more_vertHuman Rights Day is recognised annually on Dec 10, and this year is especially important since it is the 70th anniversary of the day that the UN General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The Declaration, through its 30 Articles, proclaims the rights that everyone is entitled to as a human being, regardless of race, colour, religion, sex, language, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth, or other status. Today, Lawrence Gostin and colleagues, including the director-general of WHO, look back at the evolution of human rights in global health over the past 70 years and outline key messages for the future of health as a human right.
Preference: Law
558
#GoodDoctorsTeach Australian Medical Students’ National Teaching Awards
BY ALEX FARRELL, PRESIDENT, AUSTRALIAN MEDICAL STUDENTS’ ASSOCIATION
Every day, great doctors around Australia go above and beyond to teach students, and role model what medicine is all about. This year the Australian Medical Students’ Association (AMSA) celebrated those teachers in medical schools and hospitals with the National Awards for Teaching Excellence.
The AMSA National Awards are the highest honour bestowed on a teacher by medical students across the country. They are based on nominations from around the country, and represent students’ appreciation and recognition of teachers who have made an especially positive impact on their studies. There are a number of award categories including excellence in teaching, in rural education, teaching by a junior doctor, and as well as teaching by a member of an allied health profession.
Although it is such an important part of the doctor’s role, the teaching culture across different hospitals varies widely. Despite the recent focus and positive steps in the last few years, bullying, harassment, and teaching by humiliation are still too common an experience. These awards are part of AMSA’s #GoodDoctorsTeach campaign, acknowledging those who tackle this by actively creating a positive teaching culture within medicine.
AMSA received close to 100 nominations for the awards. Reading those nominations was heart-warming, as student after student shared stories of the teachers who have inspired, motivated and challenged them. It was a reminder of just how significant the impact of teaching is on the lives of students, and of how many exceptional teachers there are.
On behalf of Australian medical students, I’d like to thank all the doctors and allied health professionals who make it part of their daily work to make medicine a welcoming and exciting place for students and junior doctors, and nurturing their passion. Consultant or intern; metropolitan or remote; doctor, midwife or echocardiographer: the way you treat your students is making for better future doctors, and a better medical culture in Australia.
Excellence in Teaching winner: Dr Zafar Smith (James Cook University)
Quote from students: “Dr Smith has gone above and beyond teaching us Emergency Medicine in our 3rd year. He completely re-vamped the course making it much easier to learn and more enjoyable. Every single person I know has enjoyed his lectures, tutorial and approachability. He uses interactive methods of teaching which engage the class, such as gosoapbox and kahoot quizzes to test us, and has even created a deck of cards with Emergency medicine case studies that we were all able to get our hands on and use for our exams. As this is his first year of coordinating and lecturing this course, he has outdone himself and on behalf of Med 3 at James Cook University, we would like to recognise his efforts and generosity, and the fun spirit he has brought to sometimes difficult topics.”
Excellence in rural education winner: Dr Elizabeth Kennedy (University of Melbourne, Goulburn Valley Region)
Quote from student: “Dr Kennedy has provided me with outstanding mentorship over 2018, cementing my passion for rural medicine … She is consistently motivated to include students in the extracurriculars of the medical profession, including education events in the Goulburn Valley Region, attending Youth Forums regarding young women’s health, and promoting student engagement in the community. She constantly provides me with the mentorship and support to strive for more, and to be the kind of person and doctor that is needed in a rural area. She constantly gives her medical knowledge, emotional support and more to her patients and I learn from her each and every day.”
Excellence in teaching by a junior doctor winner: Dr Kenneth Cho (University of Sydney and University of Western Sydney, Nepean Hospital)
Quote from selection panel: “Kenneth’s work developing a JMO-led bedside tutorial program and a JMO-led Friday lecture series, run by Junior Medical Officers for medical students is an example of the way anyone, despite age or experience, can lead by example to create a culture of teaching where they work.”
Excellence in teaching by a member of an allied health profession winner: Mr David Law (Echocardiographer, University of New South Wales, Coffs Harbour Hospital)
Quote from student: “David- Coffs Harbour’s most prized sonographer- is probably the only teacher I’ve had who has been able to explain ECGs in a way that makes sense. But more important than that is how he has made the hospital such an inclusive place for medical students to be, welcoming us to catheterisation lab, and always taking the time to explain things to us.”
