Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Pharmacological and ethical comparisons of lung cancer medicine accessibility in Australia and New Zealand.
Fenton, Elizabeth; Ashton, John.
Affiliation
  • Fenton E; Bioethics Centre, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand elizabeth.fenton@otago.ac.nz.
  • Ashton J; Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.
J Med Ethics ; 2024 Aug 28.
Article in En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-39209378
ABSTRACT
Gaps in funded cancer medicines between New Zealand and Australia can have significant implications for patients and their families. Pharmac, the New Zealand pharmaceutical funding agency, has been criticised for not funding enough cancer medicines, and a 2022 review identified ethical concerns about its utilitarian focus on efficiency. However, as the costs of new cancer medicines rise along with public and political pressure to fund them, questions about value for money remain critical for health systems worldwide. In this paper, we compare funding for cancer medicines in New Zealand and Australia, specifically medicines for non-small cell lung cancer. We argue that the ethical imperatives on funding agencies to get value for money and provide medicines for patients with cancer underscore the importance of transparent decision-making processes, including identifying and explaining intercountry differences in funded medicines.
Key words

Full text: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Database: MEDLINE Language: En Journal: J Med Ethics / J. med. ethics / Journal of medical ethics Year: 2024 Document type: Article Affiliation country: New Zealand Country of publication: United kingdom

Full text: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Database: MEDLINE Language: En Journal: J Med Ethics / J. med. ethics / Journal of medical ethics Year: 2024 Document type: Article Affiliation country: New Zealand Country of publication: United kingdom