New Zealand Medicines Spending Report Urges Higher Funding

Future governments in New Zealand are being urged to spend more on medicines, after a new economic analysis said every extra dollar delivered almost $2 in economic return and could pay for itself in three years.
The report, commissioned by Business NZ, lands in a long-running policy debate over whether the country underinvests in drugs and treatments relative to peers. Business NZ says medicines account for just 4.9% of New Zealand’s health budget, well below the OECD average of 13.3% and Australia’s 12.2%, a gap it argues is costing the economy in avoidable illness, absenteeism and pressure on hospitals.
BERL estimated New Zealand would need to add about NZ$2.7 billion a year in medicine spending to reach the OECD benchmark, but said the payoff is substantial: the analysis found each dollar invested returns NZ$1.93 to the broader economy and NZ$1.15 to the Crown. It said the GDP benefit would overtake the cost within three years, while the fiscal payback to government would come over roughly 20 years through higher tax revenue and lower health-system costs.
For investors, the policy signal is a reminder that drug access and reimbursement remain central to the economics of the pharmaceutical sector. More public spending would support demand for newer medicines and could improve market access in a country that Business NZ says has been slower than comparable markets to approve and fund them.
The report also reinforces a broader global theme: governments trying to control health budgets are being pressed to treat medicine spending less as a cost and more as an investment in productivity. The argument is politically sensitive because it implies shifting existing health dollars toward pharmaceuticals rather than simply expanding the overall budget.
Business NZ said the report was aimed at policymakers, not drugmakers, even though it received funding from AbbVie, GSK and Roche. The lobbying push now raises the prospect of the issue becoming part of future budget and election debates, with any shift in funding priority likely to be watched closely by drug companies, hospitals and insurers.
| Entity | Gains | Losses |
|---|---|---|
| Pharmaceutical companies | ▲Higher funding and access | ▼Budget restraint |
| Patients and workers | ▲Better treatment access | ▼Longer waits, unmet need |
| Government fiscal planners | ▲Future productivity gains | ▼Near-term spending pressure |
| Hospitals and health services | ▲Less avoidable demand | ▼Continued strain if underfunded |