HOT TOPICS:   Election 2014  |    NZ$   |  Housing affordability                                    RESOURCES:    Economic calendar   |  Travel currency tool

The comment stream

Recent comments

Reader poll

Have rising residential property values left you better or worse off financially?

Choices
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
6 + 1 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.

Join the Interest community to be a registered commenter so you can:
- Edit your comments
- Avoid the CAPTCHA
- Vote on comments
Register Here

Already registered? log back in here ..

Forgotten your password? No problem! Click here

Leave Pharmac alone America; just buy our butter and wool and we’ll buy your Harley Davidsons

Posted in Opinion

By Gareth Morgan

Free trade is a great thing.

It's basic economics; focus on what you are best at, and then trade with other people for the stuff you need.

The more people you have to trade with, the greater range of stuff you can get, and the better off you’ll be. Free trade has contributed to the post World War II boom which has created untold wealth and lifted billions of people around the world out of poverty.

Despite being the chief advocate for free trade, the United States has a reputation for negotiating trade deals that turn out to have more fish hooks in them than a Japanese long-liner. Could the Trans Pacific Partnership deal be shaping up to be another example? Behind the scenes, drug companies are spreading misinformation to undermine our State monopoly drug purchaser Pharmac.

The official argument from the drug companies is that Pharmac is anti-competitive. Anyone who looks at the pharmaceutical industry and reckons that is a competitive market has to be a bit loopy. It is an oligopoly at best, with a handful of huge players running the show across the entire globe.

Pharmac is a little bit like a forming a union to have equal bargaining power with big employers – it negotiates and purchases medicine on behalf of all of us.

In New Zealand, the public’s health is regarded as a social good, so we levy taxes and the State provides the public health services. We have rejected the private competition model for this sector. The US is slowly coming around to the fact that places like Canada and New Zealand deliver a better average health service. The US system is great if you are crook and have the bucks, it sucks if you don’t.

The drug company claims that Pharmac has failed are based on the fact that New Zealand’s pharmaceutical budget is much lower and growing slower than other countries. To suggest that this is a bad thing completely misses the point of having Pharmac in the first place; if anything this is a sign of Pharmac’s success!

While spending in most health sectors around the world (ours included) has been out of control, since its inception in 1993 Pharmac has stuck to its budget. So now spending is lower than elsewhere, and makes up a lower proportion of our otherwise bloated health system.

Another claim is that our access to medicines is much lower than overseas.

Wakey wakey folks. New Zealand is not as rich as the countries that we like to compare ourselves to. We may have just overtaken Greece in the OECD rankings, but this is hardly of our own doing. Our income per capita continues to slip behind Australia, and will probably continue to until we strip mine the Coromandel Peninsula. We have fewer resources, and so can afford less pharmaceuticals.

Pharmac is actually the envy of other countries that have far deeper pockets than us.

Pharmac’s job is to get the best value for the budget it manages, and it does this job very well. It does this by buying the medicines that add the most years of healthy life for the money spent, and striking the best deal with the pharmaceutical giants.

American bullies

Clearly these bullies are not used to someone standing up to them in the playground.

As a result, Pharmac spends around one fifth of the amount on statin drugs – which lower cholesterol levels and so reduce the risk of a heart attack - than the Aussies do. Given the colossal size of our heart disease problem this makes a massive difference to our drug bill. And this is what we should judge Pharmac on: not how much they spend, not whether they buy the latest unproven experimental drugs, but the value that they get for every dollar spent.

National shot themselves in the food on the whole Herceptin issue. At the time it was a cynical political vote grab, but now they face the consequences. In overruling Pharmac they implicitly agreed with the arguments of the drug companies and gave their arguments weight. Now the question is whether they will realise their mistake and stand up for Pharmac.

If we decide as a nation that we want more pharmaceutical spending, which National clearly did in the last election, they should have given the extra money to Pharmac and let them work out how to spend it. That way they can ensure we get the greatest number of extra healthy lives from every dollar of spending.

Rationing like this isn’t a pleasant job – someone always misses out and will inevitably complain. Not everyone likes the decisions that Pharmac makes. But at least these decisions are made in a fairly transparent, evidence based way. There is no better way of making these difficult decisions.

The problem is not Pharmac, the problem is that the rest of the health system isn’t more like Pharmac.

If the rest of the health system was more like Pharmac then we could more easily see where the best place is to put any extra money.

That is why since publishing the book Health Cheque together with co-author Geoff Simmons I have been advocating the formation of an independent body to prioritise all new health spending. This body would need to be led by health professionals. Under such a system we could see if we could keep more people alive by spending more on drug X and less on operation Y. That is the only way that we would really know if the amount we are spending on drugs makes sense or not. In the meantime, the current system is working pretty darn well.

But of course the drug oligopoly wishes it could control our drug budget, and will no doubt be seeking the backing of US government negotiators. Tough!

Leave Pharmac alone America, just buy our butter and wool and we’ll buy your Harley Davidsons.

