The big surprise about this year’s health budget was what wasn’t there – billions of dollars in expected savings from the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS).
In the past week, pharmacists and drug companies have been widely reported as being “on the brink of war” with the federal government, over well-sourced predictions that the budget would try to save as much as $5 billion from the PBS over the next five years.
Those savings were expected to come in large part through a 5% cut in what the government paid for key prescription drugs, potentially worth billions, along with $400 million in savings from pharmacists.
Both Medicines Australia and the Pharmacy Guild had been preparing public campaigns against the planned cuts. Last week The Australian reported that Medicines Australia chairman Martin Cross had written to the Prime Minister asking him to intervene.
On Tuesday, the budget papers revealed that instead of billions in PBS cost-savings, just $252.2 million over five years would be saved through adjusting the price of a number of PBS-listed drugs. Talks with industry are said to be continuing.
Meanwhile, new drugs to treat melanoma and breast cancer will become more affordable from the middle of this year, under a $1.6 billion boost over five years that is also funding other recently listed PBS treatments for asthma and multiple sclerosis.
Among this year’s health measures, the single biggest cost to the bottom line was a hangover from last year: the federal government’s failure to persuade the Senate and public to support cutting $5 off the rebate it pays GPs for common doctor visits. The budget papers show the reversal of that policy will cost $2.9 billion between 2014-15 and 2018-19.
But there was better news on the big ticket health item of the Coalition’s first budget – the announcement of a Medical Research Future Fund (MRFF). It will receive $400 million over the next four years, starting with $10 million in this financial year. But that’s still a long way short of the government’s stated plan to see the MRRF become a $20 billion fund in 2019-2020.
Read David Glance’s analysis of the government’s $485 million e-health package here.
Vaccination efforts have been boosted on a number of fronts, including offering Australians aged in their 70s a free vaccination for shingles, an extra $6 payment for doctors who vaccinate children overdue for their shots, and the previously announced “No Jab, No Pay” cut to payments to parents who don’t immunise their children.
From January 1, 2016, only those with medical exemptions will be able to opt out of vaccinating their children or else face losing access to childcare payments and Family Tax Benefit Part A payments. The new “No Jab, No Pay” policy is forecast to save $72 million this financial year and a total of $508 million by 2019.
Other major savings in health include $962.8 million over five years (starting from 2014-15) from “rationalising and streamlining” a range of health programmes, including cuts to preventative health research and GP Super Clinics that had not yet started being built.
A further $113.1 million over five years are also saved through “smaller government” measures, including to avoid service duplication.
PBS changes
Mike Woods, Professor of Health Economics, University of Technology, Sydney
Cost containment in the pharmaceuticals budget is difficult. This year’s budget is no exception. The budget papers proudly announce additional expenditure of $1.6 billion over five years for new and amended listings on the PBS. These measures were all pre-announced on 9 May by the Minister for Health, garnering support from cancer patients and others who will benefit from more affordable access to expensive medicines and vaccines.
But what of the much heralded savings measures, including cutting the price for patent-protected medicines and reducing the price of generic drugs? These measures seemed to have a good fiscal return and only a modest impost on pharmaceutical companies.
The moves were expected to provoke a fight with the drug industry. The industry body Medicines Australia, in the lead-up to the budget, has been claiming that the proposed changes are arbitrary, unplanned and not in the public interest.
The government’s response is contained in a single sentence deep within the Budget Overview:
The Government … is in the final stages of negotiations with industry on reforms to pricing and remuneration across the supply chain to underpin the future sustainability of the PBS.
And the public is left to question whether the self-interest of the drug companies or the government’s judgement in its pursuit of savings will lead to the better outcome. Indeed, in the absence of a transparent and open review of PBS pricing, that’s all we can do.
The government’s proposal to allow pharmacists to discount the PBS payment by $1 is also missing. It would have been a welcome attempt to introduce greater competition into the heavily protected industry, to the benefit of consumers. But even this measure avoids the real issues – the pharmacy ownership and location protections that distort market behaviour.
The real action is also in “the final stages of negotiations”, behind closed doors with the Pharmacy Guild on a new five-year community pharmacy agreement which is due to start on 1 July. This budget doesn’t give any comfort that there will be major reform in the public interest.
Medical Research Future Fund
David Hunter, Associate Professor of Medical Ethics, Flinders University
The Medical Research Future Fund, one of the failed measures introduced in the last Coalition budget is to go ahead, with an initial investment of $400 million to be followed by an investment fund of $1 billion. The central idea is to fund medical research from the interest earned by the money to create a self-sustaining research fund.
The measure failed last time around because it was tied to the introduction of GP co-payments, which were generally regarded as unfair and scrapped. While the government has clearly learnt a lesson and not tied the fund to a specific cut, the money for the MRFF is still coming directly from the health-care budget.
As I argued after last year’s budget announcement, this is in essence a regressive move.
While we don’t yet know the funding agenda of the MRFF, new medical research is more likely to benefit the already well off, whereas cutting current health-care resources disproportionately impacts on the poor.
E-health, prevention and primary care
Peter Breadon, Health Fellow, Grattan Institute
The 2014 budget’s big primary health care idea was a fee for GP visits and tests. After a fierce backlash it failed to pass the Senate.