The ‘vote for me’ bribe policies continue.

National was promising yesterday to pay for 13 cancer treatments not currently available to patients in New Zealand. They're available in Australia, not in New Zealand.

The New Zealand Cancer Control Agency recently identified 13 treatments for lung, bowel, kidney and head and neck cancers that provide significant clinical benefits - and they are funded in Australia, not in New Zealand.

National says it will allocate $280 million in ring-fenced funding to Pharmac over four years to pay for these therapies.

They say it's a better use of taxpayers’ money than paying the $5 prescription fees for everyone, including those who can afford to pay for it themselves.

National’s not throwing everybody under the bus re prescriptions though - they say superannuitants and those on low incomes will receive free prescriptions, as I understand it, a lot of people receive them free anyway if they fall into certain categories.

The total amount any family will pay for prescriptions in a year will be capped at $100, and that's how they're going to fund cancer treatments. People who can afford prescriptions will pay for them. Those who can’t - won't.  

On the Mike Hosking Breakfast, Medical oncologist Dr Chris Jackson wasn't entirely enthusiastic, I think it's fair to say.

He believes there are a number of fishhooks in the policy of telling Pharmac what it should be funding.  Dr Jackson also said they'd rather see the funding go towards the  nurses, the doctors, the personnel who need to see these patients before you start talking about drug funding.

And probably worth noting, he is married to a Labour minister, Rachel Brooking. But, I'm quite sure, even within your own family, spouses are entitled to different views.  In this case, he was like, I don't think it's a good idea to politicise it. The money should have gone to more doctors, more nurses and more radiologists.

Except, Pharmac has been politicised before - remember Herceptin?  

So to Dr Jackson's point, drugs can and do get politicised all the time. If you have an organised and eloquent group of campaigners, they will be able to achieve more to get their drug of choice funded than those who don't have the resources.

Than those who don't have the lobby group, who don't have the organisational ability and access to publicity that others do. They just have to sit and wait patiently for their drug to come up on the Pharmac list.

Personally, I'd rather pay a maximum of $100 a year on my prescriptions than have to sell the house or, heaven forbid, set up and Give-a-little page to keep a loved one alive.

The ‘vote for me’ bribe policies continue.
National was promising yesterday to pay for 13 cancer treatments not currently available to patients in New Zealand. They're available in Australia, not in New Zealand.
The New Zealand Cancer Control Agency recently identified 13 treatments for lung, bowel, kidney and head and neck cancers that provide significant clinical benefits - and they are funded in Australia, not in New Zealand.
National says it will allocate $280 million in ring-fenced funding to Pharmac over four years to pay for these therapies.
They say it's a better use of taxpayers’ money than paying the $5 prescription fees for everyone, including those who can afford to pay for it themselves.
National’s not throwing everybody under the bus re prescriptions though - they say superannuitants and those on low incomes will receive free prescriptions, as I understand it, a lot of people receive them free anyway if they fall into certain categories.
The total amount any family will pay for prescriptions in a year will be capped at $100, and that's how they're going to fund cancer treatments. People who can afford prescriptions will pay for them. Those who can’t - won't.  
<a href="https://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/on-air/mike-hosking-breakfast/audio/chris-jackson-medical-oncologist-says-nats-cancer-funding-promise-the-first-time-a-political-party-has-told-pharmac-what-to-fund/">On the Mike Hosking Breakfast, Medical oncologist Dr Chris Jackson wasn't entirely enthusiastic</a>, I think it's fair to say.
He believes there are a number of fishhooks in the policy of telling Pharmac what it should be funding.  Dr Jackson also said they'd rather see the funding go towards the  nurses, the doctors, the personnel who need to see these patients before you start talking about drug funding.
And probably worth noting, he is married to a Labour minister, Rachel Brooking. But, I'm quite sure, even within your own family, spouses are entitled to different views.  In this case, he was like, I don't think it's a good idea to politicise it. The money should have gone to more doctors, more nurses and more radiologists.
Except, Pharmac has been politicised before - remember Herceptin?  
So to Dr Jackson's point, drugs can and do get politicised all the time. If you have an organised and eloquent group of campaigners, they will be able to achieve more to get their drug of choice funded than those who don't have the resources.
Than those who don't have the lobby group, who don't have the organisational ability and access to publicity that others do. They just have to sit and wait patiently for their drug to come up on the Pharmac list.
Personally, I'd rather pay a maximum of $100 a year on my prescriptions than have to sell the house or, heaven forbid, set up and Give-a-little page to keep a loved one alive.

Join Kerre Woodham one of New Zealand’s best loved personalities as she dishes up a bold, sharp and energetic show Monday to Friday 9am-12md on Newstalk ZB. News, opinion, analysis, lifestyle and entertainment – we’ve got your morning listening covered.