Dr Trevor Mudge, AMA Vice President, With 'Radio National Breakfast'

VAN EXTEL: Well, the Government has identified that PBS spending as being a long term problem for Australia. The latest figures for 2000/2001 showed expenditure increasing something like 15%, and in the budget they tried to claw some of the costs back with a measure to increase the costs of the Pharmaceutical Benefits medicines. That's been frustrating in the Senate, so now it's targeting the community directly with this campaign.

It's worth $49.6 million of which $20 million is going to be spent on advertising. And that's prompted some pretty harsh criticism from the Opposition this morning, which is pointing out that the campaign's more than what was spent on the GST campaign, the introduction campaign, and also those private health insurance gap ads that bombarded us last year.

The Australian Medical Association is also disturbed by the extent of spending on this particular campaign that's planned, and joining us now is the Vice President of the AMA, Dr Trevor Mudge. Good morning.

MUDGE: Good morning, Cathy.

VAN EXTEL: Do you accept that an awareness campaign in relation to the PBS is necessary? Is justified?

MUDGE: I think Government propaganda is always about this, isn't it? But Government propaganda, to the extent of 50 million, I think is quite outrageous.

VAN EXTEL: Well, we're talking more than propaganda, though. We are talking about a system that does need to be reined in, and if the Government can encourage the community to use the PBS in a more responsible fashion, surely that is in the interests of the nation?

MUDGE: Wouldn't have any argument with that at all. But does it need $50 million. I mean, surely you can mount an awareness campaign without that sort of expenditure. I mean, $50 million, as I said, would employ a lot of nurses. If we trained enough nurses to employ, it would provide any amount of health care. I mean, it seems that Governments on both sides would prefer to spend money on explaining why they're not spending money on patients' health, than they do spending money on health.

VAN EXTEL: Well, the Government's identified that $20 million will be spent on a broader community campaign to raise awareness, and obviously advertising is expensive. And the additional money will be spent on an awareness campaign that's broader in the community, targeting people like doctors and pharmacists. Surely that would be money well spent?

MUDGE: As I said, I think money spent on that sort of campaign is fine, but it doesn't need to be $50 million, surely. I mean it's hard to imagine how you could justify that sort of level of expenditure on what the Government's doing anyway. The Government is constantly informing doctors and the community about health matters. It just seems an amazing additional piece of expenditure.

Certainly we do have a problem with - as does the whole of the world incidentally - with the escalating costs of new drugs. In part, that's our fault because we, as a community, quite rightly require a very high scientific level of evidence of safety and efficacy before these drugs come to market. Well, that's investment that costs a large amount of money. I guess even more than the Government's planned propaganda campaign.

VAN EXTEL: Well, nobody argues that there are challenges facing the PBS in the future. Given the refusal of the Senate to pass the budget measures, what other options does the government have in dealing with that issue?

MUDGE: There are actually quite a lot of things the Government could do. The first thing is, it could actually sit down and talk to those mostly involved, which is the medical profession. We've provided the Minister with a list of potential areas in which cooperation would produce savings, but we're awaiting a meeting.

VAN EXTEL: All right, we'll leave it there. Thank you, Trevor Mudge, for joining us this morning.

MUDGE: Thank you.

Ends