Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to Senator Ludwig representing the Minister for Health and Ageing. In late 1995 the National Health and Medication Research Council released the first guidelines on ADHD diagnosis and treatment in Australia. In 2008 the Royal Australian College of Physicians was commissioned by the NHMRC to redevelop these guidelines. The Australian earlier this week reported that the revised guidelines rely heavily on the work of Dr Biederman, who is under investigation for failing to disclose around $1.6 million of funding from the pharmaceutical industry. It is also reported that Minister Roxon’s advisers were warned of this investigation in August 2008 but no action was taken until last month. My questions to the minister are: can the minister confirm the accuracy of these reports and explain if the release of the redeveloped guidelines on ADHD have been delayed or abandoned because of concerns that a reliance on Dr Biederman’s research has undermined their credibility?

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Xenophon for his question. Can I say that it is estimated that more than 350,000 Australian children and adolescents have ADHD. The Rudd government, medical professionals and parents have been concerned for some time about the lack of clear evidence based information to assist the many people affected by this condition. These draft guidelines, which I think Senator Xenophon referred to, have been developed to help improve the assessment, treatment and care of people with ADHD in Australia. They have been drafted by the Royal Australasian College of Physicians, who were commissioned, as Senator Xenophon outlined, in 2007 by the Department of Health and Ageing. The college has conducted a thorough and careful process to develop these draft guidelines and the draft guidelines recommend a multimodal approach to the treatment of ADHD.

I am advised that if the guidelines are followed by practitioners, children with ADHD will be carefully assessed and families will be informed of risks, benefits and options. The guidelines are currently in draft form—this goes to the central issue that Senator Xenophon has raised—pending formal approval by the National Health and Medical Research Council. This will be considered once an alleged conflict of interest investigation into a US based researcher is complete.

Whilst the work of this researcher is referenced in the guidelines, the researcher has not been involved in any way in the production of the guidelines. The National Health and Medical Research Council is closely monitoring the progress of the US investigation and once it is concluded will determine its significance or potential impact on the draft guidelines. (Time expired)

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I have a supplementary question. Given the conflict of interest allegations and the investigation, does the minister agree that it would be timely to revisit the scope of the ADHD guidelines to incorporate more social, psychosocial, education and other perspectives and void concerns of a pro-drug research bias? Further, is the minister concerned about this pro-drug research bias, given what has transpired with Dr Biederman?

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I thank Senator Xenophon for his supplementary question. With regard to the question as to the guidelines and whether they should be reviewed, I can take you to Professor David Forbes, who is the chair of the college’s guidelines working group and what he said earlier this week:

The college has and is looking carefully at the evidence around ADHD and through the process has responded to new evidence and submitted comments. At this point the evidence base has not changed sufficiently to warrant starting this process again.

I expect that the latest draft guidelines, along with supplementary information that summarises and provides further references for the analysis and management of ADHA will be released in the very near future. (Time expired)

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My final supplementary question, Mr President, is: more broadly, will the government look at the whole issue of the influence of pharmaceutical companies in terms of these terms of reference so that they are truly independent and not tainted by the commercial considerations of pharmaceutical companies?

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Xenophon for his question in relation to pharmaceutical companies. Can I say the use of pharmaceutical companies in Australia’s health system is underpinned by an evidence based approach. Pharmaceuticals are only subsidised under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme on the independent expert clinical advice of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. All of these processes have strong frameworks in place to manage conflicts of interest, ensuring that pharmaceutical companies cannot have undue influence on decisions about the entry or subsidisation of medicines in Australia.

If you look at the key facts around this issue you find that, more broadly, from 2006 the former government responded to public concerns about the prescription of ADHD medication, particularly in young children, by promising to develop guidelines. What this government has done is— (Time expired)