AMA advocacy on medicine shortages
BY A SSOCIATE PROFESSOR ANDREW C MILLER, CHAIR, AMA MEDICAL PRACTICE COMMITTEE
AMA members increasingly report that shortages of PBS medicines are impacting on the care of their patients.
We are all familiar with the scenario; patients turn up at their local pharmacy to be told that their current prescription for a long-standing condition cannot be filled. Usually alternative medicines can be prescribed, but these may not be subsidised under the PBS, or easily accessible themselves.
This situation is stressful, and sometimes expensive, for patients. It challenges the concept of stable chronic disease management, increases the risk of patient confusion resulting in medication errors and wastes the valuable time of patients and doctors.
Medicine supply shortage is not a new phenomenon, but it is becoming more frequent. Shortages are attributable to several factors, including the consolidation of suppliers in the US following changes in regulations; emerging markets in China and India that have also reduced the number of suppliers due to greater competition; and requirements to upgrade plants and processes following stricter quality controls and standards. With fewer suppliers worldwide, this means that a problem in production from one source may result in magnified impact across the globe, often impacting several brands.
For Australia, the impact is exacerbated: as the TGA points out, Australia has only two per cent of the world’s medicine usage and more than 90 per cent of prescription medicines are imported. Australia enjoys a relatively lowly place in ‘the queue’ for medicines in short supply. In addition our long supply lines complicate delivery of medicines requiring critical transport conditions, increasing the risk of in-transit spoilage, and reduce the capability of rapid resupply in any circumstance.
While medicine shortages are outside the direct control of governments, there is still considerable scope for regulatory bodies to take action to minimise the impact of shortages.
The AMA first started advocating for more proactive government interventions and regulatory solutions in 2012. The then AMA Vice-President, Professor Geoff Dobb, led the charge, meeting with and writing to Health Ministers, pharmaceutical industry representatives and the TGA. Subsequently, the TGA began working with industry stakeholders, the AMA and others to work out better ways of anticipating and managing shortages.
This ultimately led to the development in 2014 of a Medicine Shortages Protocol, an agreement signed by the TGA, Medicines Australia and the Generic and Biosimilar Medicines Association. The protocol established a voluntary regime for suppliers to notify the TGA of shortages in a timely manner as well as a public database of shortages activity.
Unfortunately, industry compliance has been patchy and as a consequence the TGA often becomes aware of shortages after they are impacting patients; and so before remedial action can be taken. This has rendered the shortages database next to useless.
COAG intervention led to a TGA review early last year. The AMA again contributed to the search for more effective solutions by participating in a stakeholder committee and providing feedback based on Medical Practice Committee advice.
It has become clear that, despite pharmaceutical industry opposition, a mandatory rather than voluntary reporting scheme is needed. The AMA fully supported the proposal that pharmaceutical companies must report all medicine shortages to the TGA within specific timeframes and that the TGA must also publish information about all shortages that have a critical patient impact.
The ‘mandatory notifications’ law was passed in Parliament last month and will come into effect on January 1 2019. Drafting of a new guide for pharmaceutical companies on their responsibilities is underway.
Will this fix the problem? It will certainly improve the ability of the TGA, health organisations and health practitioners to proactively manage shortages and to source alternatives.
However, a critical player in the continuum of medicine supply is not covered in the new legislation nor mentioned in the accompanying guide. In subsidising the supply of nearly all medicines prescribed in Australia, the PBS has a significant role to play in minimising the financial impact on patients of medicine shortages.
Where an alternative medicine may be available to patients, but not subsidised under the PBS, or subsidised but with restrictions which do not encompass the specific patient use a simple, a temporary change to the PBS authority restriction may provide needed relief. For example when there was a shortage earlier this year of norfloxacin, subsidised under the PBS to treat complicated urinary tract infection, ciprofloxacin – a good alternative – could not be prescribed under the PBS because its use does not extend to any form of UTI not due to pseudomonas (prostatitis only).
The voluntary notifications scheme may not have allowed the Department of Health to act in a timely way to effect temporary amendments, but there should be no excuse from next year.
The AMA has now raised this concern with the Department several times and been assured that timely shortages information would lead to a timely PBS response. The AMA will be watching closely.
You can find out more about accessing alternative medicines during a shortage on the TGA’s website.
