Quite why we had to wait until July for the big reveal of a letter the agency says it received on May 28 has not been explained, but at that time the government had yet to sort out how it was going to fund and deliver National’s messy cancer drugs promise.
Now, Mr Seymour can bask in the glow of the announcement that an extra $604 million will be heading Pharmac’s way to provide for more cancer and other drugs over the next four years.
We are still a long way from knowing how well our creaking and under-staffed health system will be able to deliver any new medications approved as a result of the extra funding in a timely manner, and how much more that might cost, but nobody is saying much about that yet.
At this week’s announcement, new Pharmac chairwoman Paula Bennett was careful not to over-promise on what the agency could deliver in terms of transparency, given its role in negotiating medicines contracts.
However, she was confident Pharmac would engage better with stakeholders and make significant improvements to the public’s trust in the agency within the next two years.
The organisation was already supposed to be doing more to make its decision-making faster, simpler and more understandable since the critical review finalised in 2022 which found it had a fortress mentality, too much emphasis on cost control, and slow and opaque decision-making.
Mr Seymour is keen to see further culture improvement.
He wants priority given to identifying and pursuing any opportunities to work collaboratively and collectively with other entities where such partnerships would result in process improvements, health gains or enable efficiencies.
He has previously spoken of wanting more partnering with the pharmaceutical industry, with Pharmac being able to partly fund some medications being wholly privately funded now where that would provide value to the taxpayer.
This may be easier said than done.
There has already been some commentary around the risk of emphasising the benefits for economic productivity which could discriminate against those on benefits, or otherwise out of the work force because they are young, old or chronically ill.
Presumably, such analysis could be used to increase justification for extra funding.
However, spending on medicines and medical devices will always have limits, and it should not be considered in isolation from other parts of healthcare.
Will the government be willing to pay similar attention to the social and fiscal impact bold public health measures could have, or will it continue to look the other way when it comes to dealing with the ongoing influence of big tobacco, big booze and fast food giants?
It will be no surprise to anyone Mr Seymour does not want Pharmac considering how it could contribute to embedding Te Tiriti of Waitangi, something he says the agency had "burned a lot of energy" on.
We wonder how accurate that is. High-profile oncologist Prof Chris Jackson said there had not been enough engagement with mana whenua, or any major pro-Maori decisions on cancer he could remember.
Mr Seymour wants the focus on delivering improved health outcomes based on need and serving all New Zealanders, although he accepted there was no proof considering the Treaty had led to poorer outcomes.
It is too soon to tell how Pharmac will respond to the 21 points made in Mr Seymour’s letter.
But as we learn more, it will be important attention is paid to both the benefits and any risks from a new approach.
