Trade stand-off continues as US drug tariffs loom
In a continuation of his erratic approach to trade policy, President Donald Trump says taxes on drug imports could be announced as soon as the end of the month, with eventual tariff rates of up to 200 per cent.
"We're going to start off with a low tariff and give the pharmaceutical companies a year or so to build, and then we're going to make it a very high tariff," Mr Trump said.
Australia's Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, under which the government negotiates medicine prices with manufacturers before subsidising them for patients, is reportedly in the crosshairs of US pharmaceutical companies lobbying the White House.
The Albanese government has flatly refused any negotiation on the PBS.
"Obviously, they are being lobbied, as other US Presidents have been for many years by the US big pharma industry, which wants not just Australia's scheme but other schemes like it around the world ... they want that freed up," federal health minister Mark Butler said on Wednesday.
"They want to see their profits increased. That's been the case for decades and decades."
The PBS is crucial to ensure equitable and affordable access to medicines, according to Royal Australian College of GPs president Michael Wright.
"We should be proud of the prime minister and treasurer's steadfast support for maintaining the PBS, regardless of external pressure."
But complaints about such pricing schemes are common across the industry and include Australian medicine manufacturers, says Melbourne University research fellow Joe Carrello.
"They argue the increasing costs it takes to investigate and run trials and bring a new drug to market aren't keeping up with what the return is, given what the government is willing to pay," Dr Carrello told AAP.
Dr Carrello, who helps evaluate medicines proposed for the PBS after their approval by the Therapeutic Goods Administration, said there could be consequences to a relatively small market like Australia negotiating such lean prices.
"The fear is some US companies may decide against launching new drugs in Australia because comparatively, they're not going to get a good price," he said.
In the US, where a relatively free-market approach has been favoured, drug prices are almost three times higher than in 33 comparable income countries, according to RAND research.
Australians have an average life expectancy of 83.2 years, compared to 77.4 years in the US, World Bank data shows.
"Without the PBS, we'd see people losing access to affordable medications and an increased spend per person on average but it wouldn't be evenly distributed," Dr Carrello said.
In a submission to a Productivity Commission inquiry, pharmaceutical giant Pfizer criticised the PBS's assessment process, claiming it under-accounted for drug and vaccine benefits over multiple budget cycles and missed broader social benefits.
"Over the last decade, while the total PBS spend has increased, the proportion of the PBS that funds innovative medicines has seen minimal growth," Pfizer wrote in its submission.
"This means, as a proportion of GDP, the government's expenditure on innovative medicines is going backwards."
Federal treasurer Jim Chalmers has joined the health minister in ruling out any changes to the PBS in US trade negotiations.
"This Albanese Labor government is about strengthening the PBS in the interests of our people, not weakening it in the interests of American multinationals," he recently said.
As for Australian drug producers, the federal government was still weighing the impacts of the proposed tariffs on Australian exports, which were worth $2.2 billion in 2024.
"(President Trump) indicated there was a long lead time, a long period where he'd be considering this possible step," Dr Chalmers said.
That lead time was cut by a matter of months this week, in a sign the United States' push may be turning to a shove.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Age
an hour ago
- The Age
Be careful in changing rules on voting
To submit a letter to The Age, email letters@ Please include your home address and telephone number. No attachments, please include your letter in the body of the email. See here for our rules and tips on getting your letter published. The question of extending Australian voting rights to 16- and 17-year-olds has recently been mooted. As has been noted, there are some politically informed and interested young people and there are also many who have little interest in politics at this busy stage of their lives. It has also been suggested that voting for this age group may not be compulsory. There may be people in other age groups or categories who would view the special exemption from compulsory voting for 16- and 17-year-olds as discriminatory and seek exemptions. Where do we draw the line? Australia has one of the most stable democracies in the world. Changes of government happen smoothly and without bloodshed. Many of the most important elements of our democracy derive from the political reform movements in 19th-century Britain. Hard-won policies such as compulsory voting and the secret ballot means that people cannot be prevented from voting by bribes or threats from powerful people and we have the freedom to vote in private for the candidate or party we choose. We also have the great advantage of elections being run by a respected independent body, the Australian Electoral Commission, which manages the electoral process including the vote count. Political parties or candidates also have the option of providing volunteer scrutineers to monitor vote counting. Changing the rules for some groups of people is a dangerous precedent that may have many unintended consequences. April Baragwanath, Geelong Little currency in cash condition Your correspondent's suggestion (Letters, 22/7) that 16-year-olds are allowed to vote 'when they have a taxable dollar in their pockets' raises some interesting issues. Would pensioners and others who don't pay tax lose their vote? Then, of course, there's the pesky part-pensioners? Perhaps they could get a part-vote, voting for the House of Representatives but not for the Senate, or should it be the other way round? It all sounds a bit too complicated to me. Jo Bond, South Melbourne What about a more nuanced approach? At 20, I was required to register for National Service with the possibility of conscription to Vietnam but not allowed to vote as I turned 21 two months after