Fast Facts Medicaid programs that cover prescription drugs are generally required to cover drugs that are (1) FDA approved and (2) made by a manufacturer that participates in the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program. 13 Medicaid programs didn’t cover Mifeprex and its generic equivalent, Mifepristone Tablets, 200 mg, when required. These drugs are used for medical abortion. We recommended the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services ensure Medicaid programs comply with federal requirements for covering Mifepristone Tablets, 200 mg. We also reiterated our 2019 recommendation on Mifeprex, which hasn’t been implemented. White pills spilling from a pill bottle. Skip to Highlights Highlights What GAO Found Medicaid programs that choose to cover outpatient prescription drugs are required to cover all Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved drugs for their medically accepted indications when those drugs are made by a manufacturer that participates in the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program (MDRP), except as outlined in federal law. The FDA has approved two drugs—Mifeprex in 2000 and its generic equivalent in 2019, referred to as Mifepristone Tablets, 200 mg—for the medical termination of an intrauterine pregnancy, known as a medical abortion. Danco Laboratories and GenBioPro are the exclusive manufacturers of Mifeprex and Mifepristone Tablets, 200 mg, respectively, and both manufacturers participate in the MDRP. Medicaid programs in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico cover prescription drugs and participate in the MDRP. According to officials from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS)—the federal agency within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) responsible for ensuring Medicaid programs’ compliance—none of the MDRP’s statutory exceptions apply to Mifeprex or Mifepristone Tablets, 200 mg. Thus, these 52 Medicaid programs must cover these drugs when prescribed for medical abortion in circumstances eligible for federal funding, such as when the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest. GAO identified gaps in Medicaid programs’ coverage of Mifeprex and Mifepristone Tablets, 200 mg. Officials from 35 of the 49 programs who responded to GAO questions said their programs covered Mifeprex and Mifepristone Tablets, 200 mg for medical abortion, as of December 31, 2024. In contrast, officials from 13 programs told GAO their programs did not cover either drug for medical abortion. An official from the remaining program did not specify the medical indications for which its program covered the drugs. Medicaid Programs’ Coverage of Danco Laboratories’ Mifeprex and GenBioPro’s Mifepristone Tablets, 200 mg, as of December 31, 2024 Note: For more details, see fig. 1 in GAO-25-107911. State officials’ responses to GAO’s questions indicated that some states may not be complying with the MDRP requirements for covering Mifeprex and Mifepristone Tablets, 200 mg. However, CMS has not determined the extent to which states comply with the MDRP requirements for these drugs. CMS officials told GAO they were not aware of the following: Nine programs did not cover Mifeprex and Mifepristone Tablets, 200 mg for any medical indication, as of December 31, 2024; GAO reported four of these programs did not cover Mifeprex in 2019. Mifepristone Tablets, 200 mg was not available at the time of GAO’s 2019 report. Four additional Medicaid programs did not cover either drug when prescribed for medical abortion, as of December 31, 2024. CMS was not aware of these coverage gaps, in part, because it had not implemented GAO’s 2019 recommendation to take actions to ensure Medicaid programs comply with MDRP requirements to cover Mifeprex. CMS also has not taken actions related to the coverage of Mifepristone Tablets, 200 mg, as of August 2025. Without such actions, CMS lacks assurance that Medicaid programs comply with MDRP requirements and Medicaid beneficiaries may lack access to these drugs when appropriate. Why GAO Did This Study GAO was asked to describe Medicaid programs’ coverage of mifepristone. This report examines Medicaid programs’ coverage of Mifeprex and Mifepristone Tablets, 200 mg, among other things. GAO reviewed laws and CMS guidance on the MDRP, and coverage of Mifeprex and Mifepristone Tablets, 200 mg. GAO also sent written questions to officials from the 52 Medicaid programs that participate in the MDRP regarding their coverage of these drugs, and reviewed officials’ responses from the 49 programs that provided GAO information. Recommendations GAO reiterates its 2019 recommendation that CMS take actions to ensure states’ compliance with MDRP requirements to cover Mifeprex. GAO also recommends that CMS determine the extent to which states comply with federal Medicaid requirements regarding coverage of GenBioPro’s Mifepristone Tablets, 200 mg, and take actions, as appropriate, to ensure compliance. In response to the recommendation, HHS noted it is reviewing applicable law and will determine the best course of action to address it moving forward. Recommendations for Executive Action Agency Affected Recommendation Status Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services The Administrator of CMS should determine the extent to which states comply with federal Medicaid requirements regarding coverage of GenBioPro's Mifepristone Tablets, 200 mg, and take actions, as appropriate, to ensure compliance. (Recommendation 1) Open Actions to satisfy the intent of the recommendation have not been taken or are being planned. When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information. Full Report Full Report (11 pages)

