Medicines In Public Facilities Research Articles

Variation in Price of Cardiovascular and Diabetes Medicine in Indonesia, and Relationship with Quality: A Mixed Methods Study in East Java.

Lower-middle income Indonesia, the world's fourth most populous country, has struggled to contain costs in its mandatory, single-payer public health insurance system since the system's inception in 2014. Public procurement policies radically reduced prices of most medicines in public facilities and the wider market. However, professional associations and the press have questioned the quality of these low-cost, unbranded generic medicines. We collected 204 samples of four cardiovascular and one antidiabetic medicines from health facilities and retail outlets in East Java. We collected amlodipine, captopril, furosemide, simvastatin, and glibenclamide, sampling to reflect patients' likelihood of exposure to specific brands and outlets. We recorded sales prices and maximum retail prices and tested medicines for dissolution and percentage of labeled content using high-performance liquid chromatography. We conducted in-depth interviews with supply chain actors. All samples, including those provided free in public facilities, met quality specifications. Most manufacturers make both branded and unbranded medicines. Retail prices varied widely. The median ratio of price to the lowest price for an equivalent product was 5.1, and a few brands sold for over 100 times the minimum price. Prices also varied between outlets for identical products because retail pharmacies set prices to maximize profit. Because very-low-cost medicines were universally available and of good quality, we believe richer patients who chose to buy branded products effectively protected medicine quality for poorer patients in Indonesia because manufacturers cross-subsidize between branded and unbranded versions of the same medicine.

The financial burden of out of pocket payments on medicines among households in Ethiopia: analysis of trends and contributing factors

BackgroundIn Ethiopia, out-of-pocket (OOP) payment is the key means of healthcare financing, and expenses on medicines are a crucial component of such payment. This study aims to investigate the financial implications of OOP payments on medicines for Ethiopian households.MethodsThe study involved a secondary data analysis of the national household consumption and expenditure surveys of 2010/11 and 2015/16. The "capacity-to-pay" method was used to calculate catastrophic OOP medicine expenditures. The extent of economic status related to catastrophic medicine payment inequity was calculated using concentration index estimation. The impoverishment consequences of OOP payment on medicine were estimated using poverty headcount and poverty gap analysis methods. Logistic regression models were used to identify the variables that predict catastrophic medicine payments.ResultsMedicines accounted for the majority of healthcare spending (> 65%) across the surveys. From 2010 to 2016, the total percentage of households facing catastrophic medicine payments decreased from 1% to 0.73%. However, the actual number of people expected to have experienced catastrophic medicine payments increased from 399,174 to 401,519 people. Payment for medicines pushed 11,132 households into poverty in 2015/16. The majority of disparities were explained by economic status, place of residence, and type of health services.ConclusionOOP payment on medicine accounted for the majority of total health expenses in Ethiopia. A high medicine OOP payment continued to push households into catastrophic payments and impoverishment. Household seeking inpatient care, those with lower economic status and urban residents were among the most affected. Hence, innovative approaches to improve the supply of medicines in public facilities especially those in urban settings and risk protection mechanisms for medicine expenditures particularly for inpatient care are recommended.

Retail pharmacy prescription medicines' availability, prices and affordability in Eswatini.

BackgroundLimited availability of medicines in public facilities and unaffordable prices in the private sector act as barriers to medicines’ access. Patients in Eswatini may be forced to buy medicine from the private sector resulting from chronic medicines’ shortages in public health facilities. The extent to which they can afford to do so is unknown.AimTo determine the availability, price and affordability of medicines in the retail pharmacies in Eswatini, and to compare the results regionally and internationally.SettingRetail pharmacy sector in the four administrative regions of Eswatini.MethodsData on availability, price and affordability to patients for 50 medicines in the originator brand (OB) and the lowest priced generic (LPG) equivalent, were collated using the standardised World Health Organization/Health Action International methodology from 32 retail pharmacies in the four regions of Eswatini. Prices were then compared with selected countries.ResultsThe overall mean availability of all medicines in selected retail pharmacies was 38.5%; standard deviation [s.d.] = 20.4% for OBs and 80.9%; s.d. = 19.0% for LPGs. The overall median price ratio (MPR) in the surveyed pharmacies was 18.61 for the OBs and 4.67 for LPGs. Most standard treatments with LPGs cost less than a day’s wages whilst for OBs cost more than a day’s wages. The differences between Eswatini and South African prices were statistically significant.ConclusionDrug pricing policies and price monitoring tools are needed for the whole pharmaceutical chain in Eswatini to monitor availability, affordability and accessibility of medicines to the general populace.

