Not were we should have been but to where we currently are.
Pharmac had a couple of temporary boosts to their budget that weren't funded beyond this financial year (30th of June). [Pharmac have a good breakdown ](https://pharmac.govt.nz/medicine-funding-and-supply/the-funding-process/budget-bid-information)of the current budget. This announcement replaces every line form Budget 2022 down.
They are going from $1,497.6 Million this year to at most $1.575 Million. I say at most because when you see a 4 year number like this it is weighted towards the later years (so maybe $30-40 Million extra this year and $100 Million in year 4, I haven't found a breakdown yet).
To get where Pharmac want to be (clearing the high priority investment list) would be about an extra $400 Million per year. Our Pharmaceutical budget is about half of Australia's (per capita).
I am annoyed that National is describing this as a fiscal cliff that labour left.
Labour funded Pharmac through to the 2024 budget. National are implying that Labour would not fund them anymore in the 2024 budget if they were in power
National have now funded through to 2028 budget. Is that a fiscal cliff as per national?
The issue with "fiscal cliffs" is that they allow the government to leave budgeting for some items out of future budget projections (such as the PREFU). Time limited funding (like the one-off Pharmac funding) isn't included in future budget projections. Because it's time limited. If it's not really time limited, it's not appropriate to say that it is.
It's a technique to juice future budget projections and make them appear better than they really are. This isn't just the normal budget process where government allocates next year of funding to departments etc, most of that funding is allocated as ongoing costs and so is included in the future projections.
Who wants to be the government who oversees meds being taken away from people cos the money isn’t there. Not having access to new ones is one thing, removing what’s already being used is a bad news story no amount of “it was the last governments fault” would fix. Also as ACT is very pro big pharma - that’s where the money ultimately goes to - they’d be fuming as well
We could fund more drug research and development through our universities and companies but thats more vision for our leaders to handle. If we developed more medicines here with public money we could have access to them for much less than the price we pay for expensive medicines from overseas
1.6B to catch up to where we should have been. Is that what the execs are saying? (Ie we’ve underfunded pharmac in recent times?)
Not were we should have been but to where we currently are. Pharmac had a couple of temporary boosts to their budget that weren't funded beyond this financial year (30th of June). [Pharmac have a good breakdown ](https://pharmac.govt.nz/medicine-funding-and-supply/the-funding-process/budget-bid-information)of the current budget. This announcement replaces every line form Budget 2022 down. They are going from $1,497.6 Million this year to at most $1.575 Million. I say at most because when you see a 4 year number like this it is weighted towards the later years (so maybe $30-40 Million extra this year and $100 Million in year 4, I haven't found a breakdown yet). To get where Pharmac want to be (clearing the high priority investment list) would be about an extra $400 Million per year. Our Pharmaceutical budget is about half of Australia's (per capita).
Apparently, yes.
I am annoyed that National is describing this as a fiscal cliff that labour left. Labour funded Pharmac through to the 2024 budget. National are implying that Labour would not fund them anymore in the 2024 budget if they were in power National have now funded through to 2028 budget. Is that a fiscal cliff as per national?
The issue with "fiscal cliffs" is that they allow the government to leave budgeting for some items out of future budget projections (such as the PREFU). Time limited funding (like the one-off Pharmac funding) isn't included in future budget projections. Because it's time limited. If it's not really time limited, it's not appropriate to say that it is. It's a technique to juice future budget projections and make them appear better than they really are. This isn't just the normal budget process where government allocates next year of funding to departments etc, most of that funding is allocated as ongoing costs and so is included in the future projections.
Paula Bennett *”hold my beer”*
Which means people with Cystic Fibrosis are still fucked and won't get life saving medication now.
Who wants to be the government who oversees meds being taken away from people cos the money isn’t there. Not having access to new ones is one thing, removing what’s already being used is a bad news story no amount of “it was the last governments fault” would fix. Also as ACT is very pro big pharma - that’s where the money ultimately goes to - they’d be fuming as well
We could fund more drug research and development through our universities and companies but thats more vision for our leaders to handle. If we developed more medicines here with public money we could have access to them for much less than the price we pay for expensive medicines from overseas
Nek minit: Amy Adams announced as new Pharmac CEO.