The current debate about the US applying tariffs to pharmaceutical imports and demands for PBS reforms is the most ludicrous in the recent history of the program.
CSL blood products dominate Australia's pharmaceutical exports to the US. The company has already said the tariff threat is manageable within its vast global production capacity, not least in the US. The company's share price remained essentially unchanged today in response to the reports.
Could you please specify what the threat is?
The US may eventually make pharmaceuticals more expensive for itself, including Australian-made blood products, and secure changes to the PBS. How does that make sense? Why would any Australian Government make changes to the PBS in response to the US making medicines more expensive for itself?
This is probably because the primary driver of US tariffs is to restore manufacturing capability to the US, including in pharmaceuticals. Yet it is also demanding that it pay the lowest medicine prices in the world.
People should contemplate the incoherence in its approach. They should also stop jumping at shadows based on ridiculous claims that the US-based pharmaceutical industry wants to 'dismantle' the PBS.
To be clear, the US industry's criticisms of the PBS are long-standing, dating back to the 1990s, and are primarily focused on technical aspects of the program and its pricing policies. How is it surprising that commercial entities believe their products are undervalued by a single-payer that explicitly subordinates patient needs to securing a good deal for itself?
It is also worth remembering that the US industry and a former US administration are responsible for the most patient-friendly reforms in PBS history. These reforms, including enhanced accountability and transparency in PBS decision-making, were aggressively resisted by the Australian Government.
PhRMA criticisms of the PBS are also more subtle than those of Health Minister Mark Butler, who has explicitly acknowledged the system's responsibility for preventable deaths and apologised for access delays.
The fact is that there is very little disagreement between the Albanese Government and the industry on the need for reforms. This is what matters. An ersatz debate over US tariffs is a distraction.