Shaneel Lal: Act’s productivity perspective on Pharmac medication and treatments will hurt minorities

Shaneel Lal says it sounds like Todd Stephenson is saying when Pharmac is prioritising people to receive funded medication and treatments, they should factor in if they are economically productive.

OPINION

Act is proposing a “productivity perspective based on real lives” when it comes to delivering Pharmac funding.

One of the party’s top priorities is an independent review of the Government agency.

Act candidate Todd Stephenson told TVNZ’s Q+ A last week that “a lot of treatments and innovations that are being brought forward can actually deliver economic benefits because you’re actually treating people that can work longer, or go back to work when that wasn’t possible”.

When questioned if that meant more economically productive people should be prioritised for medication and treatment, Stephenson said: “Not necessarily, but when you’re looking at the value of these treatments, that should be taken into consideration.”

That to me sounds a whole lot like saying when Pharmac is prioritising people to receive funded medication and treatments, they should factor in if they are economically productive.

It’s modern-day eugenics in the making. It would keep those already struggling in their place. Their place being in entrenched poverty with deplorable housing and little to eat.

Act would also bring back the $5 prescription fee - benefitting those already better off.

It could hurt disabled people more than anyone. Only 42.5 per cent of disabled people aged 15–64 years were employed in the June 2021 quarter, compared with 78.9 per cent of non-disabled people in the same age group.

The Office for Disability Issues reported that as of the June 2022 quarter, the median weekly income for disabled people aged 15–64 was $451, compared to $1000 for non-disabled people in the same age group.

It could also hurt ethnic minorities. Last year, AUT professor Jarrod Haar claimed the Māori unemployment rate was 190 per cent higher than Pākehā.

And it could hurt women. Statistics NZ reported last month that the employment rate for women was 65.4 per cent compared with 74.4 per cent for men.

Stephenson’s rationale for Act’s “productivity perspective” on Pharmac is that it is better for society as a whole to prioritise people who can return to work faster and, therefore, contribute to our economy.

Some people do not have work to return to, and I refuse to accept that should be factored in when determining their likelihood of receiving funded medication and treatments.

Stephenson believes “it is the role of politicians to set the policy frameworks” and that “Pharmac’s policy framework needs updating”. Stephenson says: “If your treatment can return someone to work faster, how does that benefit the whole of society? And then those bodies that are making those value judgments can decide whether that should be put into the equation.”

Act is proposing to commercialise state-funded medication and treatment, which, in my opinion, could come at the expense of the disabled, ethnic minorities and women for the benefit of people who live lives like Stephenson.

Stephenson admits economic productivity is a value judgment. In a capitalist society that already disadvantages people of colour, women and disabled people, the last thing we need is the privileged making value judgments about who receives funded healthcare.

The worthiness of medication and treatment should not come down to one’s economic productivity and value judgments of the privileged.

Act’s policy is unethical and immoral and will have us calculate the value of human life on seesaws, with vulnerable people on one side and money on the other.

Shaneel Shavneel Lal (they/them) was instrumental in the bill to ban conversion therapy in New Zealand. They are a law and psychology student, model and influencer.