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.

The health department calls them 'holdover' submissions, but they're deferrals. Its strange language does not change the fact that this situation, decided without consultation, could have negative and long-lasting consequences for the world's second-oldest public health program and, more importantly, patients.

A special edition focused on the disappointing and unacceptable outcome on the proposed simplified and faster process for immunotherapies. The institution has revealed a disturbing attitude to patients shrouded in an ability to deliver change.

After a short break, we are back, and there is a lot to discuss. Recommendations to fund unapproved and unapprovable therapeutic interventions, continued disappointment on newborn screening, and a proposed misinformation law that is significantly based on misinformation and an assumption that the government knows best.

A significant structural change in the PBS, which the Government attempted to blunt with 60-day dispensed quantities, is arguably the main growth driver in spending on the program. We discuss the change, which along with others, represents a major reversal in a decades-long approach to medicines access.

The two-sided coin that is the access debate. The competing narratives that might be confusing Health Minister Mark Butler. Governance is an arcane issue, but it matters, and a different approach could mean a better approach to decision-making and improved outcomes.

It has been a week of red flags on the HTA Review, with the occasional green shoot. We investigate each and discuss how unconscious bias impacts decision-making. The way forward as the process progresses to an implementation phase requires some thought, a different approach and a willingness on behalf of stakeholders to do something that makes them very uncomfortable.