‘Lives are at risk’: The new poll that’s sparked political debate and finger pointing
Wednesday, 6 August 2025
Would you move to Australia to access an unfunded medicine? Do you know someone who has had to fork out for an unfunded drug? Exclusive new poll results reveal why medicines funding will be an election year focus. Senior journalist Nicholas Jones reports.
More than a third of New Zealanders say a boost in funding for modern medicines would influence their vote in next year’s general election, according to new polling.
The results from the research conducted for the pharmaceutical lobby group Medicines NZ - shared exclusively with Stuff - also reveal 31% of respondents knew someone who had paid for an unfunded medicine for an illness.
The polling underlines how medicines funding will again be a focus in the lead-in to next year’s election, and has caused immediate political debate and finger pointing.
Before returning to power National campaigned on funding cancer treatments available in Australia, but despite a boost to Pharmac’s budget New Zealand still lags behind other developed countries in terms of access to medicines.
The Government's budget is tight, however, with other parts of the health system strained by growing demand, fuelled by an ageing population and more expensive new treatments.
Medicines NZ lobbies for its members, including some of the world’s biggest pharmaceutical companies - Pfizer, Merck, MSD, Roche and AstraZeneca, amongst others.
It used the market research company Perceptive to conduct an online survey of 992 New Zealanders, done from May to June, with the results weighted to give a representative sample of the population.
The range of questions found strong support for greater government investment in medicines, the supply of which is negotiated by the drug-buying agency Pharmac. This included:
43% of respondents said the Government should be funding medicines “much more”, with another 31% opting for “a little more”, and the rest “about the same” or less.
Half of those surveyed believed New Zealand’s access to modern medicines is worse than in other developed countries like the UK, Australia and Canada.
Asked how much an increase in funding to improve access to modern medicines would influence their vote, 11% said “extremely”, and 25% said “very much”. Another 35% said “moderately”, 18% opted for “slightly”, and 10% said not at all.
The survey also asked “would you consider moving to Australia in order to access a prescription medicine you need if it meant prolonging, improving or saving your life or the life of a family member?” A majority said they would (45% said they would consider moving, 8% said they had already or were considering moving to Australia).
Another question was “if you or someone you know were diagnosed with the following disease or condition, how confident are you that you, or they, could access the best available medicine to treat it in New Zealand?”
For cancer, 19% of those surveyed selected “not at all confident”, compared to 24% of people who were very or extremely confident.
For rare diseases, the “not at all confident” proportion was 36%, compared to 11% of people who were very or extremely confident.
Are the prices charged by drug companies reasonable?
Dr Graeme Jarvis, chief executive of Medicines NZ, said the results demonstrated New Zealanders knew there was an underinvestment, and that we “still sit at the bottom of the OECD compared to our peer countries for modern medicines access”.
“The poll results clearly highlight that New Zealanders are expecting more from the Government.”
Asked if pharmaceutical companies bore some of the blame, given the very high prices charged for many new drugs, Jarvis said other countries undertook a cost-benefit analysis on medicines, as New Zealand did.
“The cost of the medicines is shown to be fair and reasonable as the medicines provide good value for money from these analyses. This is why all those other countries choose to publicly fund them.”
Pharmac’s “options for investment” list - drugs and treatments it wanted to fund but could not currently afford - numbered more than 110 medicines, Jarvis said, many of which were standard of care in comparable countries.
Pharmaceutical companies have a vested interest in more public money being spent on medicines, but Jarvis said the results of the independent and robust polling were more relevant than who commissioned it.
Political reaction: Pharmac ‘capable when supported’
Health Minister Simeon Brown declined to comment, and referred questions to David Seymour, the Associate Health Minister with responsibility for Pharmac.
He told Stuff the polling “is undoubtedly an accurate representation of the public opinion”.
“If you know anyone in need of life saving or changing medicine, you know the importance of ensuring Pharmac has enough funding to help them.
“As the responsible Minister, increasing medicines access is one of my greatest priorities. My preference is to secure as much funding as possible for Pharmac because we have seen what it is capable of when given the support it needs.”
Seymour said last year Pharmac received its largest ever budget, of nearly $6.3 billion over four years, which funded access to 66 additional medicines, benefiting more than 200,000 people.
“I am looking forward to continuing to advocate for and work with Pharmac as we continue to ensure Kiwis get timely access to medicines and medical devices.”
However, Dr Ayesha Verrall, Labour’s health spokesperson, said the current Government had over-promised and under-delivered.
“They campaigned on funding more cancer drugs, but then flip flopped at the first possible opportunity. It took patient advocates to hold the Government’s feet to the fire to get them to follow through reluctantly on their promise.
“Medicines should be more accessible and affordable. That’s why we introduced free prescriptions and boosted funding for Pharmac while in government. Christopher Luxon overturning Labour’s free prescription policy has just added to cost of living woes.”
What will Labour do if returned to power?
“We’ll release policy in due course,” Verrall said. “But I can guarantee we won’t give tobacco companies a tax break while people struggle to pay their bills and get medicines.
‘Lives needlessly lost or shortened’
Tim Edmonds, chief executive of Leukaemia & Blood Cancer NZ, said the polling highlighted “a clear shift in public sentiment”.
“New Zealanders no longer see penny-pinching on medicines as a responsible way to manage taxpayer money. People recognise the value that modern treatments can deliver - better health, fewer hospitalisations, a return to work, and the ability to be present for their families.
“Those outcomes remain out of reach for many … with no new government funding allocated to the purchase of new medicines in any of the next four years, that reality is simply unacceptable to most New Zealanders.”
Auckland Hospital haematologist Dr Rodger Tiedemann, also an associate professor in medicine at the University of Auckland, said New Zealand’s spend on medicines remains “at or near the bottom of the OECD countries”.
“Kiwis with cancer and other serious illnesses get under-treated in NZ because of the lack of funded medicines. Lives are needlessly lost or shortened as a result. The cost of under-funding medicines is huge - to patients, their families and the community at large.”
Tiedemann - who has no financial relationship with Medicines NZ and was independently approached by Stuff for comment on the polling - said Pharmac did the best it could.
“The failure to adequately support medicines access lies with the Government … the issue has been allowed to quietly build over the past 15 years, under both left and right leaning governments. Both Labour and National have been responsible for under-funding Pharmac.”
Tiedemann is unsympathetic to the argument that New Zealand is simply not wealthy enough to keep up with medicines access.
“New Zealand has the 33rd highest income of 180 nations. We have a higher national income - GDP per capita - than France, Italy, Spain, the EU average and Saudi Arabia. Our general governmental debt is below the OECD average.”