30.06.2013 Views

How does the operation of PHARMAC's 'Community Exceptional ...

How does the operation of PHARMAC's 'Community Exceptional ...

How does the operation of PHARMAC's 'Community Exceptional ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

was suffering would not pass <strong>the</strong> rarity criteria and would not be considered for<br />

an <strong>Exceptional</strong> Circumstances subsidy. In this, King behaved as an electorate<br />

MP would, not as a Minister.<br />

What Did <strong>the</strong> Headlines Say?<br />

The headlines to <strong>the</strong>se media reports did not accurately reflect <strong>the</strong> content <strong>of</strong><br />

<strong>the</strong> report. Some headlines were quite misleading and some were very<br />

accurate. For example, <strong>the</strong> headline “A matter <strong>of</strong> life and death and how to pay<br />

for it” was misleading in its content. The patient in this story had a terminal<br />

illness and <strong>the</strong> drug which <strong>the</strong> patient wanted PHARMAC to subsidise could not<br />

save <strong>the</strong> patient’s life. The patient’s doctor was not sure if it would even help<br />

<strong>the</strong> patient to feel any better, yet <strong>the</strong> editor presented <strong>the</strong> case as ‘life and<br />

death’.<br />

Ano<strong>the</strong>r headline stated “Drug too costly for arthritis sufferer”. This was a<br />

misleading headline because it suggested that PHARMAC would not provide a<br />

subsidy for <strong>the</strong> drug and <strong>the</strong>refore <strong>the</strong> patient had to pay privately to receive <strong>the</strong><br />

drug. In fact nei<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> patient nor <strong>the</strong> manufacturer had applied to PHARMAC<br />

for a subsidy for <strong>the</strong> drug. The headline gives a false impression that <strong>the</strong><br />

patient had been rejected by PHARMAC for a subsidy when in fact he had not.<br />

Finally, “New drug rules a death sentence” was an emotive and misleading<br />

headline which was misleading in content and tone. The patient in this story<br />

was taking a drug which PHARMAC removed from <strong>the</strong> subsidised schedule and<br />

replaced it with ano<strong>the</strong>r. She had not applied for a Community <strong>Exceptional</strong><br />

Circumstances subsidy which PHARMAC urged her to do. The unsubsidised<br />

drug cost her $2 per day for which she could claim a WINZ benefit if she could<br />

not afford to pay for <strong>the</strong> medicine herself.<br />

Section 4: Key Informant Interviews<br />

Introduction<br />

Key informant interviews were conducted as part <strong>of</strong> this research to provide<br />

context to <strong>the</strong> formation, <strong>operation</strong> and effects <strong>of</strong> PHARMAC’s <strong>Exceptional</strong><br />

Circumstances policy. Key informants were selected because <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir<br />

knowledge and experience <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> PHARMAC policy. An outline <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> method<br />

157

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!