AMA before Queensland inquiry on mandatory reporting
AMA President Dr Tony Bartone has given evidence to a Queensland Parliamentary Committee over the mandatory reporting laws in that State.
With AMA Queensland President Dr Dilip Dhupelia beside him, Dr Bartone addressed the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2018 and told the Health, Communities, Disability Services and Domestic and Family Violence Prevention Committee that things had to change.
He said Queensland’s laws should reflect those in Western Australia, where doctors are not automatically reported for seeking health and mental health care.
“I’m here to tell you we are hurting,” Dr Bartone said.
“Outside of Western Australia, doctors do not have the same level of access to health services as the patients they treat. They do not feel they can reach out to talk to their local doctor.
“When they feel stress – and they do, being only human – they have no one to turn to.
“There isn’t a doctor in this country that would tell you the best treatment for a patient who is suffering – mentally or physically – is to ignore it.
“But that is the effect of our national law for doctors. The fear of being reported is just too high.
“Some suffer in silence. Some, I’ve heard, fly to Western Australia, just to see a GP like me.
“The fear treating doctors face is similarly high. The current interpretation of the law means they feel they have to try and ‘guess’ the risk their doctor ‘patient’ may be in the future.
“It’s an unreasonable request. It results in reporting where, in reality, it is not necessary.
“The stigma spreads, and doctors avoid treatment. The problem worsens. The worst happens. It happens to doctors we know.”
Dr Bartone referenced a literature review by mental health organisation Beyondblue, which highlighted that the medical profession is at considerably higher risk of suicide, as well as reporting higher rates of psychological distress and suicidal thinking.
The same Beyondblue report revealed that one of the most common barriers to seeking treatment for a mental health condition was concerns about the impact on their medical registration (34.3 per cent).
Dr Dhupelia said the Queensland model was not working.
“I see doctors who come to see me for their health and I can sense when they are not telling me what they have actually come for,” he said.
“… I want them to come into my room … not feeling like they are coming into a court room.”
Dr Bartone said that in considering a change to a new, nationally consistent model of mandatory reporting, he wanted highlight that the profession has a vastly increased regulatory, compliance and professional conduct apparatus in place, governing the medical sector.
“I know there are concerns about risk being introduced by changing this aspect of the law,” he said.
“All those health practitioners who work with the doctor will not be exempt from reporting any concerns. That will remain, as it does in the current WA model.
“Poor practice is most likely to be witnessed, in the work place – and this proposed change will not impact that being reported. There will still be mandatory reporting occurring. The WA experience shows this.
“Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA) annual report figures show that mandatory notifications have risen in Western Australia since the exemption came into effect – from 12 in 2011/12 to 38 in 2017/18.
“A change in the law will not mean that our professional and ethical responsibilities will disappear.
“They remain, we take them seriously, we always will. It just means an exemption for the treating practitioner, for treating health issues, of another practitioner.”
CHRIS JOHNSON
IT IS MEMBERSHIP RENEWAL TIME
Thank you for being an AMA member. Your membership keeps us strong.
There will be a Federal Election in 2019. Health policy will help determine the next Government.
Your AMA will be advocating for:
- Significant new investment in general practice
- MBS review outcomes that improve the delivery of health care
- Increased public hospital funding
- National Mandatory Reporting laws that help doctors and patients
- Better value and more transparent private health insurance
- A My Health Record that protects patient privacy and confidentiality
- Better health care for asylum seekers and refugees
- A greater focus on mental health
- Urgent action on aged care reform
- Strategic funding and programs to improve Indigenous health
- A reinvigorated approach to public health and prevention
- Cohesive medical workforce and training policies across all governments
The AMA is the only organisation that can cover the depth and breadth of health policy across the Federal, State/Territory, and local levels. The AMA is your partner to influence and improve health policy, and to provide advice and resources to support you in your practice and career.
The AMA is the voice of the medical profession and the voice of the patients in our care. The AMA is your voice.
Simply renew your tax-deductible membership online or contact your local AMA office.
[Editorial] Health-care system staffing: a universal shortfall
In a world where the population is growing and living longer, the health-care workforce is not keeping up with demand. Two reports—published by The King’s Fund on Nov 15 and Wemos, an independent civil society organisation, and the Association of Malawian Midwives on Nov 11—show how two very different health systems are facing similar predicaments over staffing.
