Australia wastes billions of taxpayer dollars on elite sports funding and major sporting events for no benefit whatsoever. It's time to end it.
Reforming the PBS should involve high-income earners paying more for medicines -- but there are significant implementation issues.
Too often we seem to forget in debates about our mythical "health system" that much healthcare is provided by private interests, whether private practitioners or companies.
The Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) has served Australians well for many years but recent policy changes are undermining the universality of this important health program, writes Jennifer Doggett.
I fear the really important drama from the northern hemisphere is the continuing sovereign debt crisis, not News of the World.
Federal Health Minister Nicola Roxon’s announcement of the addition of 13 new drugs to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme comes as a huge relief.
The cost of the PBS must be sustainable but there is a difference between saving money and ensuring cost-effectiveness. The treatment of macular degeneration provides a compelling example, writes Ken Harvey, Richard Day, Willie Campbell, and Wendy Lipworth.
The constraints on public sector financing mean governments will need to play a more active role in determining what will, and will not, be funded in health care, writes Anne-marie Boxall.
The politics of turning the final approval of new medications into a Cabinet decision at the least, delays treatment to patients who may benefit from it. At the worst, it turns them down. Here's what that means for me, and "my MS", writes Shakira Hussein.
The government has been taking some heat recently over its decision to defer listing of new medicines on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS). Perhaps it’s time that some wider reforms of the PBS were considered, says Rebecca de Boer.