Trade stand-off continues as US drug tariffs loom
In a continuation of his erratic approach to trade policy, President Donald Trump says taxes on drug imports could be announced as soon as the end of the month, with eventual tariff rates of up to 200 per cent.
"We're going to start off with a low tariff and give the pharmaceutical companies a year or so to build, and then we're going to make it a very high tariff," Mr Trump said.
Australia's Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, under which the government negotiates medicine prices with manufacturers before subsidising them for patients, is reportedly in the crosshairs of US pharmaceutical companies lobbying the White House.
The Albanese government has flatly refused any negotiation on the PBS.
"Obviously, they are being lobbied, as other US Presidents have been for many years by the US big pharma industry, which wants not just Australia's scheme but other schemes like it around the world ... they want that freed up," federal health minister Mark Butler said on Wednesday.
"They want to see their profits increased. That's been the case for decades and decades."
The PBS is crucial to ensure equitable and affordable access to medicines, according to Royal Australian College of GPs president Michael Wright.
"We should be proud of the prime minister and treasurer's steadfast support for maintaining the PBS, regardless of external pressure."
But complaints about such pricing schemes are common across the industry and include Australian medicine manufacturers, says Melbourne University research fellow Joe Carrello.
"They argue the increasing costs it takes to investigate and run trials and bring a new drug to market aren't keeping up with what the return is, given what the government is willing to pay," Dr Carrello told AAP.
Dr Carrello, who helps evaluate medicines proposed for the PBS after their approval by the Therapeutic Goods Administration, said there could be consequences to a relatively small market like Australia negotiating such lean prices.
"The fear is some US companies may decide against launching new drugs in Australia because comparatively, they're not going to get a good price," he said.
In the US, where a relatively free-market approach has been favoured, drug prices are almost three times higher than in 33 comparable income countries, according to RAND research.
Australians have an average life expectancy of 83.2 years, compared to 77.4 years in the US, World Bank data shows.
"Without the PBS, we'd see people losing access to affordable medications and an increased spend per person on average but it wouldn't be evenly distributed," Dr Carrello said.
In a submission to a Productivity Commission inquiry, pharmaceutical giant Pfizer criticised the PBS's assessment process, claiming it under-accounted for drug and vaccine benefits over multiple budget cycles and missed broader social benefits.
"Over the last decade, while the total PBS spend has increased, the proportion of the PBS that funds innovative medicines has seen minimal growth," Pfizer wrote in its submission.
"This means, as a proportion of GDP, the government's expenditure on innovative medicines is going backwards."
Federal treasurer Jim Chalmers has joined the health minister in ruling out any changes to the PBS in US trade negotiations.
"This Albanese Labor government is about strengthening the PBS in the interests of our people, not weakening it in the interests of American multinationals," he recently said.
As for Australian drug producers, the federal government was still weighing the impacts of the proposed tariffs on Australian exports, which were worth $2.2 billion in 2024.
"(President Trump) indicated there was a long lead time, a long period where he'd be considering this possible step," Dr Chalmers said.
That lead time was cut by a matter of months this week, in a sign the United States' push may be turning to a shove.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
West Australian
24 minutes ago
- West Australian
Nick Bruining: Savings bonds are back to dodge $3m super tax whack, but they're not just for the wealthy ...
