9. Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) Link to this
to the Minister of Health
Is he confident that Pharmac’s forthcoming decision on whether to fund Herceptin will be based on proven scientific evidence and in the best interests of New Zealand women with breast cancer; if so, why?
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) Link to this
I am confident that any decision on Herceptin will be based on all available evidence and expert clinical advice, and will consider all the options.
Does the Minister stand by his statement in the House on 10 October when he said that Herceptin was not funded because the number of women was sufficiently small that “we did not think it was worth a $30 million per annum investment”; if so, how does he think it makes women like MhairiFlett, mother of Sophie and Brodie, feel to hear him say she is not worth it?
As I said in the House yesterday, Pharmac continues to keep the issue of Herceptin under close review. It is following data that becomes available pretty much every month, and is, in fact, looking quite hard at new data this week.
Ann HartleyThe commitment is very strong. The member will be aware that not only have we increased breast screening by almost 20 percent per annum—and it continues to increase significantly, with another three mobile units coming on stream presently to ensure that rural women, Māori women, and so on have access—but also that this Government has both introduced new drugs against breast cancer and extended the range of treatment for other existing drugs.
Does the Minister consider that offering women with breast cancer an experimental and unproven 9-week course of Herceptin is in their best interests, when proven international best practice is 12 months of Herceptin—a practice that has been followed by 23 other OECD countries—or is he happy to let our women be the guinea pigs?
I think the member should be careful about besmirching a way of using Herceptin that is used in significant parts of Europe, especially in Finland, and is sometimes used in North America. It is the treatment of choice of some oncologists in those countries, especially in Finland, even though 12-month treatment is freely available in that country.
Rt Hon Winston Peters Link to this
Has the Minister read the documents I tabled yesterday, and familiarised himself with the 1,000 percent cost discrepancy quoted by both the previous Minister of Health and Pharmac before and after the 2005 election; if so, has he ordered an inquiry into why such a colossal discrepancy was quoted and who verified the pre-election figures, and, perhaps more important, could he tell us why the public should have confidence in Pharmac, which clearly set out to deceive both the previous Minister, the public, and cancer victims, and when will we see someone involved in that deceit being held accountable?
I have not launched an inquiry, but I have sent a message to Pharmac, asking it to please explain. My own view is that it made a mistake, but I do not know that. Certainly, in my time as Minister of Health no one has suggested that the cost of Herceptin would be $300 million. I think an extra zero was added. It would be $30 million, whether we were to go to 12 months’ treatment or less.
Is he prepared to take, and follow through with, the advice of New Zealand oncologists, given that they are meeting today with Finnish researchers brought to New Zealand by Pharmac to discuss the best way for Herceptin to be accessed by New Zealand women with breast cancer, and could he please explain why he says women are not worth the Government funding Herceptin?
I am very happy to take the views of the oncology community of this country. Indeed, Pharmac and its various subcommittees are consulting with it on that matter now in order to come to a way forward, if indeed there is one.
Will the Minister be signalling to Pharmac prior to its forthcoming decision that funds will be available for Herceptin, so that the decision whether to fund it is based on scientific fact and drug effectiveness, not drug cost?
The member seems to forget that the cancer treatment subcommittee of the President’s Information Technology Advisory Committee—which body is asked to look at effectiveness, not cost-effectiveness—itself came to the view that Herceptin was a low priority in this country.
Rt Hon Winston Peters Link to this
I seek leave to table evidence that proves that when it was pointed out to Pharmac that its figure of $300 million was grossly inaccurate, it persisted in using it, and still, to this time, has not put out any retraction.