RSM logo
JRSM

Home Current issue Browse archive Alerts About the journal Feedback
 
J R Soc Med 2008;101:305-312
doi:10.1258/jrsm.2008.070289
© 2008 Royal Society of Medicine

This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Send a Quick Comment
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when Quick Comments are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by MacKenzie, R.
Right arrow Articles by Holding, S.
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?

Media influence on Herceptin subsidization in Australia: application of the rule of rescue?

Ross MacKenzie Simon Chapman Glenn Salkeld   Simon Holding

School of Public Health, University of Sydney 2006 Australia

Correspondence to: Prof Simon Chapman sc{at}med.usyd.edu.au

Background In August 2006, the Australian government announced that Herceptin (Trastuzumab) would be added to the national Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) of government-subsidized drugs, for treatment with adjuvant chemotherapy of HER2 breast cancer. Following initial reticence, the health minister responded to a campaign by patients and patient advocacy groups by announcing PBS subsidization which lowered the cost of a weekly dose from A$1000 to A$30. The cost to the government would be A$470 million over three years for treatment of an estimated 2100 women annually.

Design We analysed the news frames used in all direct and attributed statements (n=239) in television news coverage of the discourse preceding the Herceptin decision by the Australian government.

Setting Five Sydney free-to-air channels between October 2005 and August 2006.

Main outcome measures News frames or themes.

Results Of five news frames identified, one (‘desperate, sick women in double jeopardy because of callous government/incompetent bureaucracy’) accounted for 54% of all reported statements. Government financial parsimony was framed as responsible for the women's plight, with drug industry pricing never mentioned. Claimed benefits of Herceptin often conflated cancer non-recurrence and survival and favoured quantification rhetoric which emphasized percentage increases in improvement rather than the more modest increases in absolute survival.

Conclusions News frames invoking key tenets of the ‘rule of rescue’ dominated television discourse on Herceptin. Clinicians, patients, their families and patient advocacy groups invoking the rule of rescue can increase the likelihood of achieving their objective of gaining access to expensive healthcare such as pharmaceuticals. Rational, criteria-based public health policy will find it hard to resist the rule of rescue imperative.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?




Recent Advances in Otolaryngology 8