With legislation to enact the new extra 15 per cent tax on superannuation balances over $3 million about to be debated, attention is turning to alternative investment vehicles which can be used by anyone, not just the wealthy. Older-style savings bonds are set to make a comeback with the simplicity and flexibility of a public offer superannuation fund, coupled with early access to tax-free savings. Saving bonds were at the heart of life insurance savings plans sold heavily in the 1980s and 90s. Unlike the fee-hefty offerings that paid financial advisers handsome commissions back then, current versions are low-fee and commissions are now banned. In a similar way to superannuation funds, investors using these tax-paid bonds see the bond provider deduct tax on the earnings of the fund and send that tax to the Australian Taxation Office. The tax rate is 30 per cent on the earnings of the fund. But unlike the proposed tax on super balances above $3m, the tax is only payable on actual earnings and realised capital gains of the fund. One of the major criticisms of the new super tax is that the extra 15 per cent is payable on unrealised gains and is levied against the individual. Members are likely to be able to elect to have the tax deducted from their super fund, but that assumes the fund has the liquidity on hand to provide the cash. That might not be the case with some self-managed superannuation fund arrangements. The 30 per cent tax rate with a savings bond is the same rate of marginal tax that someone pays when they earn between $45,000 and $135,000. But unlike personal tax, there's no Medicare levy payable, meaning investors in that income range save at least 2 per cent. It also means that it may not be tax-efficient for those investors earning less than $45,000 a year because the maximum tax they would pay is 18 per cent, including Medicare. If the savings bond is held for at least 10 years, all of the proceeds can be withdrawn tax-free. There are no age restrictions on when the money is invested or accessed. Even if you access the money before 10 years, the invested amount is returned tax-free with the earnings of the fund taxable — but coming with a 30 per cent tax offset or credit. From year eight, two-thirds of the earnings are taxable and if accessed in year nine, only one-third is taxable. Like super, if you access the bond because of death, severe financial hardship or disability, no tax is payable whenever you access the capital and earnings. Also like super, the money in a savings bond is generally not accessible to bankruptcy trustees if your personal financial position crashes. One important point to note: Unlike imputation or franking credits attached to Australian share dividends, if you access the earnings early, any unused tax credits are not refunded. There are no initial contribution limits but to stop people rorting the system and loading up a savings bond just prior to the 10-year tax-free requirement being met, limits apply. These are based on the previous year's contribution and restrict the amount invested to 125 per cent of the previous year's contribution. For example, someone who invests $10,000 in year one, could put in $12,500 in year two and $15,625 in year three. If they missed year four, they would have to start a new savings bond in year five. Investors have a similar range of investment choice to public offer super funds. That means shares, property, fixed interest and cash. The 10-year long-term nature of savings bonds means that most investors could realistically use long-term growth investments such as shares or property to enhance the likely return. The other point to remember is that the number of companies offering savings bonds is limited. This is because only Australian Prudential Regulation Authority-regulated and registered life insurance companies and friendly society firms can offer them. While the invested money is not guaranteed, investors benefit from the tight supervision the watchdog imposes on registered organisations. Unlike a SMSF scheme, the entity operating this type of fund cannot be set up by an individual. Nick Bruining is an independent financial adviser and a member of the Certified Independent Financial Advisers Association
West Australian
24 minutes ago
- West Australian
Whose shout? Why splitting the bill could actually make you happier
When an outing calls for upfront payment — such as admission to the cinema, a play or a theme park — the question of who covers it can shape the tone before the fun even begins. Navigating payment with others — whether colleagues, close friends or new acquaintances — can be tricky and interrupt the social dynamic that makes shared experiences so valuable. Our new research, published in Psychology and Marketing, suggests the way you approach splitting upfront costs could have some surprising impacts. In some cases, despite the dent in your bank account, covering the full cost of an experience for yourself and someone else could actually make you happier. But this won't always be the case. And it likely comes down to the different norms and expectations we have for different kinds of relationships. When times are tough financially, psychology suggests people would prefer to spend their money on material goods rather than experiences. Yet despite ongoing cost-of-living pressures, there's evidence to suggest many Australians are prioritising experiences. Experiences are not just services, but rather about creating memorable events. Compared with material goods, experiences are consistently linked to improved happiness. A big part of the benefit we derive from such experiences hinges on the fact that we share them with other people. Putting money towards experiences lets us spend time with other people and relate to them in ways just buying 'stuff' often can't match. So much so, that factors like who we go with, the quality of conversations an experience leads to, or the clarity we have about the other person's interests can have as much of an effect on happiness as the experience content itself. In shared experiences, where money is unavoidable, how does 'who pays' affect their wellbeing benefits? This is the question we posed in our latest research, co-authored