Dataset Information

Essential Medicines in a High Income Country: Essential to Whom?

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To explore the perspectives of a diverse group of stakeholders engaged in medicines decision making around what constitutes an "essential" medicine, and how the Essential Medicines List (EML) concept functions in a high income country context.

Methods

In-depth qualitative semi-structured interviews were conducted with 32 Australian stakeholders, recognised as decision makers, leaders or advisors in the area of medicines reimbursement or supply chain management. Participants were recruited from government, pharmaceutical industry, pharmaceutical wholesale/distribution companies, medicines non-profit organisations, academic health disciplines, hospitals, and consumer groups. Perspectives on the definition and application of the EML concept in a high income country context were thematically analysed using grounded theory approach.

Findings

Stakeholders found it challenging to describe the EML concept in the Australian context because many perceived it was generally used in resource scarce settings. Stakeholders were unable to distinguish whether nationally reimbursed medicines were essential medicines in Australia. Despite frequent generic drug shortages and high prices paid by consumers, many struggled to describe how the EML concept applied to Australia. Instead, broad inclusion of consumer needs, such as rare and high cost medicines, and consumer involvement in the decision making process, has led to expansive lists of nationally subsidised medicines. Therefore, improved communication and coordination is needed around shared interests between stakeholders regarding how medicines are prioritised and guaranteed in the supply chain.

Conclusions

This study showed that decision-making in Australia around reimbursement of medicines has strayed from the fundamental utilitarian concept of essential medicines. Many stakeholders involved in medicine reimbursement decisions and management of the supply chain did not consider the EML concept in their approach. The wide range of views of what stakeholders considered were essential medicines, challenges whether the EML concept is out-dated or underutilised in high income countries.

SUBMITTER: Duong M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4674059 | biostudies-literature | 2015

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Essential Medicines in a High Income Country: Essential to Whom?

Duong Mai M Moles Rebekah J RJ Chaar Betty B Chen Timothy F TF

PloS one 20151209 12

<h4>Objective</h4>To explore the perspectives of a diverse group of stakeholders engaged in medicines decision making around what constitutes an "essential" medicine, and how the Essential Medicines List (EML) concept functions in a high income country context.<h4>Methods</h4>In-depth qualitative semi-structured interviews were conducted with 32 Australian stakeholders, recognised as decision makers, leaders or advisors in the area of medicines reimbursement or supply chain management. Participa ...[more]

PMID: 26650544

Similar Datasets

Project description:AimDiabetes is a growing burden especially in low and middle income countries (LMICs). Inadequate access to diabetes care is of particular concern and selection of appropriate diabetes medicines on national essential medicines lists (NEMLs) is a first step in achieving adequate access. This selection was studied among LMICs and influences of various factors associated with selection decisions were assessed.MethodsCountries were studied if they employed NEMLs for reimbursement or procurement purposes. Presence and number of essential diabetes medicines from different classes, both insulins and oral blood glucose lowering medicines, were surveyed and calculated. Data were also analyzed by country income level, geographic region, year of last update of the NEML and purpose of NEML employment. The effect of prevalence and burden of disease on the number of essential diabetes medicines was also studied. Non parametric tests and univariate linear regression analysis were used.ResultsNearly all countries (n?=?32) had chosen fast (97%) and intermediate acting insulin (93%), glibenclamide and metformin (100% both) as essential medicines. The median number of essential diabetes medicines was 6, equally divided between insulins and oral medicines. 20% of the countries had selected insulin analogues as essential medicines. Among all the studied factors, an increase in burden of diabetes and wealth of countries were associated with selection of higher numbers of essential diabetes medicines (p?=?0.02 in both cases).ConclusionsNearly all the studied LMICs had included the minimum required medicines for diabetes management in their NEMLs. Selection can still be improved (e.g. exclusion of insulin analogues and replacement of glibenclamide by gliclazide). Nevertheless, the known suboptimal and inconsistent availability of essential diabetes medicines in LMICs cannot be explained by inadequate selection of essential medicines. Countries should therefore be encouraged to give precedence to implementation of NEMLs to make essential diabetes medicines more accessible.

Project description:ObjectiveEssential medicines lists have been created and used globally in countries that range from low-income to high-income status. The aim of this paper is to compare the essential medicines list of high-income countries with each other, the WHO's Model List of Essential Medicines and the lists of countries of other income statuses.DesignHigh-income countries were defined by World Bank classification. High-income essential medicines lists were assessed for medicine inclusion and were compared with the subset of high-income countries, the WHO's Model List and 137 national essential medicines lists. Medicine lists were obtained from the Global Essential Medicines database. Countries were subdivided by income status, and the groups' most common medicines were compared. Select medicines and medicine classes were assessed for inclusion among high-income country lists.ResultsThe 21 high-income countries identified were most like each other when compared with other lists. They were more like upper middle-income countries and least like low-income countries. There was significant variability in the number of medicines on each list. Less than half (48%) of high-income countries included a newer diabetes medicines in their list. Most countries (71%) included naloxone while every country including at least one opioid medicine. More than half of the lists (52%) included a medicine that has been globally withdrawn or banned.ConclusionEssential medicines lists of high-income countries are similar to each other, but significant variations in essential medicine list composition and specifically the number of medications included were noted. Effective medicines were left off several countries' lists, and globally recalled medicines were included on over half the lists. Comparing the essential medicines lists of countries within the same income status category can provide a useful subset of lists for policymakers and essential medicine list creators to use when creating or maintaining their lists.

