Broken Promise
This promise was completely forgotten in Nicola Willis' 2024 Budget but was partly rectified in November due to the ensuing public outcry. At that time Shane Reti, then Minister of Health, stated that 'blood cancers would not be forgotten.'
$151million was allocated to Pharmac in 2024 over 4 years to purchase new cancer drugs. However, blood cancer patients have received hardly any of this. Pharmac predicts only about 180 people with blood cancers per annum will benefit from these changes.
'There are more than 2,000 people in NZ living with Chronic Lymphocytic Leukaemia and about half of whom require treatment at any one time. For most of them there is no treatment alternative to outdated medicines.
Just 15 Chronic Lymphocytic Leukaemia* patients per annum are expected to benefit from the funding largesse,' said Dr Ruth Spearing, 'and of these 15, 5 approvals are for Bendamustine — a derivative of nitrogen mustard, which was originally developed during WWII and is rarely used in other countries now.'
Dr Spearing said 'This is another stark (and, for many, fatal) broken election promise'.
*CLL
Dr Ruth Spearing,
Haematologist and Trustee of CLL Advocates NZ
CNZM, FRACP, FRCPA
Rob Crozier,
Patient and Trustee of CLL Advocates NZ
Background
New Zealand funds the smallest number of new blood cancer drugs in the OECD and spends less per head of population on drugs when corrected for GDP than ANY other OECD country. This is well below the spending of countries with similar levels of wealth. Not many New Zealanders are aware of this.
Pharmac's lack of funding impacts on the ability of Health NZ to treat patients as the less effective intravenous drugs are funded rather than oral alternatives, leading to lack of spaces to treat patients in infusion centres as well as much less effective outcomes.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scoop
3 hours ago
- Scoop
Endometriosis NZ Urges Adoption Of New Clinical Guideline
Endometriosis New Zealand is calling on the Ministry of Health and Te Whatu Ora to urgently replace New Zealand's outdated clinical practice recommendations for endometriosis (Ministry of Health, New Zealand, 2020) with the new Australian Living Evidence Guideline (RANZCOG, 2025) developed by The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RANZCOG). "This new guideline represents the gold standard in evidence-based care and is already being implemented across Australia," says Dr Michael Wynn-Williams, Chair of Endometriosis New Zealand's Clinical Advisory Committee. The new RANZCOG guideline recommends the use of non-invasive imaging such as pelvic ultrasound as a first-line diagnostic tool, moving away from the reliance on diagnostic laparoscopy, which has long contributed to excessive wait times for diagnosis in New Zealand. Dr Michael Wynn-Williams says the current 2020 Ministry of Health document is no longer fit for purpose. "Our current guideline is now outdated and out of step with modern diagnostic and treatment practices." "By contrast, RANZCOG's new guideline reflects the latest evidence and provides clear recommendations for early diagnosis as well as first-line hormonal treatment to be run in parallel with diagnostic investigations. These are crucial to reducing the delays in diagnosis and treatment that too many patients still experience." The adoption of this guideline would bring New Zealand into line with global best practice and ensure patients receive faster, less invasive and more equitable care, says Endometriosis New Zealand Chief Executive Tanya Cooke. "We have written to the Ministry and Te Whatu Ora urging them to adopt the new guideline as soon as possible. It's also really important that they work with RANZCOG and others to support application of it across the sector, and for the benefit of the 120,000 New Zealanders living with endometriosis."
Otago Daily Times
a day ago
- Otago Daily Times
NZ sends support to Samoa after dengue fever outbreak
The Aedes aegypti is one of the mosquitos that transmits dengue fever in Samoa. Photo: Supplied/ CDC Public Health Image Library - Frank Hadley Collins via RNZ New Zealand is sending a small health team and $300,000 worth of medical supplies to Samoa to assist with a major outbreak of dengue fever. Samoa has recorded more than 5000 cases and at least five deaths since the outbreak was declared in April. Foreign Minister Winston Peters said New Zealand stood with Samoa in this time of need - and was ready to provide further support as requested. "We stand ready to provide further support as requested by Samoa," Peters said. Senior New Zealand public health officials are also in contact with their Samoa counterparts. New Zealand does not have the mosquitoes able to transmit dengue but public health officials say the number of cases are also surging in Aotearoa as people return home after picking up the illness overseas. Anyone travelling to Samoa should protect themselves from mosquito bites and follow dengue fever prevention advice available on the SafeTravel website. New Zealanders travelling outside Aotearoa are also advised to protect themselves by: Staying or sleeping in well-screened locations, or under mosquito nets Keeping screens on doors and windows closed when indoors Wearing light coloured protective clothing, including hats, long sleeves and trousers when outdoors Wearing a repellent cream or spray containing diethyltoluamide (DEET) when outdoors Avoiding places where mosquitoes are most active, such as swampy areas or places with standing water.
