Should industry groups present the agreement negotiations to patient groups and 'invited' stakeholders, and if so, what should they say? Why the private market for GLP-1 medicines could be a historic catalyst for the changes so many want.

The impact of new media guidance from Australia's health technology regulator can now be assessed against the backdrop of its use of an AI platform initially developed for, and still used by, intelligence and law enforcement agencies. Why is the debate in Australia so limited, confined to a small group of privileged insiders, and why do so many appear uncomfortable with patients having meaningful rights?

A week dominated by discussions about AI that was all of good, less good, self-serving and ironic. Surely we can grasp the opportunity while managing the risks. A dehumanising outcome for women living with a form of advanced breast cancer must surely trigger ministerial intervention and another highly questionable Intergenerational Report.

This week, we mark a significant anniversary, discuss the risks of missing the opportunity that artificial intelligence offers to speed access to healthcare, and explore why some might be reluctant to embrace it. The wonderful irony of the phrase of the week.

This week's discussion starts with the perfect example of why pulling one lever can trigger another. The Senate's considering changes to expand the regulator's power, without any submissions from those most affected. Is it possible to have a common-sense discussion about tobacco excise against the backdrop of an unrelenting crime wave with mounting numbers of innocent victims? Or can those not impacted by the consequences just turn the other cheek? Sound familiar?

Why pulling the same 'levers' on reform cannot work. Comparing one medicines access program and its humanitarian underpinnings to our institutional frameworks. The need for term limits on advisory committees, the enduring unfairness of medicine co-payments, and the phrase of the week.

The opportunities available in the pending negotiation of new industry agreements and the selective discrimination against some patients and patient groups by an outdated and unaccountable institution.

For more than a decade, Public Summary Documents have been presented as evidence of system transparency, but in fact, they are an affront to it. What was the discussion about transparency that ended with an impenetrable 50-page technical document as the solution? Who remembers that the PBS still has 'Special Patient Contributions'? Also, a new guide on talking about the deception that are the agreements euphemistically described as 'risk shares'.

Read the BAA guide to risk share arrangements.