- 5 years ago
1 September 2021
Medicine stakeholders have waited years for a review of Australia’s ageing National Medicines Policy (NMP), first inked way back in 2000. In fact, the need for a review was first flagged by PBAC chair Andrew Wilson at the annual Medicines Australia event PharmAus held in Australian Parliament House back in September 2017.
Four years later, the review is finally getting underway and, almost to order for Professor Wilson who maintains the document is largely still relevant, it appears the review will consist of nothing more than a “refresh” of the older policy document.
A discussion paper released this week states the NMP review will draw on the 207 submissions made to the so-called Zimmerman inquiry conducted over the past 12 months which is expected to hand its final report to Health Minister Greg Hunt around the same time as the deadline for submissions to the NMP review close.
There is no doubt the Government has put the horse before the cart with these two important events. In holding a parliamentary review “focusing on the programs and processes that support the delivery” of one of the four central objectives of the NMP before reviewing the policy itself was clearly not ideal.
Professor Wilson told MedNews a few months back the parliamentary inquiry was indeed hampered by the delay in the NMP review as it “would have gone more miles if we’d had the NMP out of the way because we could have had an agreement on the principles we were applying, and the Zimmerman inquiry could have focused on the practicalities around that”.
But the discussion paper also demonstrates the Government believes the NMP to be largely okay, with potentially little change needed other than, perhaps, a greater focus on the role of the consumer.
Another document detailing the key themes to come out of a workshop held in January 2020 released this week states participants “emphasised the need for a patient-centric focus within the NMP to empower consumers to make informed choices about the quality use of medicine (QUM)”.
The NMP review committee, led by Deputy Chief Medical Officer Michael Kidd, clearly listened. The word ‘consumer’ appears 56 times in the NMP discussion document and is one of six key ‘themes’ of the paper.
“This is a review aimed at identifying any gaps in the NMP’s objectives, partnership approach and accountabilities,” the Terms of Reference state.
The review will consequently evaluate the current objectives, its definition of medicines, its utility in the current context, the centricity of consumers, options to improve its governance and communication, and how to make it more accountable. A draft revised NMP will be released in late November or early December providing another opportunity for feedback.
The discussion document, the closing date for submissions coinciding with the Zimmerman final report, the fast turnaround and the language used in the document all suggest the NMP review will be little more than a rubber-stamping of the current policy with a few minor adjustments to appease patients and provide them with a greater voice.
The word “refresh” is used seven times throughout the discussion document, while of the 13 questions it asks, many suggest maintaining the status quo is the most likely outcome with a ‘do you really need a change?’ focus rather than a ‘how could this be better?’. If this ‘discussion paper’ were a lawyer, it would be accused of leading the witness.
Given the review is also likely to clash with a Federal election along with Australia emerging from the biggest event to hit the nation since World War II, the NMP review in every way is looking like a political whitewash.
Likewise with the Zimmerman report, which will go to Minister Hunt’s office and may not see the light of day for months, potentially buried until after the election then subject to the political whim of the next government to pick and choose which recommendations it may or may not implement.
InGeNA chair David Bunker sounds the alarm bell in MedNews today saying genomics is driving the pace of social change so fast, couples will soon be discussing “whether they want a child who can play chess or run fast along with what school they might attend”, and urging policymakers and funders to move quickly to get ahead of the conversation.
The long-awaited and much-anticipated NMP review presents the ideal opportunity to do just that by having a detailed and involved discussion around genomics, new technologies and treatments, real-world evidence and the future of healthcare. Instead, the Government has opted for a rapid ‘refresh’, plugging a few gaps and giving the old policy a new lick-and-polish.
Perhaps it is testament to the robust nature of the NMP and its ability to stand the test of time, with the Government’s ‘if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it’ attitude appropriate. Whether the ‘refreshed’ policy does indeed cope as well over the next 20 years as it has for the past two decades, only time will tell.
©MedNews 2021