Project description:The World Health Organization Essential Medicines List (WHO-LIST) and national essential medicines lists differ because many countries face significant challenges, such as product availability, cost, product quality and epidemiological disease profiles. In Brazil, governments pay for drugs that are included on the federal, state and municipal government (REMUME) lists. The extent to which municipal lists differ from state and national lists and from the WHO-LIST is unclear. We investigate the use of the WHO-LISTas a tool with which to evaluate the selection process for the essential psychiatric medicines in the public system coverage list of Brazilian communities (cities) and the use of the target drugs.Municipal health secretaries were interviewed regarding the selection process for REMUMEs and the antidepressants and benzodiazepines included in REMUMEs and reference lists. We calculated the use of REMUME drugs that appeared or did not appear on reference lists according to the defined daily dose (DDD) per 10,000 inhabitants.Local physicians and pharmacists without specific training or explicit criteria developed the REMUMEs. Of the 13 drugs and 24 products (i.e., the different dosages of these 13 drugs) in the REMUMEs, 8 drugs and 10 products were included in at least one reference list and in one municipal list; 4 drugs and 6 products were included in at least one reference list but in none of the municipal lists; and 7 drugs and 8 products were included in at least one municipal list but in none of the reference lists. The antidepressants that appeared in at least one municipal list but in none of the reference lists represented 25.1 % (mean 60.9 DDD/10,000 inhabitants-day) of the usage. The benzodiazepines that appeared in at least one of the municipal lists but in none of the reference lists represented 14.7 % mean 18.5 DDD/10,000 inhabitants-day) of the usage.Brazilian cities have no rigorous processes for selecting the drugs that appear on their lists, and drugs that do not appear on the reference lists represent a significant proportion of antidepressant and benzodiazepine use, resulting in public health and social problems.

Project description:BackgroundAsthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) cause a considerable burden of morbidity and mortality in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). Access to safe, effective, quality-assured, and affordable essential medicines is variable. We aimed to review the existing literature relating to the availability, cost, and affordability of WHO's essential medicines for asthma and COPD in LMICs.MethodsA systematic review of the literature was done by searching seven databases to identify research articles published between Jan 1, 2010, and June 30, 2022. Studies on named essential medicines for asthma and COPD in LMICs were included and review articles were excluded. Two authors (MS and HT) screened and extracted data independently, and assessed bias using Joanna Briggs Institute appraisal tools. The main outcome measures were availability (WHO target of 80%), cost (compared with median price ratio [MPR]), and affordability (number of days of work of the lowest paid government worker). The study was registered with PROSPERO, CRD42021281069.FindingsOf 4742 studies identified, 29 met the inclusion criteria providing data from 60 LMICs. All studies had a low risk of bias. Six of 58 countries met the 80% availability target for short-acting beta-agonists (SABAs), three of 48 countries for inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs), and zero of four for inhaled corticosteroid-long-acting beta-agonist (ICS-LABA) combination inhalers. Costs were reported by 12 studies: the range of MPRs was 1·1-351 for SABAs, 2·6-340 for ICSs, and 24 for ICS-LABAs in the single study reporting this. Affordability was calculated in ten studies: SABA inhalers typically cost around 1-4 days' wages, ICSs 2-7 days, and ICS-LABAs at least 6 days. The included studies showed heterogeneity.InterpretationEssential medicines for treating asthma and COPD were largely unavailable and unaffordable in LMICs. This was particularly true for inhalers containing corticosteroids.FundingWHO and Wellcome Trust.

Project description:The incidence and mortality of cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) in low and middle income countries (LMICs) have been increasing, while access to CVDs medicines is suboptimal. We assessed selection of essential medicines for the prevention and treatment of CVDs on national essential medicines lists (NEMLs) of LMICs and potential determinants for selection.Only operational NEMLs were considered eligible for this study. A selection of medicines listed under "cardiovascular medicines" or "blood products and plasma substitutes" in the NEMLs were included if they were present on international guidelines for the prevention and treatment of CVDs (hyperlipidemia, hypertension, platelet inhibition, ischemic stroke, stable ischemic heart disease, acute coronary syndromes, heart failure, atrial fibrillation, peripheral arterial disease and acute limb ischemia). The number and diversity of essential medicines selected for CVDs were studied. Moreover, determinants of selection of essential medicines for CVDs at a national level were explored. Data analysis was done using univariate linear regression and non-parametric tests.All medicine groups listed by the international guidelines were selected by the majority of the 34 countries studied with the exception of adenosine diphosphate receptor inhibitors which appeared on less than half of the NEMLs studied (41% of countries). The total number of essential medicines for the prevention and treatment of cardiovascular diseases (median 24 (range 16-50)) differed significantly across income levels (median range: 19.5-25, p?=?0.014) and across regions (median range: 20-32, p?=?0.049). When recommendations of the international guidelines were considered, over 75% of the NEMLs contained essential medicines for the majority of CVDs.The main medicine classes for the management of CVDs were represented on NEMLs. Consequently, for the majority of CVDs, evidence-based guideline-recommended treatment is possible as far as selection of essential medicines is concerned. Selection will therefore not be the limiting step in access to medicines for cardiovascular diseases.

Dataset Information

Essential Medicines in a High Income Country: Essential to Whom?

Objective

Methods

Findings

Conclusions

Publications

Essential Medicines in a High Income Country: Essential to Whom?

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets