Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Pharmacological and ethical comparisons of lung cancer medicine accessibility in Australia and New Zealand
  1. Elizabeth Fenton1,
  2. John Ashton2
  1. 1Bioethics Centre, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand
  2. 2Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand
  1. Correspondence to Dr Elizabeth Fenton, Bioethics Centre, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand; elizabeth.fenton{at}otago.ac.nz

Abstract

Gaps in funded cancer medicines between New Zealand and Australia can have significant implications for patients and their families. Pharmac, the New Zealand pharmaceutical funding agency, has been criticised for not funding enough cancer medicines, and a 2022 review identified ethical concerns about its utilitarian focus on efficiency. However, as the costs of new cancer medicines rise along with public and political pressure to fund them, questions about value for money remain critical for health systems worldwide. In this paper, we compare funding for cancer medicines in New Zealand and Australia, specifically medicines for non-small cell lung cancer. We argue that the ethical imperatives on funding agencies to get value for money and provide medicines for patients with cancer underscore the importance of transparent decision-making processes, including identifying and explaining intercountry differences in funded medicines.

  • Ethics
  • Policy
  • Resource Allocation
  • Quality of Health Care

Data availability statement

There are no data in this work.

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Data availability statement

There are no data in this work.

View Full Text

Footnotes

  • Contributors JA and EF conceptualised and drafted the paper. EF led the preparation of the manuscript for publication with critical feedback from JA. The final version of the manuscript has been reviewed and approved by both authors. EF and JA are jointly responsible for the overall content as guarantors.

  • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Other content recommended for you