scheme)- an organisation which has steadfastly defended Australians against the financial depredations of the international pharmaceutical industry for nearly 60 years.

“ For nearly 60 years, the Australian Government’s Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) has provided reliable, timely and affordable access to a wide range of medicines for all Australians.”
http://www.health.gov.au/internet/wcms/publishing.nsf/Content/health-pbs-general-aboutus.htm-copy2

Medicines Australia would love to see the protective power of the PBS weakened for two reasons-

Firstly, because the PBS allows for a process of collective price and drug value/quality bargaining on behalf of the Australian people – a process which keeps prices down and poor quality drugs out.
It gives Australians value for money.

Secondly, because it has historically achieved the above aim, the PBS acts as as a beacon of hope for other countries- an example of how to manage their own pharmaceutical systems, which if implemented, would lead to lower prices for drugs in those countries via more discerning processes of collective bargaining and expert drug evaluation.

This is what the international pharmaceutical industry (of which Medicines Australia is a branch office) fears most— that the excellent system which the PBS represents, will spread to larger markets elsewhere in the world.

In this opinion piece, Kieran Schneemann offers the Australian public a sugar-coated poisoned pill.

The sugar coating is the promise of fantasy cures, in return for the poison pill of undermining the PBS- one of the most important organisations protecting the health of Australians by providing them with affordable access to quality medicines.

Full text:

Kieran Schneemann: We have the know-how; let’s fund it
Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme reform can foster medical innovation
April 24, 2006
CAN Australia play a central role in the cure for breast cancer? Or Parkinson’s disease? Diabetes?

As the current Australian of the Year has proved, we can and we must. Ian Frazer’s globally recognised cervical cancer vaccine proves our capacity and ability to be at the forefront of medical advancement. His invention and its commercialisation by Australian and international biopharmaceutical companies will save the lives of thousands of women every year and sooner than we think.

But can Australia expect international support for our local medical research community if we provide it with less than wholesome support ourselves?

The answer is no. Equally, we cannot expect global biopharmaceutical companies to support new Australian discoveries if we do not foster the development of their Australian operations.

Related to these fundamental issues is our own subsidised medicines scheme, the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme.

The federal Government is considering a range of options to reform the PBS. The PBS is a vital tool in ensuring Australians have affordable access to the medicines they need, but it also makes an important contribution to fostering Australian medical innovation.

The reform process provides a rare opportunity for the Government to build a platform from which Australia can take the next step as a global player in medical innovation.

Earlier this month, 20,000 representatives from the global biopharmaceutical industry met in Chicago for BIO 2006, the world’s largest conference of the global biotechnology industry. The conference is where deals are done and decisions made that lay the foundation for the development of new medicines that will change the world.

Australia had a special place at BIO 2006. Federal and state ministers, medical researchers, scientists, and representatives of our biotechnology and pharmaceutical industry represented us at the meeting. Our presence at BIO 2006 was all the more important given the pending launch of Frazer’s world-first cancer vaccine.

Discovered by Frazer at the University of Queensland, the relationships that underpin the vaccine’s global development have been characterised by a strong partnership in which each party has supported and nurtured the development of this incredible technology.

But why has it taken the support of global pharmaceutical companies to enable the development of the vaccine? The reality for Australian science is that few, if any, local companies have the resources and capacity required to take a new medicine through the worldwide development process. The cost of drug development is now estimated to exceed $US1 billion ($A1.34 billion) for each medicine, and fewer than one in 5000 new chemical entities make it to market.

The launch of the cervical cancer vaccine, which is expected in Australia during the second half of 2006, is a groundbreaking moment for Australian science. Patients around the world will benefit from the virtual elimination of cervical cancer, and Australian science will reap the benefits of a steady flow of royalties that will fund their ongoing and future research efforts.

Australia is well placed, but we must look to the future and ask: “Where in Australia will the next breakthrough come from?”, and “What role does the PBS play in fostering medical innovation?”

Australia’s representation at BIO 2006 was recognition of the importance of medical innovation to our future well-being in terms of health and economic development. A key group represented is government: federal and state. The fact is that government has been a silent partner in the cervical cancer partnership, and is a silent partner in the development of all new medicines.

Government plays the leading role in creating an environment that enables researchers to do what they do so well: research. Setting aside the important issue of patient access and funding for medical innovation, direct government support for education and training, basic medical research, strong protection for intellectual property and a good operating environment for the biopharmaceutical industry are four very basic requirements to foster the development of medical innovation.

Importantly, it is not possible to consider any single factor in isolation.

The federal Government is considering a range of options to reform the PBS. The PBS is into its sixth decade of providing Australians with affordable access to the medicines they need. Like the cervical cancer vaccine development relationship, the PBS is a partnership between different stakeholders, including the innovative pharmaceutical industry. This partnership is fuelled by medical discoveries such as Frazer’s and it is in all our interests for the partnership to continue and flourish.

PBS reform represents an incredible and rare opportunity for the Government to build the platform for the discovery of the next Australian medical breakthrough.

Kieran Schneemann is the chief executive of Medicines Australia, which represents Australian and international biopharmaceutical companies.

»