Or get lost and we’ll deal with China instead.

-------------------

Gareth Morgan is a Director of Gareth Morgan Investments
This article was first published in the NZ Herald.

We welcome your help to improve our coverage of this issue. Any examples or experiences to relate? Any links to other news, data or research to shed more light on this? Any insight or views on what might happen next or what should happen next? Any errors to correct?

We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment in the box on the right or click on the "'Register" link at the bottom of the comments.

Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current Comment policy is here.

14 Comments

Excellent and well thought

Excellent and well thought out

Any government that gives Pharmac away deserves to never be in power again.

We may not like some of the decisions that Pharmac makes - but it is doing a great job.

Pity other agencies wernt as good.

 

Just tick anon's comment -

Just tick anon's comment - nothing to disagree with. Thanks Gareth

...about that strip mining.... 170,000 shovels?

Pharmac is a little bit like

Pharmac is a little bit like a forming a union to have equal bargaining power with big employers – it negotiates and purchases medicine on behalf of all of us.

I not dispute any of the articule, rather right behind it...Including the principle.

The principle..forming a union..is it not more than a coincidence that since the unions where neutraised, our lower wages have got lower, a far larger gap to the higher brackets, more ppl are paid less for more hours....

I dont believe this is the singe cause, other influnces like Government subsiding low incomes, force real wages lower and many other bits of social engineeering of the the last 30yrs.

It does strike my as rather strange that foruming a union works here but not else were 

well said, with Nats any

well said, with Nats any union is bad right?!

Funny that pharmac works

Funny that pharmac works well, Zespri works well where small players work together big things can happen. Where corporates are allowed to run amuck with poor management only financial meltdowns happen

I see 48 senators wrote

I see 48 senators wrote supporting the attempt to bring down Pharmac. Among other things they claimed there was a lack of transparency in Pharmac. What a joke. No doubt they receive campaign contributions from the pharmaceutical corporates in the land of the f......  Where is the transparency in that.

As an aside Gareth, I really

As an aside Gareth, I really like your latest purchase at Mount Maunganui. Its a very nice house. Looks well worth the $6,500,000 purchase price. Enjoy. Cheers

If Key goes ahead with this

If Key goes ahead with this free trade deal it will show just how shallow he is, anything to try and look good.
He's not stupid, he knows any deal with the US will not be free or fair.

It's a no brainer, don't go near the US with a trade deal, they will absolutely screw us.

  There' a lot more at stake

 

There' a lot more at stake here than Pharmac; Matt McCarten:

"These negotiations aren't about trade; they're about giving overseas corporates a guaranteed protection of their overseas investments. The proposed TPP isn't just restricted to shares in a company.

Under discussion is the intention to extend TPP to guarantee investments in residential and commercial property, mining concessions, banks and finance companies, and intellectual property rights. It will likely cover private contracts to run prisons, hospitals and schools as well.

 

More brazenly, they want any government to forfeit the right to introduce laws or policies that reduce the value of their investment without full compensation. They also want the right to sue for compensation before secret international tribunals.

Essentially, foreign corporates are requiring the TPP to give them iron-clad guarantees to make profits and more power over a government than its citizens could ever hope for. It's breathtakingly arrogant and sinister.

And don't think these corporates are bluffing. Under NAFTA, which this TPP is based, tobacco giant Phillip Morris sued the government of Paraguay for trying to put a levy on cigarettes to cover smoking-related health costs."

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10693673

I have to agree with this

I have to agree with this viewpoint....its been written about before....all I see is downsides.....just walk away IMHO.

BTW if we signed such an agreement and brought it into law, whats so hard to repeal the law?

regards

"whats so hard to repeal the

"whats so hard to repeal the law?"

Our Government of the day would be sued (and not in our courts) and have tough sanctions applied. In other words our sovereignty would exist in name only. 

Sued where? if there is no

Sued where? if there is no law in NZ there is nothing to sue against, there is no standing.

regards

Kiwidave is right.  And good

Kiwidave is right.  And good on Gareth for speaking out.

@ steven ---- Not sure what your back ground is, or if you are just being  disingenuous, but here you go--this link is from an Australian government website :

http://www.dfat.gov.au/fta/tpp/subs/tpp_sub_tienhaara_100519.pdf

The telling bit is on Page 3 -- "Concerns with Process":

"Historically, disputes between foreign investors and host states were resolved in local courts. However, in the 1960s an international system emerged that allowed investors to take claims against governments before arbitral panels.

This system was developed through the inclusion of clauses on investor-state dispute
settlement first in bilateral investment treaties (BITs) and later in bilateral and plurilateral
trade agreements that contained chapters on investment protection. Collectively, BITs and
investment chapters of trade agreements are referred to as international investment
agreements (IIAs)." 

(i.e. this is a normal part of Free Trade Agreements like TPP)

Any political party yet

Any political party yet stated that they'll walk away from TPP so long as the US is at the table?

It would be a sure vote winner!