the election. So I can understand the frustration of young people who take an interest in politics but are not allowed to vote. However, I suspect that many 16- and 17-year-olds aren't all that interested in voting and shouldn't be forced to do so. What about a 'nuanced' position? Allow discretionary voting for 16- to 24-year-olds and bring compulsory voting from 25 years on. But then I am not sure that we do 'nuance' too well in Australia. Graeme Head, Newport The more votes the merrier If we are to allow 16-year-olds to vote, perhaps we should amend the voting system so that voters can become eligible for extra votes as they contribute more to the successful running of our society. People could perhaps earn extra votes when they obtain full-time jobs, do charitable work, get married, have children, buy a house or reach certain levels of education. On the other hand they might lose votes if convicted of crimes. Why does it have to be one vote one person? Tony O'Brien, South Melbourne The young need to be encouraged The Liberal Party, as well as encouraging more female representation, could also pay close attention to encouraging more young voters to contribute to changing the mindset of party politics and enter politics to make a difference and mentor them to do so. Thinking outside the box on issues that will make a difference for their future and our present concerns, can provide vitality and ideas in discussing opportunities for change. Unless change happens, nothing changes. We will all benefit. Christine Baker, Rosanna THE FORUM
West Australian
an hour ago
- West Australian
Student debt cuts: Government talks as Opposition steps up attack on super tax plans
Anthony Albanese and Jim Chalmers have avoided ruling out ever taxing unrealised capital gains beyond existing plans for multimillion-dollar superannuation accounts, fuelling accusations Labor has secret plans to go after family homes and trusts. Legislation for the reduced tax breaks for superannuation balances above $3 million is yet to be re-introduced to Parliament but it was the key lines of attack from an Opposition regrouping after its election loss. The first question time of the 48th Parliament got off to a slow start as Mr Albanese and new Opposition Leader Sussan Ley took each other's measure. Coalition strategists had planned to focus on Treasury advice that flagged a need for higher taxes or spending cuts to tackle deficits but ultimately canvassed the superannuation tax plan that has been in Parliament for almost two years. Ms Ley misfired with a question that failed to mention the word 'superannuation.' 'The name of the tax would be helpful for future questions,' Speaker Milton Dick advised. It was Nationals leader David Littleproud – under fire internally from would-be rivals – who asked new Assistant Treasurer Daniel Mulin a specific question about how the changes would affect farmers in a failed season. The Prime Minister and Treasurer continued their reluctance to bind themselves to 'never ever' positions ahead of next month's economic roundtable discussions. 'The time to run a scare campaign is just before an election, not after one,' Mr Albanese said when shadow treasurer Ted O'Brien asked if Labor was considering going after capital gains on family trusts and family homes next. 'It's a bit early, on day one … to start the rule-in-rule-out game that they themselves said on Sunday said was juvenile and absurd.' Mr O'Brien claimed a win, suggesting the Government should be embarrassed about its performance. 'Both the Prime Minister and the Treasurer refused to rule out expanding Labor's tax on unrealised capital gains to include family homes and family trusts. This should send a chill down the spine of every Australian family,' he said. The super tax was a key revenue measure from the previous term, slated to raise $2.3 billion in its first year in effect from about 80,000 people but it was stalled in the Senate. Dr Chalmers is hopeful of winning support from the Greens. The minor party wants the threshold lowered to $2 million and indexed, paving the way for a possible compromise. 'This is not his Tinder profile, this is his dream ticket. He's not looking to swipe right, he's looking to swipe out (Mr Littleproud),' Mr Bowen said. The Government used the political theatre to highlight its almost-fulfilled promise to cut student debts by 20 per cent. Education Minister Jason Clare said it was 'a lot of help for a lot of people just out of uni, just getting started, help them to buy a home, thinking about starting a family'. He also put forward measures to strengthen childcare safety regulation in the wake of the allegations that a Melbourne childcare worker committed dozens of instances of child abuse. Under the bill, care providers could have childcare subsidies – which make up the bulk of their funding – blocked over a single breach of quality standards. Regulators would also have the power to conduct snap inspections of centres and there would be more transparency around breaches and sanctions. 'This is not about leaving parents stranded without care for their children because of fixable or minor shortcomings at their service. But this legislation is also not an idle threat to services,' Mr Clare said, adding the ultimate aim was to lift standards. The Coalition had signalled broad support for improving safety at childcare centres but raised concerns about whether the measures went far enough, while the Greens want the Government to bolster its plan by creating a national watchdog. 'I can't think of many issues in my time in this Parliament that have made me feel as physically sick as this one has,' Ms Ley said. 'This is an issue well and truly above politics. We will all work incredibly hard to get this right.' Late night sittings are already planned for next week to get the vital legislation through swiftly as Parliament gets down to business.
Sky News AU
an hour ago
- Sky News AU
‘Global leaders in benevolence': 50 per cent of Aussies rely on government for income
Sky News host James Macpherson discusses the heavy reliance on government handouts in Australia as around 50 per cent of voters rely on it for income. 'More than half of Australians get most of their income from the government, whether by working for it, collecting welfare or milking subsidies, that is according to a report from the Centre for Independent Studies,' Mr Macpherson said. 'Making us global leaders in bureaucratic benevolence.'
