Pharmaceuticals Committee scandal:
Minister digs a deeper hole

by Peter Mac

Federal Health Minister Michael Wooldridge continued to dig his political 
grave last week, first with personal denigration of former members of the 
Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee, and then with his response to 
revelations that the Federal Government's nominee to the Committee, Mr Pat 
Clear, was not only a former drug industry spokesman, but is still a 
director of a pharmaceutical company.

The pharmaceuticals row erupted recently, when it was discovered that the 
government intended to nominate Mr Pat Clear to the Pharmaceutical Benefits 
Advisory Committee, the organisation that advises the government on which 
drugs should receive multi-billion dollar government subsidies for the 
public benefit.

The move was preceded by the dismissal of members of the Committee late 
last year, and resulted in the resignation of its chairman, Professor Don 
Birkett. (See last issue of The Guardian.)

The Minister has now further disgraced himself with statements that the 
former members of the Committee were "of no consequence" (despite the 
international reputation of the Committee as a whole and of two of its 
former members as individuals), and that they had "spat the dummy" over the 
appointment of Clear.

However, the opposition spokesperson on health, Ms Jenny Macklin, has 
pointed out that the Government itself appealed to Professor Birkett to 
reconsider his resignation.

Moreover, it has now been revealed that, despite the Government's lame 
pretext that Clear had retired from, and now had no connection with the 
pharmaceutical industry, he is still a director of FuCell, a research 
company associated with the University of NSW.

The Minister rushed to assure the public that there would be no way in 
which any of the company's products would ever be the subject of 
examination by the Committee.

However, the company's own literature describes it as a (bio-pharmaceutical 
company), with at least one product of (enormous commercial potential).

Wooldridge is also under attack for his association with the international 
pharmaceutical giant, Pfizer, three former members of his personal staff 
having worked for Pfizer.

Wooldridge has been accused of having issued press releases that praised 
two of the company's products, and thereby in effect boosted their sales.

One of these was the arthritis drug (Celebrex), whose previous listing by 
the Committee was described by Wooldridge as "the most important decision 
in the 50-year history of the PBAC".

This was despite the fact that by then the Therapeutic Goods Administration 
(TGA) had received some 1000 reports of long-term harmful side effects, 
almost twice as many as any other drug in the TGA's history.

The Government also ignored the Committee's recommendations about the 
pricing of Celebrex, which it increased by some 17 percent, as a result of 
which taxpayers are likely to pay an extra $800 million in subsidies over a 
four-year period.

Professor Birkett has now re-entered the debate. He said last week that he 
regretted that Dr Wooldridge was now resorting to personal abuse.

He also made the point that the presence of an industry representative on 
the PBAC would inhibit free and open discussion of the issues involved, and 
that such a representative would in effect enjoy a casting vote in 
situations where the Committee was divided on whether to support a 
particular drug.

It is understood that Dr Wooldridge is still looking for two applicants to 
fill vacancies created by the resignation or removal of committee members.