with Belinda Barton and Natalina Zlatevska. We conducted three experiments with 2640 people and presented them with a common scenario: they would be going to the cinema with either their best friend or a casual acquaintance. We told half of the participants they would split the cost (that is, pay only for their own admission). The other half were told they would cover the whole cost for both themselves and the other person. We then asked them how happy they would be with this purchase. Across the three studies, when participants were with their best friend, they reported they would be happier paying the full amount than they would be splitting the cost. In contrast, when participants were with an acquaintance, we found that how the cost was split had no effect on happiness. With closer friends, unlike acquaintances and strangers, we often have a different set of norms and expectations — especially surrounding reciprocity. Interactions with close friends usually follow 'communal norms'. This is where people help each other based on care and need, without expecting something in return. On the other hand, interactions with strangers and acquaintances are more likely to follow 'exchange norms', which prioritise balance and direct repayment. In line with this, we found when participants were with their best friends, their expectations of repayment were lower than with acquaintances when they paid for them. Where participants had higher expectations of repayment, they noted they would be less happy. We also tested other ideas, such as whether who pays would affect how smooth the conversation felt or whether it created awkwardness in the dynamic. We also examined whether the payment felt like an investment in the relationship, or whether it made the other person think more positively of the participant. We found that none of these really changed depending on who paid and how close the two people were, so they didn't seem to explain why paying for a close friend felt better. Instead, norms around reciprocity in different types of relationships can make paying feel more transactional than a kind gesture. This, in turn, affects how happy it makes us feel. While our research suggests paying for others can make you happier, we don't recommend budgeting your life savings for this cause. We limited our experiments to inexpensive experiences (that is, the cinema). So, it's unlikely paying for your friend's 2026 Europe trip will bring you ultimate happiness. Also, if your friend already owes you money, you might expect them to pay you back sooner, and footing the bill again could start to wear thin on your happiness. Aimee E. Smith is a postdoctoral research fellow in the Net Zero Observatory at the University of Queensland. This article first appeared at The Conversation
West Australian
24 minutes ago
- West Australian
Jovan Cvetkoski: Here's why every Australian worker should have income protection insurance
Have you ever thought about what might happen to you and your family if you suddenly couldn't work? Whether that's due to an illness, accident, redundancy or a sudden but important caring role. How would you cope without an active income? Would you sell your assets? Rely on government payments that are considerably less than your current income or move back in with your parents? Most of us would never consider driving around in our car uninsured, yet only one in three Australians insure their most important asset — their ability to earn an income. Many people I talk to say: 'Well, I own my house.' But unless you're one of the very lucky ones, unfortunately you don't own your house — the bank does. A mortgage is not a financial plan. In Australia we protect our health with private health cover, we protect our cars with car insurance, our home with home and contents insurance, so why don't we protect our income? Because when you really get back to basics, your income is your biggest asset. It pays for your home, your family, your weekends, puts food on the table and pays for the kids' school fees. I believe Aussies are chronically underinsured. Here's why you need to consider income protection insurance Aussies are known all over the world for our laconic 'she'll be right' attitude and most of us truly believe it won't happen to us. And while you have to admire our optimism, it does indeed happen to many of us. Australians suffer from a bit of inertia when it comes to insurance. Many of us have a general lack of awareness about what types of cover are available and what they're for. There's also confusion over costs. Many Australians believe insurance is expensive, but in reality it's very affordable and has become less inexpensive in recent years as we tend to live longer. While it's often a difficult topic to broach as it involves thinking about getting sick or even dying, it's the best gift you can give your family because they won't have to worry about paying the bills. But unfortunately, when cost of living is tight, that's when things like insurance — often seen as a non-essential — get cut from household budgets. But it's also when we need it most. 1. Life and Total and Permanent Disability insurance Covers you for: 2. Trauma cover Covers you for: 3. Income protection Covers you for: I unfortunately see a lot of people who need to claim income protection and (for those with it) the financial stress is alleviated, allowing them to focus on recovery. This heavily depends on your circumstances, but you generally require enough cover to pay out a mortgage, cover funeral and medical costs, maybe keep the kids in private school and/or provide an income for your spouse. You will require the most cover in your late 30s to early 50s when debt is at its highest, living off one income and paying for school fees. Insurance levels, like other parts of your financial life, should be reviewed regularly. As kids get older and debt is reduced the level of cover required can often also be reduced. We never know what's around the corner for us, but having income protection insurance is one thing we can control, and it means no matter what happens we can always roll the dice in our favour. Jovan Cvetkoski is a financial adviser and director at Knight Group in Perth
