Peter Greig, October 2015

If Karen Hitchcock (September) is right – and I suspect she is – the implications for national health policy are enormous, particularly the diversion of funding towards prevention rather than pills. She mentioned vested interests (Big Pharma), but not politics or economics, both necessary to convert analysis into action.

I am vaguely aware that at least some health economists agree with her, but I have no idea whether or how any side of politics sees the issue. Might Dr Hitchcock (or someone) enlighten us further in a future article? This might move the political health debate forward, as it seems largely to be stuck on (a) the large and increasing costs (which supports Dr Hitchcock’s thesis) and (b) intergovernmental bickering on who’s to blame for “inefficiency”.

As a taxpayer, I’m hoping for bipartisan agreement and steady policy, and, if Dr Hitchcock is right, lower costs and healthier people.

Peter Greig
Murroon, VIC