Pharmac v Rachel Smalley: Emails show the ugly culture at Pharmac

Broadcaster Rachel Smalley uncovered hundreds of pages of documents about herself after a Privacy Act request. Photo / File

OPINION

I am writing as I listen to the beat of my own heart. That’s not some sort of metaphor for how much I believe in what I’m saying - though I do - but rather a habit borne out of living with chronic heart disease and wondering whether I’ll ever receive the drug that will let me grow old.

It’s been quite a week.

In the latest chapter of a story that has been widely reported on, Pharmac’s chief executive Sarah Fitt has made an apology of sorts for her inappropriate comments about journalist Rachel Smalley. These comments were made in a series of internal emails with other senior staff, revealed in an OIA request lodged by Smalley herself.

Despite the public outpouring of disgust at the comments, Steve Maharey, chair of Pharmac, has said that the board has accepted her apology.

Well, I guess that is that.

Unfortunately, for those of us who have been involved in the increasingly quixotic endeavour of trying to reform Pharmac - a quest that we’ve pursued while losing colleagues and loved ones along the way – what I see as a lacklustre expression of regret by the Pharmac CEO is a bitter pill to swallow.

In the interests of full disclosure, I suffer from a rare disease for which there is no funded therapy in New Zealand. I’ve taken part, enthusiastically, in Smalley’s Medicine Gap campaign and I’ve had many conversations with her about the lack of medicine access in our country. I took part in the review of Pharmac and, as chair of Rare Disorders NZ, I have discussed medicine access with three ministers of health and several health select committees.

On the one hand we face a systemic problem which requires deep changes within a reformed health system. On the other, it’s personal: the choice in front of me this Christmas is to leave New Zealand with my family to seek treatment elsewhere - an uncertain path - or to stay here and die young - which I suppose has the benefit of being more certain, if somewhat less appealing.

I’ve always felt that Pharmac might, one day, be our greatest ally in removing the barriers facing those seeking treatment, but unfortunately and for reasons well enumerated by the Pharmac Review, it often ends up taking on the role for patients and advocates of a great adversary.

But I guess I am nothing if not an optimist.

Wherever possible I’ve sought to engage with Pharmac constructively. When they offered me the chance, I was among the first patients to participate in the advisory committee process to provide a patient perspective. Over the 15 minutes we were given, my brothers and I presented our case to a panel of experts to convince them to recommend lifesaving medication for me. I’ll never forget saying, through my own tears and those of my brothers, that I deserved to live.

To beg for your life is not an uplifting experience.

Pharmac CEO Sarah Fitt.

Ultimately, however, I came to see this plea as a personal act of trust, a gesture of good faith in a system that was trying to reform itself and which might yet hear this plea and act upon it.

Then I saw the emails.

The comments made about Smalley are bigger than a CEO’s frustration with the demands of a headstrong journalist. These comments hurt every advocate who has ever worried they might not be taken seriously, who has ever thought an official was rolling their eyes at them. They reinforce the thoughts of anyone who has hesitated to raise their voice for fear of being slapped down again.

They revealed what I believe is something ugly in the culture of Pharmac: what I view as contempt for the people they are meant to help.

Contempt is poisonous. It spreads throughout an organisation. It colours the way people are perceived. Patients seeking treatment are at risk of being seen as problems first and as people second.

Given that Pharmac is seeking more patients to be involved in the decision-making process and given the importance of understanding the lived experience of those seeking treatment, this erosion of trust among the very people Pharmac is meant to be engaging with is a critical problem.

I’d like to point out, however, that these criticisms are not a personal attack on the staff at Pharmac. Those I’ve encountered have been passionate, committed, and empathetic people. They deserve better from their leadership too.

All of which brings us to Steve Maharey and the Pharmac board. Faced with evidence of this contempt at the highest level and the erosion of trust in an agency already beset by a lack of credibility, their response is what I found to be an insincere apology and a list of actions that do not address the core problem: that patients do not have confidence Pharmac is acting in their best interests.

This is foremost a failure of governance. In light of this, Rare Disorders NZ has called for the removal of Steve Maharey as Chair of Pharmac.

Would such a move restore trust in the agency? Probably not, on its own, but it would create the opportunity Pharmac needs to evolve into the agency it ought to be - our greatest ally in the struggle to provide equitable access to medicines in New Zealand.

James McGoram, Chair of Rare Disorders New Zealand.