Kylea Tink (North Sydney, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. My constituent Paul Whitman has mantle cell lymphoma, but the therapy he needs, CAR T-cell therapy, is not funded for his condition. The therapy is already accessed by Australians with other conditions, and it was recommended by the Medical Services Advisory Committee for treatment of mantle cell lymphoma two years ago. Consequently, we have a system that delivers inequitable access to life-saving treatments. Why is this therapy being withheld from patients like Paul?

Mark Butler (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Health and Aged Care) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for that question, and I extend my best wishes to Mr Whitman and his family in a difficult battle against mantle cell lymphoma, a relatively rare form of blood cancer. I want to say a couple of things about this type of therapy before I come to the particular therapy that the member for North Sydney has asked about. This is a relatively new therapy. It's a cutting-edge therapy that, extraordinarily, extracts a patient's T cells, sends them off somewhere to be modified to equip them to fight a particular cancer, and then reinjects them into the patient. This therapy is proving very successful in battling—at this stage, at least—a number of types of blood cancer.

Until now, T-cell therapy has required the T cells to be sent either to Europe or to America and then sent back to Australia to be reinjected into the patient, but I'm delighted to say that, a few weeks ago, I opened the first manufacturing site in the Southern Hemisphere, at the well-renowned Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, down in Parkville in Melbourne. From now on, we'll be able to do our own modification, here in Australia, in sufficient numbers to cover the entire Australian market and also provide some export capability to the region.

CAR T-cell therapy, it's important to say, is delivered in public hospitals by state governments. It's co-funded on a 50-50 cost-sharing basis as part of our Hospital Funding Agreement, so state government agreement is required to implement the therapy. That can only be done after a recommendation from the Medicare Services Advisory Council, MSAC, which, as you know, balances the clinical and cost effectiveness of the therapy.

This question raises a few important points that are missed in the question about Tecartus, which is the particular therapy that the member has asked about. The drug company that makes Tecartus, Gilead, made an application to MSAC for approval back in 2020 and 2021, and they wanted a particular price for the therapy. MSAC approved the therapy as clinically effective but recommended a much lower price, and Gilead refused to act on that recommendation. A few months ago my department approached Gilead to ask them to resubmit their proposal at a lower price, which they did. MSAC then, out of session, approved that price and sent that recommendation to me. I accepted the recommendation and only a few weeks ago wrote to the state governments asking them to agree for us to act jointly on that. I'm still waiting for a response. That letter only went to them a few weeks ago. They deliver the therapy, and—I must really stress this—they have to agree to it. I'm hoping for urgent action on this, and I will keep the member informed as to progress about this particular therapy. (Time expired)