The Australian Government is providing temporary fee and levy relief for offshore wind projects. Amendments(external link) to the Offshore Electricity Infrastructure Regulations 2022(external link) provide temporary financial relief for licence holders for 2 years. The regulations: waive annual levies for feasibility and research and demonstration licences halve annual levies for transmission and infrastructure licences reduce the fees to apply for a research and demonstration licence from $300,000 to $20,000 reduce the fee to apply for a transmission and infrastructure licence from $300,000 to $150,000. These changes will: ease the financial burden for the emerging offshore wind sector allow the sector to focus time and funds on their projects drive innovation. Developers must still: undertake environmental assessment consult with affected communities. These requirements haven’t changed. The amendments also clarify the types of infrastructure regulated by the Offshore Electricity Infrastructure Act 2021(external link). Seeing the benefits Local communities are closer to seeing the benefits of the offshore wind sector. These include: jobs for manufacturers, suppliers, and service providers business opportunities for providing goods and services opportunities for young people and reskilling workers First Nations partnerships reduced pollution and emissions to help combat climate change. Find out more about levy and application fee relief. Read more Offshore wind in Australia Offshore Infrastructure Registrar(external link)

We have partnered with OriginsNext to develop a coral traceability solution for the Queensland Coral Fishery. This will be a world-first solution. It will: support transparency and regulation of the coral trade for the Aquarium industry track and trace wild and captive bred coral through supply chains bolster public trust in fisheries products sourced from the fishery provide trust and assurance to domestic and international markets The solution will trace individual pieces of coral from harvest to export. It will differentiate between wild-harvested coral specimens and those produced on-land. This will ensure provenance is clearly recorded. It will use cutting edge, secure and tamper-proof technologies. It will also help Australia meet its obligations under the Convention of International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). CITES requires parties to ensure trade is sustainable, legal and traceable. Hard coral is listed under the CITES. The coral traceability system will be rolled out from late 2026. This work is funded by the Reef Trust. The Reef Trust is Australia’s investment program for the Great Barrier Reef. OriginsNext is an Australian-built ecosystem platform. They deliver traceability and transparency across global supply chains. Read more OriginsNext - Empowering Supply Chain Ecosystems(external link) Protecting the Great Barrier Reef Connect with the Reef Trust

