Dunne Peter: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Dunne Peter: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:625;Page:19871] 
3.  
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Is she satisfied that Pharmac’s practice of entering sole-supply agreements ensures that New Zealanders get the medicines they need; if so why? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Health) 
: 
 In the main yes I am. Since sole supply began in 1996 savings of over $200 million have been achieved and as well it has enabled New Zealanders to have better access to a wider range of subsidised medicines than previously. For example over the last 5 years 53 new chemical entities have been added to the subsidised lists including new treatments for diabetes severe pain and chronic obstructive lung disease. I note that sole supply was introduced when the honourable member was a Cabinet Minister in the previous Government. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: Why did Pharmac enter into a sole-supply agreement regarding the product Salamol when it knew at the time that there had been problems with inhalers clogging in Britain which has now been the experience here or is it simply a case of cost saving at all counts and the New Zealand asthmatic sufferer having to pay the consequences of that? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: In respect of the last part of the answer no and Pharmac has been notified of a small number of complaints regarding Salamol. Those complaints have been taken seriously and Pharmac is working with the supplier of Salamol and with Medsafe. However Pharmac has been informed by Air Flow Products the supplier of Salamol that clogging can be addressed by simply cleaning the inhaler. 
Lesley Soper 
: Has sole supply been an effective way of managing access to medicines in New Zealand? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Yes. In addition to achieving savings on prescription medicines sole supply has led to an increase in the number of pharmaceutical companies present in New Zealand. Generic companies have increased from only three main ones in 1996 to more than eight now resulting in greater price competition when Pharmac runs its annual tender. New Zealand is a small market and sole supply helps to ensure that medicines that might otherwise be hard to obtain are secured for New Zealand patients. Sole-supply agreements are widely used internationally. For example in the United States one of the largest health management organisations Kaiser Permanente uses sole-supply agreements. 
Barbara Stewart 
: Is she aware of comments made by Diabetes New Zealand’s president that Pharmac’s limitation of the access of 40000 people with type 2 diabetes to self-monitoring products will serve only to drive up the cost of managing diabetes in coming years; if so does she find the trade-off of short-term gain against long-term pain acceptable? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: There will always be debate about which products ought to be used and which ones ought to be subsidised. I am happy and confident that the supply of drugs for diabetes in New Zealand is a good supply and I am quite happy with the work that has been done in that respect. We look at new drugs when they come on the market and we subsidise them as soon as is practicable and when their efficacy ensures we ought to do that. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: What does the Minister say to those asthma sufferers who either are alcohol-intolerant or have a cultural or religious objection to the use of alcohol and who are now being forced to use Salamol which is an ethanol-based product as an alternative to Ventolin which will be going off the market in a month or so? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Where there is a difficulty in terms of a person being intolerant to a particular drug we have the ability for that person because of special circumstances to receive another drug. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Why did New Zealand purchase 200000 treatments of antiviral drugs to fight bird flu—the drugs being the only possible protection against bird flu—which had passed their use-by date; and is it standard practice for Pharmac to buy outdated second-hand drugs? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: The member is totally wrong. She has been told that the doses we are receiving of the antiviral drug—which does not cure bird flu; the member is in fact wrong in that respect—have been made especially for New Zealand. 
Sue Kedgley 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I specifically asked why the Minister bought the drugs last year. I am aware that new supplies are not second-hand but that the ones purchased last year had passed their use-by date. Furthermore I did not say that they cured bird flu; I said the drugs offered some protection against bird flu. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: In respect of the 20000 doses purchased last year I can say that they have been certified by Medsafe as being able to continue to be used. That particular antiviral supply that we have is able to be used. The out-of-stock date was looked at. We checked to see whether the drugs could be used and it was found by an expert committee that they could be. 
Simon Power 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I am a bit unsure about just what occurred there. Sue Kedgley raised a point of order and then the Hon Annette King made a contribution that seemed to be by way of an answer to an oral question. It seems to me that we have a sort of conversation by way of points of order occurring between members who are not satisfied with answers and Ministers who are taking the opportunity to spin their line a bit further. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I thought that clarification was being sought. I had not heard what the member had said about the 20000 doses so I took it from the look on Madame Speaker’s face when her eyebrows shot up that she was giving me the opportunity to expand my answer. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Certainly the points of order were for not addressing the question. The Minister was prepared to expand on her answer because she had not heard the question. We aim to please and normally the Opposition does like full answers as I understand it—as full as they can get from the Government. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: How many more cases of the failure of the sole-supply policy will it take before either the Minister or Pharmac decides that change is necessary; or do New Zealand’s suffering patients simply have to continue to put up with what is going on at the moment? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: There is no overwhelming evidence that we ought to change what we are doing now and I would caution the member to try to get some of his accusations correct. He has received a letter from Pharmac very recently in which it is shown that he made at least 16 errors of statement in this House or in press releases around things that had happened with regard to Pharmac and particular stocks. I am happy to table the letter so that everyone can read the response to what the member has said. 
Peter Brown 
: Has the Minister noted the passion with which the Hon Peter Dunne has been putting his questions and is she aware that this is the straw that is breaking the camel’s back and that if the Labour Government does not agree with the Hon Peter Dunne he may withdraw his party’s support on supply and confidence; if so has she had any indication of that? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: No I have not had any indication. I would say of the United Future party and the Hon Peter Dunne that it probably takes a lot more than a few questions on Pharmac to be the straw that breaks the camel’s back—unlike probably the one too many glasses of whisky that broke the camel’s back under the previous Government. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the member please withdraw that last comment. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I withdraw. 
Peter Brown 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I take that as a slight because I do enjoy a glass of whisky a day and people tell me that it is good for my health. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. The Minister did withdraw.