The 'Dispatched' Podcast

A call for greater accountability in institutional decision-making processes that too often ignore realities and patient needs. Spending priorities delay and deny access to medicines. Term limits for advisory committees can lead to renewal and new ideas. They should be accompanied by independent oversight and transparency. We explore private markets and digital platforms as drivers of access and reform, while defending patients’ right to research treatments however they like.01:23–20:51 | Government, spending and business20:51–42:29 | Medicines access and institutional accountability42:29–1:00:12 | Chronic disease, the PBS and private markets1:00:12–1:12:12 | Patient autonomy, information and specialist access

A newly released document has, for the first time, revealed forecast net spending on the PBS to the end of the decade after rebates, and it's not good news. Why are officials calling it a new 'charging' framework instead of cost recovery? The documents provide a critical piece of intelligence that leaders must consume, and why history matters.

Welcome to the first podcast video recording. Recorded at the recent Pfizer Invites event, this episode focuses on the rapidly emerging private market and whether it can catalyse meaningful medicines reform to benefit patients who are either waiting extended periods for funded access, paying for it themselves, or missing out altogether,

Should industry groups present the agreement negotiations to patient groups and 'invited' stakeholders, and if so, what should they say? Why the private market for GLP-1 medicines could be a historic catalyst for the changes so many want.

The impact of new media guidance from Australia's health technology regulator can now be assessed against the backdrop of its use of an AI platform initially developed for, and still used by, intelligence and law enforcement agencies. Why is the debate in Australia so limited, confined to a small group of privileged insiders, and why do so many appear uncomfortable with patients having meaningful rights?

A week dominated by discussions about AI that was all of good, less good, self-serving and ironic. Surely we can grasp the opportunity while managing the risks. A dehumanising outcome for women living with a form of advanced breast cancer must surely trigger ministerial intervention and another highly questionable Intergenerational Report.

This week, we mark a significant anniversary, discuss the risks of missing the opportunity that artificial intelligence offers to speed access to healthcare, and explore why some might be reluctant to embrace it. The wonderful irony of the phrase of the week.

This week's discussion starts with the perfect example of why pulling one lever can trigger another. The Senate's considering changes to expand the regulator's power, without any submissions from those most affected. Is it possible to have a common-sense discussion about tobacco excise against the backdrop of an unrelenting crime wave with mounting numbers of innocent victims? Or can those not impacted by the consequences just turn the other cheek? Sound familiar?

Why pulling the same 'levers' on reform cannot work. Comparing one medicines access program and its humanitarian underpinnings to our institutional frameworks. The need for term limits on advisory committees, the enduring unfairness of medicine co-payments, and the phrase of the week.

The opportunities available in the pending negotiation of new industry agreements and the selective discrimination against some patients and patient groups by an outdated and unaccountable institution.