We have more health commissioners, including for genomics, and we both hope for a more meaningful discussion on weight loss therapies, the opportunities, access barriers, and their system-changing impact. Telehealth is here to stay, particularly in specific therapeutic areas, while one state has introduced political donations reform that could have a broader impact.

The health department has released its incoming ministerial brief to the reappointed Mark Butler, revealing internal government discussions over the future funding of new PBS listings, and hinting at limiting the implementation of the HTA Review recommendations to a small number of technologies. It also contradicts the claim that new PBS listings take 466 days from TGA registration, suggesting that it actually takes almost 650 days.

In a country as wealthy as Australia, how is it fair or equitable that some can pay for new treatments, while most are forced to wait, while the government uses a laborious multi-year process to negotiate the best deal for itself? We are forced to live with a system that regularly treats human health like a failing business. Are we worth saving? We also live with a system whose underpinning framework is often considered inviolable and virtually unimpeachable.

Adding disability to health in an already full ministerial bandwidth and funding challenges. Trade policy and the PBS, and a presentation on the human consequences of our decision-making. Can a targeted diagnostic screening and the strangest patient case study?

Times

0:00 - 9.45: Adding disability to health in an already full ministerial bandwidth and funding challenges

9.45 - 17:55: Trade policy, the PBS, and managing the risks and opportunities

17:55 - 17:55: About a presentation on the human consequences of our decision-making

37:50 - 44:52: Is it a public health measure or revenue raising?

A busy two weeks with an election and the addition of disability and the NDIS to the health portfolio. What does it mean? The credulous reflex response to comparisons between the US and Australian health systems. Why is denying access and out-of-pocket costs in Australia better than what happens in the US?

What is the balance between building national sovereignty in health and protecting patient safety and community confidence in new technologies? Do we need to be careful? An election brings back memories of 'future' funds past.

The health election debate mainly concerned bulk billing. New bureaucracies are rarely the solution to anything, and the challenge of faster funded access to new health technologies, particularly when advisory committees with power appear opposed. The complexity of weight-loss therapies presents opportunities.

Australia's election is two weeks in, and we're having trouble engaging. How positional power and 'expertism' can be confused and the value of a transparent and open forum.