Hutchison Paul: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Hutchison Paul: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:624;Page:19117] 
9.  
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Does she agree that it is “immoral and unethical” to change cancer patients’ adjuvant therapy as a “cost-cutting measure” as was alleged by the daughter of Mrs Frances Borich last month; if not why not? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Health) 
: 
 Before I start I inform the House that I have approval from Mrs Borich to discuss her case in Parliament. I am not qualified to comment on the clinical decision made by the specialist oncology service at the Auckland District Health Board. However I am advised by Dr Nigel Murray of the board that the change made for the treatment Mrs Borich received as part of her cancer treatment from Zometa to Aredia is based on the strong international evidence that there is no additional benefit from using Zometa. I am also informed that the two drugs have also been assessed by the expert cancer treatments subcommittee of the Pharmacology and Therapeutics Advisory Committee which concluded that both drugs have similar efficacy but that Zometa was considerably more expensive and their minutes note that this higher cost cannot be justified. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: Does she intend to change the policy that has allowed this callous practice of switching drugs mid-treatment for cancer patients like Mrs Borich who was told on 16 February this year 1 week after having had the drug she had faith in switched: “Go home. We’re too busy. We may be able to give you an appointment in 18 weeks’ time.”? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: It is not for me to decide which cancer drugs patients will receive. The Auckland District Health Board carefully considers the range of treatment options for patients with cancer and as a consequence it regularly reviews its decisions. That is what the board is expected to do not the Minister of Health. However I would say that I do not believe that telling a patient what the member claims was said is satisfactory and I would certainly want an explanation as to why that was said. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: Why does she allow Pharmac to consider only the cost of the cheaper drug without considering the fact that it takes five times longer in hospital to administer thereby reducing the number of patients who can be treated; it increases costs to the hospital; and it causes despair and anguish to cancer patients? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: This Government is following the same procedure and policy with regard to decisions on pharmaceuticals in New Zealand as has existed for 10 years; that is the decision on which drugs will be subsidised is made by the board of Pharmac after it secures advice from an expert advisory committee. We do not intend to change that and I have not heard the National Party say that it will either. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: Why does the Minister not claim any responsibility for this practice when up to 25 cancer patients were affected in the Auckland District Health Board region alone and why does she not move to stop this inhumane and callous practice for at least the cohort of patients who are on the treatment? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I am aware that the member who is asking these questions spoke to Dr Richard Sullivan the clinical director of medical oncology at Auckland City Hospital several days ago—clinician to clinician. The issues were explained to the member including the international evidence available as to why those decisions were made. It is not for me to make those decisions and I certainly would not tell Dr Richard Sullivan how he should make those decisions or what decisions he should make. It is not appropriate. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I asked a specific question which was: why does the Minister not claim any responsibility for this practice? It is within her power to change the policy of Pharmac. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The Minister answered the question. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I would just ask you to think about that. Effectively the Minister’s answer to Dr Hutchison was that he had spoken to a medical colleague and that on the basis of colleague to colleague an answer was supplied to him. The Minister then went on to say that it was not her decision. The question went right to the heart of her authority as the Minister of Health to address Pharmac policy—specific responsibility that she holds. She did not address that question. She obfuscated in the most extreme way. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: The member asked an almost identical question one or two questions before it. I said that I would not change the policy and I did not hear from the National Party that it intended to change it either. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Ruling on the point of order I have heard enough. The Minister did give her answer which addressed the question. Members may criticise that answer but that is not a point of order. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: I seek leave to table three papers. The first is a letter from the daughter of Mrs Frances Borich asking how a successful treatment can be withdrawn from a cancer patient and saying that it is immoral and unethical; the second is from a Mrs Winifred van’t Hoff explaining that her drugs were stopped as a cost-cutting exercise and saying that it is false economy to persist with this policy on cancer patients; and the third is from Mrs Borich’s son who says that his mother’s treatment was stopped without warning advice or consultation. 
Hon Mark Burton 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Could I ask the member to clarify for members whether he has the permission of the three authors of the letters to use them in this way because in my view it would be inappropriate to table them without that permission. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: I can confirm that. 
Documents by leave laid on the Table of the House.