Issues to be aware of when responding to compliance audits
BY DR RICHARD KIDD, CHAIR, AMA COUNCIL OF GENERAL PRACTICE
The Department of Health regularly conducts compliance audits of practitioners to ensure that the amounts claimed under the Medicare Benefits Schedule (MBS) are correct. I thought it might be beneficial to provide you with some information about the Department’s processes, your obligations and options when responding to an audit. The AMA’s Legal Counsel has assisted me in this to ensure you understand the process and are equipped to respond to any compliance concerns that may arise while still protecting patient privacy.
When conducting an audit, the Department’s general approach is to:
(1) identify the practitioners to be targeted in the audit. This could be through tip offs or data analysis;
(2) send the identified practitioners a letter asking them to verify their compliance; and
(3) depending on the audit target’s response, issue a Notice to Produce under section 129AAD of the Health Insurance Act 1973.
The following looks at the privacy and other issues that GPs and general practice managers need to be aware of at each stage of the process.
Initial letter
The initial letter will usually advise the practitioner of the concern that has given rise to the compliance action; and ask them to provide evidence that they have met the requirements of the items being audited. This evidence is usually in the form of some documentation.
Practitioners should note that this letter is asking practitioners to voluntarily:
- provide documentation to support their claims; or
- acknowledge where they have not fully met the requirement of the item claimed and thus have been overpaid.
Practitioners need to be mindful of protecting patient privacy when voluntarily providing documentation to support their claims. The sections below have more information on why and how.
Practitioners who think they may have claimed inappropriately may avoid an administrative penalty if they voluntarily acknowledge their error and the overpayment of benefits. Where the Department has already sent an initial letter, the maximum reduction of the administrative penalty is 50 per cent. Any overpayments plus any applicable penalty will then be raised as debt owing for repayment.
Notice to Produce
Depending on the outcome of the initial letter, the Department may issue a Notice to Produce.
A practitioner can still receive a reduction in the administrative penalty after a Notice to Produce is issued, if they voluntarily acknowledge the overpayment before the time to respond to the Notice to Produce expires. However, the maximum reduction is lower (25 per cent) than if the practitioner had acknowledged the error prior to receiving the Notice to Produce.
Practitioners will have at least 21 days to respond before the Notice to Produce expires and a debt for the claims in question is raised.
Privacy issues
Australian Privacy Principle 6 prohibits practitioners from disclosing their patient’s records unless an exception applies. A key exception is where disclosure is ‘required or authorised by law’ (APP 6.2).
A practitioner is legally required to comply with a Notice to Produce. This means that a practitioner will not be breaching the Privacy Act if they provide patient information in response to a Notice to Produce. However:
- practitioners should only provide patient information to the extent necessary to comply with the Notice to Produce; and
- the AMA recommends that practitioners exercise their statutory right to only provide documentation containing ‘clinical details relating to an individual’ to a departmental medical adviser.
By contrast, a practitioner may breach the Privacy Act if they provide any documentation containing health information prior to the Department issuing a Notice to Produce. This is because practitioners are not legally required to respond to the initial letter. This means that practitioners:
- should not volunteer any patient information at the initial letter stage; and
- if they do choose to respond, must redact enough personal information to protect the privacy of the patient.
So why does the Department send initial letters?
Part of the reason why the Department sends initial letters is that voluntary compliance avoids more expensive and difficult compliance processes.
The other reason is that section 129AAD of the Health Insurance Act provides that the CEO Medicare must give practitioners an opportunity to respond to a request for documents before they issue a Notice to Produce. In other words, they must ask you to provide supporting documentation even though it is not mandatory for you to do so, and if you do and that documentation contains patient information you will be breaching the Privacy Act, before they can issue a binding Notice to Produce, which then protects you under the Privacy Act for providing the information.
Other consequences of voluntary repayments
The AMA appreciates that practitioners may choose to voluntarily acknowledge an overpayment to avoid the administrative costs of locating records to prove their claims were legitimate. However, practitioners should be aware that if they voluntarily acknowledge an overpayment, any associated incentive payments claimed in conjunction with the payments for services that have been voluntarily acknowledged will also be recoverable.
The Department of Health also discourages practitioners from voluntarily acknowledging “no service” when a service was provided because of the flow on impacts on the patient’s My Health Record and MBS claim history.