Public hearing into the Environment Protection Reform Bill 2025 and related bills 14 November 2025 Thank you for the opportunity to appear before this inquiry. The minerals industry strongly supports this bill’s intent to deliver a system that protects Australia’s unique environment while enabling responsible and efficient project development. At present Australia has more than 230 operating mines, representing 11 per cent of GDP, 1.2 million jobs in the value support chain, $161 billion in goods and services using 63,700 local suppliers and a conservative estimate of $661 million in community support last year. Mining capital is highly mobile, and while Canada, the United States and Chile – as well as emerging mining jurisdictions such as South America and the Middle East – are acting decisively to cut approval times and attract investment, it takes 16 years to bring new mines and processing facilities into production in Australia. Modernising the EPBC approval process will allow our industry to deliver investment, jobs and regional benefits faster. When mining grows faster, all Australians benefit. Developing more mines, more quickly will allow Australia to responsibly produce sooner and at greater scale – from traditional commodities to critical minerals such as copper, nickel and lithium – to support global decarbonisation and sustainable development goals. We have an immense opportunity before us to boost Australia’s position and reputation as a reliable and globally leading producer of the minerals the world needs. The right reforms will help supercharge jobs, investment and Australia’s prosperity. And the right reforms will also help enable Australia to move ahead of our competitors and take the lead in the race to supply critical minerals to the world. A reform package that achieves the right balance – protecting the environment, building public confidence and enabling timely development of Australia’s resource projects, from iron ore, coal and gold to copper, nickel, lithium, molybdenum and other critical minerals – would represent balance for the mining sector and a lasting win for Australia. The MCA has been engaging constructively with various parties on amendments so this bill can deliver better outcomes for the environment, communities and the economy. However, several fundamental changes must be made to ensure the Bill is workable, balanced and effective. If these key issues are not addressed, the risk of unintended consequences for business is high – and the legislation will fail to deliver a net gain for environmental outcomes, productivity or the government’s economic and decarbonisation priorities. Key changes which should be in the Bill include: A single, clear definition of unacceptable impacts for all Matters of National Environmental Significance (MNES) is required. Unacceptable impacts is a critical new test where projects will either be rejected outright or move forward for detailed assessment. The 37 requirements are unclear and subjective, capturing vast swathes of the landscape and opening avenues for legal challenge. As drafted, this does not achieve the government’s intent to provide clear criteria. This complex issue requires clear, evidence-based guidance through national standards and policy – rather than unclear legislation that cannot be easily fixed. All existing assessment pathways should be retained Complex developments are unlikely to qualify for the new streamlined process. Removing current pathways would force most projects – except minor ones – into the longest and most costly approval route, undermining the intent of reform. Clear accountability of the proposed Environment Protection Agency (EPA): The EPA must be accountable to the public through elected officials. The Government’s statement of expectations should be binding or supported by direction powers similar to those under NOPSEMA. The CEO will hold a powerful position and should be removable for failing to meet these expectations. Without this accountability, the EPA’s role should be limited to compliance, enforcement and assurance functions only. Compliance and enforcement measures should be balanced and proportionate: Very high penalties and unconstrained Environmental Protection Orders (EPOs) without safeguards creates investment risk. High penalties should apply only to egregious beaches. EPOs should be time-limited, evidence-based, and subject to natural justice. New climate disclosures should be explicitly excluded from decision-making: These provisions risk duplicating existing reporting obligations and could open new avenues for legal challenge. The legislation should make clear the Minister’s stated intent these will not form part of approval decisions. Greater clarity around the “net gain” test: The proposed “net environmental gain” requirement will create uncertainty for proponents. The test should be redefined to require a net gain for the environment as a whole, rather than every individual matter. Refinement of the nuclear actions definition: While the intent is supported, as drafted it would unintentionally capture commodities and activities unrelated to the nuclear fuel cycle – such as critical minerals, universities and medical facilities. Simple changes can maintain the focus on radiological risk. While the bills include changes that will enable greater efficiency, most business gains will only happen over time. Once the bills are passed, Federal and willing state and territory governments should commit to an ambitious, timebound pathway to accredit state and territory processes. If industry’s key concerns can be addressed, the MCA supports the Bills being passed. Thank you for the opportunity to appear today, and we look forward to discussing these issues further with the Committee.

Australian Gridded Farm Data report and data files Download Report PDF - 2.1 MB Download Report Word - 3.1 MB Download Data ZIP (NetCDF) - 38 GB If you have difficulty accessing these files, contact us for help. The Australian Gridded Farm Data (AGFD) are a set of national simulated farm business data produced by ABARES. The AGFD Version 1.5 contains maps of simulated data on historical and projected farm business outcomes including profitability on an 0.05-degree (approximately 5 km) grid. The maps have been derived using ABARES farmpredict model, which is based on ABARES farm survey data. The maps do not represent actual observed data – they model predicted outcomes for representative or ‘typical’ farm businesses at each location with assumed climate and commodity prices scenarios. Key updates included in Version 1.5 of the AGFD include: New climate projection scenarios based on an ensemble of CMIP5 climate projections Extended historical climate scenario covering the period 1950-51 to 2022-23 Inclusion of a farm land value layer, based on interpolated farm survey data The climate projection scenarios adopt the same methodology as previous ABARES analysis. As with previous research, these projections do not account for the offsetting effects of farm adaptation or technological improvement. As such, these results provide estimates of ‘adaptation pressure’: identifying which farm locations are likely to be under pressure to adapt to climate change. Previous versions Australian Gridded Farm Data Report 2024 (PDF 1.23 MB) Australian Gridded Farm Data Report 2024 (DOCX 1.41 MB) Historical climate and prices – ZIP 1007 MB Historical climate prices fixed – ZIP 1006 MB If you have difficulty accessing these files, contact us for help.

We use some essential cookies to make this website work.