Genetics and genomics are the focus of this week's episode. It was a significant week with the release of one organisation's pre-budget submission and a new national framework. Not everyone is happy, but is the criticism fair?

Although the pandemic ended over two years ago, the more we learn about what happened, the more we need the promised Royal Commission.

We return in 2025 with a discussion about our recently published special series on achieving change, arguing for it in a system that treats patients as servile to the government's focus on securing the best deal for itself, moral hazards, and bad excuses.

A government review's six-year-old recommendations led to the decision to fund an unapproved and unapprovable product over an approved medicine. The document is the first in a series that ended with an unprecedented workaround on patient safety and confirms the truism that 'everything happens for a reason'.

International comparisons can work both ways, the incredibly disrespectful and dismissive 'let them eat cake' attitudes of two key advisory committees and a welcome ministerial intervention that should be more broadly applied. We also answer some questions from the audience.

There was quite a bit of eminence this week in the public discussion about access to health technologies. Some personal and wider reflections on the role of prejudice in funding and reimbursement decisions.

We draw a line between some very careful use of language by small 'g' government officials that clearly connects some recent processes and events. It could be a coincidence, but it's remarkable and very convenient. Everything happens for a reason, and words matter.

It's another week of debate over PBS deferrals. Unfortunately, there appears to be an effort to limit public discussion. Given the obvious risk to patients and the implications for the access agenda, which is flailing against the backdrop of deferrals, how does that make sense? It also stands in stark contrast to when cost recovery was introduced.