Evaluating medicine prices, availability and affordability in Bangladesh using World Health Organisation and Health Action International methodology

BackgroundPrevious studies have shown limited availability of medicines in health facilities in Bangladesh. While medicines are dispensed for free in public facilities, they are paid out-of-pocket in private pharmacies. Availability, price and affordability are key concerns for access to medicines in Bangladesh.MethodsThe World Health Organization/Health Action International survey methodology was used to determine price, availability and affordability of 61 lowest price generic (LPG) and originator branded medicines in public facilities, private retail pharmacies and private clinics across 6 regions of Bangladesh. Medicines for non-communicable and infectious diseases, and both on and off the national Essential Medicines List were included. Prices were compared internationally using Median Price Ratio (MPR).ResultsMean LPG (originator brand) availability in the public sector, private retail pharmacies, and private clinics was 37%, 63 (4) percent, and 54 (2) percent, respectively. Medicines for Non-Communicable Diseases (NCD) and essential medicines were significantly less available than infectious disease medicines and non-essential medicines, respectively.Mean LPG (originator brand) MPR was 0.977 in the public sector, 1.700 (3.698) in private retail pharmacies and 1.740 (3.758) in private clinics. Six medicines were expensive by international standards across all sectors.The least affordable treatments in both private sectors were bisoprolol (hypertension), metformin (diabetes) and atorvastatin (hypercholesterolemia).ConclusionAvailability and affordability of NCD medicines are key concerns where the burden of NCD is rising. These findings show improvement from earlier studies, but room for further advances in availability and affordability of NCD medicines in Bangladesh. A small number of medicines are consistently expensive across sectors in Bangladesh, suggesting the need for strategies to address prices for certain medicines.

Access to diabetes medicines at the household level in eight counties of Kenya

Background: In 2016, an estimated 872,000 Kenyans were living with diabetes, a country average of 4%. The study objectives were (1) to describe the sociodemographic and geographic characteristics of the households with individuals diagnosed and on treatment for diabetes (2) to describe the medicines available at the household level, monthly household expenditure on medicines, location of diagnosis and treatment and the associated factors of medicines purchase location. Methods: A household survey in eight countries was conducted asking whether a household member had been diagnosed and treated for a non-communicable disease (NCD). Households with at least one member with diabetes were included in this study. Results: Out of the 142 individuals being diagnosed and treated for diabetes, 68 participants (47.9%) were prescribed single and 74 (52.1%) multiple treatments. While 54.9% of the participants were diagnosed at public hospitals, 50% of individuals purchased their medicines from a private pharmacy/chemist or private hospitals. Purchase of medicines in public facilities was associated with being less wealthy and having more than one NCD. Having medicines not available at home was reported by 26.1% of individuals, mostly because the medicines were too expensive to buy. Conclusions: Affordability of diabetes medicines remains an important barrier to access. In addition, essential medicine list restrictions to offer diabetes medicines at public primary care level limit access. Programs to increase access to NCD medicines need to consider that diagnosis and choice of treatment occurs largely in the public sector whereas medicines purchase most frequently takes place in the private sector.

Access and utilisation of healthcare services in rural Tanzania: A comparison of public and non-public facilities using quality, equity, and trust dimensions

ABSTRACTThis study compared the access and utilisation of health services in public and non-public health facilities in terms of quality, equity and trust in the Mbarali district, Tanzania. Interviews, focus group discussions, and informal discussions were used to generate data. Of the 1836 respondents, 1157 and 679 respondents sought healthcare services on their last visit at public or non-public health facilities, respectively. While 45.5% rated the quality of services to be good in both types of facilities, reported medicine shortages were more pronounced among those who visited public rather than non-public health facilities (OR = 1.7, 95% CI 1.4, 2.1). Respondents who visited public facilities were 4.9 times less likely than those who visited non-public facilities to emphasise the influence of cost in accessing and utilising health care (OR = 4.9, CI 3.9–6.1). A significant difference was also found in the provider–client relationship satisfaction level between non-public (89.1%) and public facilities (74.7%) (OR = 2.8, CI: 1.5–5.0), indicating a level of lower trust in the later. Revised strategies are needed to ensure availability of medicines in public facilities, which are used by the majority of the population, while strengthening private–public partnerships to harmonise healthcare costs.

Quality of artemisinin-based combination formulations for malaria treatment: prevalence and risk factors for poor quality medicines in public facilities and private sector drug outlets in Enugu, Nigeria.

BackgroundArtemisinin-based combination therapies are recommended by the World Health Organisation (WHO) as first-line treatment for Plasmodium falciparum malaria, yet medication must be of good quality for efficacious treatment. A recent meta-analysis reported 35% (796/2,296) of antimalarial drug samples from 21 Sub-Saharan African countries, purchased from outlets predominantly using convenience sampling, failed chemical content analysis. We used three sampling strategies to purchase artemisinin-containing antimalarials (ACAs) in Enugu metropolis, Nigeria, and compared the resulting quality estimates.MethodsACAs were purchased using three sampling approaches - convenience, mystery clients and overt, within a defined area and sampling frame in Enugu metropolis. The active pharmaceutical ingredients were assessed using high-performance liquid chromatography and confirmed by mass spectrometry at three independent laboratories. Results were expressed as percentage of APIs stated on the packaging and used to categorise each sample as acceptable quality, substandard, degraded, or falsified.ResultsContent analysis of 3024 samples purchased from 421 outlets using convenience (n=200), mystery (n=1,919) and overt (n=905) approaches, showed overall 90.8% ACAs to be of acceptable quality, 6.8% substandard, 1.3% degraded and 1.2% falsified. Convenience sampling yielded a significantly higher prevalence of poor quality ACAs, but was not evident by the mystery and overt sampling strategies both of which yielded results that were comparable between each other. Artesunate (n=135; 4 falsified) and dihydroartemisinin (n=14) monotherapy tablets, not recommended by WHO, were also identified.ConclusionRandomised sampling identified fewer falsified ACAs than previously reported by convenience approaches. Our findings emphasise the need for specific consideration to be given to sampling frame and sampling approach if representative information on drug quality is to be obtained.