Accordingly, it is recommended that practitioners consult with their medical defence organisation before responding or submitting any documentation to the Department to ensure they are aware and understand the financial and legal consequences.
COAG blows chance for genuine NRAS reform
BY AMA PRESIDENT DR TONY BARTONE
The AMA recently lodged its submission to the COAG Health Council on the Regulation of Australia’s health professions: Keeping the National Law up to date and fit for purpose.
The Council is considering potential reforms to the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (the National Law), which provides the legislative base for the National Registration and Accreditation Scheme (NRAS) for doctors.
Our submission spells out how the AMA considers the COAG Health Council has blown a genuine opportunity to properly evaluate the effectiveness of the National Law.
The COAG consultation document provided to stakeholders did not allow proper analysis of the effectiveness of the scheme.
In the absence of data or any analysis, the consultation paper simply offered a grab-bag of poorly thought-out ideas and thoughts. It lacked intellectual rigour.
The AMA’s major concerns include:
Chairing of National Boards
- The Chair of the Medical Board is a very influential and challenging position, and a non‑medical Chair is simply not equipped or appropriate in this position.
- In the AMA submission to the implementation project for the National Scheme, the AMA first requested that this proposal not proceed. It is frustrating that we have been providing the same advice on this issue, yet it keeps coming back.
Improving the notification and assessment process
- The AMA has supported increased transparency and efficiency throughout the notifications processes since the NRAS was established. Responding to demands for documentation is time consuming and can be stressful when the practitioner is not confident that they are appropriately satisfying the demand.
- There are a number of proposals in the consultation document that would make the current system more efficient and workable. The AMA supports these changes.
Right of appeal of a caution
- The AMA has previously called on the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA) to add a provision for a practitioner to seek independent review of a decision by the Medical Board to issue a caution, and supports this proposal.
- A caution can have a significant negative detrimental effect on a practitioner’s career; and the civil, criminal, and administrative legal systems in Australia generally provide avenues for appeal for decisions that have serious economic or personal consequences on individuals.
Reporting of professional negligence settlements and judgements
- The AMA strongly opposes this proposal and supports the status quo. The AMA believes that the proposed amendments are fraught and have the potential to make significant detrimental changes to the medical insurance landscape.
Production of documents and the privilege against self-incrimination
- The AMA cannot find reasons that AHPRA and the National Boards want to remove this basic common law right and/or create an alternative regime for admissibility of evidence. The AMA does not support this proposal and will strongly contest its development and implementation.
Public statements and warnings
- The AMA does not support the Medical Board or AHPRA being able to issue a public warning even before a tribunal has completed its actions. To do so would imply guilt, and is likely to ruin a practitioner’s reputation.
- A public warning is a severe and non-retractable step and should never be considered before a health practitioner has been shown to have breached a code of conduct or been convicted of a relevant offence.
The AMA submission is at submission/ama-submission-second-stage-reforms-national-registration-and-accreditation-scheme
AMA success on My Health Record
AMA lobbying regarding the My Health Record system has paid off, with the Senate Committee conducting an inquiry into it accepting many of the AMA’s suggestions and the Government moving to legislate some of them.
Health Minister Greg Hunt has announced measures to strengthen safety and privacy measures, and to protect against domestic violence and misuse of the system.
“We have examined the recommendations from the Senate Inquiry, we have listened to concerns raised by a range of groups and My Health Record users,” he said.
The Government is moving amendments to Labor’s original legislation to further strengthen the My Health Record Act.
These include:
- Increasing penalties for improper use of a My Health Record.
- Strengthening provisions to safeguard against domestic violence. The proposed provisions will ensure that a person cannot be the authorised representative of a minor if they have restricted access to the child, or may pose a risk to the child, or a person associated with the child.
- Prohibiting an employer from requesting and using health information in an individual’s My Health Record and protecting employees and potential employees from discriminatory use of their My Health Record. Importantly, employers or insurers cannot simply avoid the prohibition by asking the individuals to share their My Health Record information with them.
- No health information or de-identified data to be released to private health insurers, and other types of insurers for research or public health purposes.
- The proposed amendments also reinforce that the My Health Record system is a critical piece of national health infrastructure operating for the benefit of all Australians, by removing the ability of the System Operator to delegate functions to organisations other than the Department of Health and the Chief Executive of Medicare.
