Pharmacy Daily | Taxes and NTs subsidies

Monash School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine Adjunct Associate Professor Ken Harvey has expressed his concerns around taxes being used to “subsidise therapies that lack a good evidence base”, in response to yesterday’s article ‘Labour CM cuts slammed’. He writes: As a public health physician I certainly agree that a greater investment in preventative health is cost-effective. But, as a member of the recent government Natural Therapies [NTs] Review Advisory Committee, I remind Carl Gibson (CMA) that the review was unable to find good evidence supporting the effectiveness of the therapies investigated. Does CMA really believe that providing a private health insurance rebate for therapies such as homeopathy, iridology and herbalism produces preventative health benefits? And where is the evidence that the majority of the natural products promoted and consumed contribute to a healthier lifestyle? The fact that people who had visited a natural therapist were more likely to have healthier behaviours is probably due to the underlying demographic of such people (female, educated and affluent) rather than the specific intervention of a natural therapist. I have no problems with people who make an informed choice to see a natural therapist or consume complementary medicines. I just don’t want my taxes to subsidise therapies that lack a good evidence base. PD welcomes letters to the editor on any subject of relevance to pharmacists and pharmacy business - write to info@pharmacydaily.com.au.

---

The above article was sent to subscribers in Pharmacy Daily's issue from 16 Jun 16
To see the full newsletter, see the embedded issue below or CLICK HERE to download Pharmacy Daily from 16 Jun 16