What will political parties deliver for Kiwis in need of medicines?
As parties roll out their election policies, thousands of New Zealanders are watching for commitments that could change their lives. The cost of living is biting hard, but for those forced to find the money for medicines the public system does not fund, it goes further: it becomes the literal cost of staying alive and living well.
New Zealand has the poorest publicly funded access to modern medicines among comparable OECD countries. In the last decade, just 5% of modern medicines launched worldwide have been publicly funded here. The average among OECD peer nations was 33%.
That’s why, this election, 17 patient organisations have come together through Forbidden Pharmacy, a campaign highlighting New Zealand’s medicines access gap, with two clear asks:
- Fund the medicines New Zealand needs and Pharmac are recommending.
- Set a long-term plan so New Zealand stops falling behind comparable countries.
Following an open letter signed by more than 12,000 people calling for these commitments, the campaign asked political parties to set out how they would improve medicines access.
It asked seven political parties the same three questions about medicines funding. Of the parties that responded, three specify how medicines funding would increase and when: ACT, National and Te Pāti Māori. The Green Party and Labour support increased medicines funding but do not specify an amount or implementation timeframe. The Opportunity Party proposes an increase in overall health funding, without a separate allocation for medicines. NZ First did not respond.
The parties’ written responses to the campaign’s asks are summarised below, in alphabetical order:
- ACT: would increase the share of the health budget spent on medicines by one percentage point each year, reaching parity with Australia in medicines spending as a share of the health budget by 2033, without increasing the overall health budget beyond what is already expected.
- Green Party: committed to increasing sustained Pharmac funding, including for the Options for Investment list, and supports a long-term plan to align medicines spending with OECD countries. No specific scope or timeframe stated.
- Labour: will look for opportunities to increase medicines funding over time and supports a long-term plan, with timeframes to be developed in government. No specific scope stated.
- National: committed to a further $604 million uplift in Pharmac’s medicines budget over four years, according to its published policy. No long-term medicines target or timeframe stated.
- NZ First: did not respond.
- Opportunity Party: proposes lifting total health funding from 7.4% to 9% of GDP over ten years, which it expects to increase investment in medicines with experts determining the share of spending on medicines within a ten-year health plan.
- Te Pāti Māori: will increase Pharmac funding to clear the Options for Investment list by 2030 and raise medicines investment to at least the OECD average by 2030, measured as a share of total government spending rather than health spending.
September polling found more than eight in ten New Zealanders considered funding Pharmac-recommended medicines and a long-term plan to close the gap with comparable countries important, with consistently high results across the political spectrum.
Medicines featured in the NZ Herald leaders’ debate on 14 October. Christopher Luxon and Chris Hipkins agreed to meet within the first 100 days after the election to discuss long-term approaches to major national issues. Both agreed to include medicines funding in those discussions, sealing the commitment with a handshake.
For Diane, who lives with oesophageal cancer and is forced to self-fund her treatment, the election offers an opportunity for change and much-needed hope for her and others in a similar position.
“Self-funding medicine has drastically improved my outcomes. But paying for treatment brings ongoing financial pressure alongside living with cancer. No one should have to weigh up the chance of a longer life against whether they can afford medicines. Especially those readily available in other similar countries.
“Whoever forms the next government, I want them to understand what these decisions mean for patients and our families and make improving access to medicines a priority. I encourage people to read the parties’ policies for themselves, make sure they’re enrolled, and vote.”
For more information, visit www.forbiddenpharmacy.org/party-responses