“Furthermore, the Government will conduct a review looking into whether it is appropriate that parents have default access to the records of 14-17 year-olds,” the Minister said.
The proposed amendments are in addition to those announced in July, which have already passed the Lower House. They include that law enforcement agencies can only access a person’s My Health Record with a warrant or court order and anyone who chooses to cancel a record at any time will have that record permanently deleted.
AMA President Dr Tony Bartone supported the Government’s proposed amendments.
“We initially worked with the Government on a first draft of the Bill to fix the concerns about warrant access, and to allow people to delete their record, which gives them the practical ability to opt-out at any time should they choose,” Dr Bartone said.
“These amendments are now in the Bill.
“We also called for a significant national communications effort to ensure that people know more about the My Health Record.
“In a positive move, the Senate Committee agrees that the legislation should now be passed.
“The AMA also supports the Labor amendments to the Bill. We consulted Labor about their suggestions and agree that they further improve the Bill, and provide stronger protections for our patients.
“We have had successful Committee review of the legislation, improvements made with the input of the Opposition, and consultation to hear and respond to major stakeholder concerns.
“We also welcome the commitment to review the issue of parental access to the records of 14-17 year-olds.
“This and other concerns that arise can be addressed through policy change once the My Health Record Act is passed.”
Shadow Health Minister Catherine King said more needed to be done.
“The Liberals are finally moving to clean up their My Health Record mess – by adopting Labor’s proposed changes – but they still need to act and extend the opt-out period,” she said.
In its final report, the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs has acknowledged the AMA’s input to the inquiry and the AMA agrees with many of the Committee recommendations.
Senior executives and doctors from the AMA appeared before Senate hearings on the matter, as well as submitting written recommendations for the way forward with My Health Record.
Of particular concern for the AMA were privacy issues and the sharing of information to third parties from a patient’s My Health Record.
The AMA called for warrant-only access to My Health Record data for law enforcement and other Government purposes; permanent deletion of all data in a patient’s My Health Record if the patient opts out; and stronger provisions to prohibit health insurer and employer access to My Health Record data – this includes a prohibition on health insurers access under the secondary use framework.
CHRIS JOHNSON
Minister announces two new listings on the PBS
Two major new listings on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) have the potential to extend the lives of Australians with advanced lung cancer and those at risk of a heart attack, saving patients almost $190,000 a year.
November is Lung Cancer Awareness Month and from November 1, patients with advanced lung cancer will have the treatment Keytruda® subsidised for first-line treatment of metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).
Without PBS subsidy it would cost over $11,300 per script or $188,000 a year. Patients will now pay a maximum of $39.50 per script or just $6.40 per script for concessional patients, including pensioners.
This listing means that for the first time eligible patients with advanced lung cancer can avoid chemotherapy and be treated with this novel immunotherapy treatment Keytruda®. It will benefit about 850 patients a year.
Keytruda® is an immunotherapy medicine working with a patient’s own immune system to recognise cancer cells and destroy them. Clinical trials of Keytruda® for lung cancer has shown that some patients became virtually cancer free after treatment.
This medicine is already listed on the PBS for classical Hodgkin’s lymphoma and unresectable Stage III or Stage IV malignant melanoma.
The Federal Government is also listing Repatha® from November 1 for the treatment of familial hypercholesterolaemia, which is a genetic high cholesterol condition.
More than 6,000 people with the condition, who are at risk of having a heart attack or stroke at an early age, will benefit from the treatment.
Patients would normally pay around $630 a script, or more than $8000 a year. With its listing on the PBS, eligible patients will pay a maximum of $39.50 per script for Repatha or just $6.40 with a concession card.
These listings with help the thousands of Australians and their families fighting lung cancer and the devastating impact of heart disease.
In announcing the new listings, Health Minister Greg Hunt said the Government was providing Australian patients with access to life-saving and life-changing medicines quicker than ever before.
“We are now making on average one new or amended PBS listing every single day,” Mr Hunt said.
“In the Budget we announced our commitment to invest $2.4 billion in new medicines to build on our commitment to guarantee those essential services that all Australians rely on.
“Our commitment to the PBS is rock solid. Together with Medicare, it is a foundation of our world-class health care system.”
The independent Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC) recommended the listings that have been announced.
The Committee is independent of Government by law and in practice. By law, the Federal Government cannot list a new medicine without a positive recommendation from PBAC.