Newsroom
a day ago
- Newsroom
Making heated tobacco products cheaper than cigarettes is no scandal
Opinion: The Government's decision to introduce a lower excise rate for heated tobacco products (HTPs) has been widely framed as 'giving tax breaks to tobacco companies'. It's a provocative line – and politically potent – but it doesn't help us have an honest, evidence-informed discussion about how to reduce smoking harm, particularly for the most disadvantaged New Zealanders, or how to deal with conflicts of interest. Let's be clear: this isn't a corporate subsidy, so long as the reduced tax is passed on with cheaper products. It's an excise adjustment applied to a class of tobacco products that heat rather than burn tobacco. (Like vaping products, HTPs are marketed as smoke-free alternatives to cigarettes, but are not the same thing.) Combustion is what makes smoking lethal. Cigarettes burn at over 800C, releasing thousands of toxic compounds. Heated tobacco products operate at much lower temperatures and don't produce smoke – just an aerosol – with far fewer harmful constituents. That distinction matters. The multinational tobacco company Philip Morris does hold a monopoly over HTPs in New Zealand. That's not ideal, but it doesn't mean the tax policy exists for Philip Morris International. The intention is to make a less harmful product more affordable than cigarettes – a principle long accepted in tobacco harm reduction, and already applied to vaping. Unfortunately, it appears Philip Morris International hasn't yet passed on the tax savings to the small number of HTP users in New Zealand – this is the real scandal. In addition, the apparent impact of PMI on government policy is tough to ignore, and contrary to the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, which seeks to protect government policy from tobacco industry influence. New Zealand has rightly taxed cigarettes heavily to deter use. But excise taxes are also regressive. The remaining people who smoke – fewer than 7 percent of adults – are disproportionately Māori, Pasifika, low-income, and more likely to experience mental health distress. The associate minister of health, Casey Costello, justified the excise differential by citing relative harm reduction and the growing inequity of uniform excise. Her reasoning deserves more attention than it has been given. Critics argue there's insufficient evidence that HTPs help people quit, but the UK Office for Health Improvement and Disabilities, the UK Committee on Toxicity, and the US Food and Drug Administration all acknowledge HTPs reduce exposure to toxicants compared with cigarettes. That doesn't make them harmless – but being less harmful than smoking is enough to warrant a differential tax. The example of Japan is instructive. There, HTPs make up over 30 percent of tobacco sales. Though vaping is banned, cigarette consumption has plummeted by 40 percent in some markets. Surveys suggest many smokers switched completely to HTPs. Youth uptake has been minimal. No policy is perfect, but that's a shift in the right direction. What's really at stake here? Not a tax break for big tobacco – but increasing the options for people who smoke and want to quit, and whether we believe in a response to nicotine products based on their comparative risks to human health as a foundation for public health policy. A more productive debate would ask: • Are they less harmful than cigarettes, and do they help smokers quit? • Are tax savings being passed on to consumers? • Are HTPs being promoted responsibly? • Will there be an independent evaluation of their impact on smoking rates? In a country that leads the world with its Smokefree 2025 goal, we should be asking how to accelerate the decline in smoking, not defending a one-size-fits-all excise regime that's increasingly disconnected from the realities of risk, behaviour, and equity. If HTPs can help some people switch, pricing them appropriately is not a scandal. It's a good policy – provided it's transparent, monitored, and grounded in evidence, and the tax savings are passed on to consumers.
