What is the balance between building national sovereignty in health and protecting patient safety and community confidence in new technologies? Do we need to be careful? An election brings back memories of 'future' funds past.

The health election debate mainly concerned bulk billing. New bureaucracies are rarely the solution to anything, and the challenge of faster funded access to new health technologies, particularly when advisory committees with power appear opposed. The complexity of weight-loss therapies presents opportunities.

Australia's election is two weeks in, and we're having trouble engaging. How positional power and 'expertism' can be confused and the value of a transparent and open forum.

The industry's 'Faustian bargain' on the 'sanctity' of the PBS, the challenge so many have in being clear about the problem, and why Pathology Australia provides an important lesson. Another wrong political message on newborns, why dentists might be worried, positive news on a critical medicines reform, and kudos to a pharmacy chain for promoting flu vaccines.

US criticism of the PBS is like catnip for some people, they can't resist it, even if it's the same criticism articulated by multiple Australian stakeholders and the health minister. The strange secrecy over the government's review of arrangements for blood supply products and the terrible treatment of a female academic leader.

A total victory for pharmacy with the prime minister's appearance at their showcase annual event. We discuss the confected outrage over US interest in the PBS, which is hardly new, and why the industry needs to lead this debate because its reputation and change agenda are being trashed. Much of what PhRMA is arguing reflects what Health Minister Mark Butler said on Sunday when he announced new women's health listings.

Medicines Australia will be appointing a new chair. To what extent does it matter? The participation model means that the industry might be effectively shackled to the 'change' table rather than having a seat at it. The government has worked it out, constantly increasing the price of participation and limiting exclusionary discussions about change. How does that need to change?

A review of Senate Estimates, with irritating warnings, too much passivity, and passive-aggressive responses (0.00-4.50). Revelations on how oral contraceptives navigated the funding process and the drivers of that outcome (4.51-14.10). We disagree on the role of advisory committees in policymaking (14.10-25.00). The impact of individuals in health policy, how change can have a significant effect, and we disagree again on advisory committees and policy (25.01-39.20). Officials confirmed the HTA-driven go-slow on newborn screening at Senate Estimates (39.20-49.20). The challenge of ensuring equitable access to the newly-reimbursed oral contraceptives, given the need for a new prescription (49.20-55.30) and some worrying new policy announcements (55.30-66.50).