Joanne Kaiser-Smith, DO,
FACOI, FACP, assistant dean,
Graduate Medical Education,
University of Medicine and Dentistry New Jersey,
School of Osteopathic Medicine, Stratford, N.J.
Dr. Hospitalist responds:
Dr. Kaiser-Smith: Thank you for your letter to the editor. You are absolutely correct. My intention was not to overlook the postgraduate training of osteopathic physicians, which, as you pointed out, is governed differently from the postgraduate allopathic training programs.
Thank you for sharing this information with our readers.
New Zealanders have pharmaceutical choice, but most choose subsidized meds
Dr. Williams’ excellent article (see “Hospitalist Down Under,” Feb-ruary 2011, p. 1) about his experiences at a country hospital in New Zealand and comparisons with the U.S. system has had a warm reception in this country. However, one statement he makes needs correction.
Dr. Williams states that if a drug was not available on the New Zealand “formulary” (the Pharmaceutical Schedule), then it is not available. The New Zealand government has separate drug evaluation (Medsafe) and funding (PHARMAC) agencies, each of which has different remits. Medsafe decides which medicines are safe and effective to use in New Zealand. PHARMAC decides which medicines will be funded by the government, and publishes this list in the Pharmaceutical Schedule.
Any Medsafe-approved drug can be prescribed for New Zealand patients, even those not on the schedule. About 20% of medicines used in New Zealand are purchased privately.
Our experience is that when faced with a choice, New Zealanders usually opt for government-funded medicines (those subsidized by PHARMAC). For this reason, the majority of medicines prescribed for New Zealand patients are funded by the government.
Thanks again for the excellent article.
Simon England,
communications manager,
PHARMAC, Wellington,
New Zealand