How moves towards universal health coverage could encourage poor quality drugs: an essay by Elizabeth Pisani

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.

“It is very difficult in this business if you want to have a good conscience”: pharmaceutical governance and on-the-ground ethical labour in Ghana

The governance of pharmaceutical medicines entails complex ethical decisions that should, in theory, be the responsibility of democratically accountable government agencies. However, in many Low- and Middle-Income Countries (LMICs), regulatory and health systems constraints mean that many people still lack access to safe, appropriate and affordable medication, posing significant ethical challenges for those working on the “front line”. Drawing on 18 months of fieldwork in Ghana, we present three detailed case studies of individuals in this position: an urban retail pharmacist, a rural over-the-counter medicine retailer, and a local inspector. Through these case studies, we consider the significant burden of “ethical labour” borne by those operating “on the ground”, who navigate complex moral, legal and business imperatives in real time and with very real consequences for those they serve. The paper ends with a reflection on the tensions between abstract, generalised ethical frameworks based on high-level principles, and a pragmatic, contingent ethics-in-practice that foregrounds immediate individual needs – a tension rooted in the gap between the theory and the reality of pharmaceutical governance that shifts the burden of ethical labour downwards and perpetuates long-term public health risks.

A study of the quality of cardiovascular and diabetes medicines in Malang District, Indonesia, using exposure-based sampling

Background

The WHO has warned that substandard and falsified medicines threaten health, especially in low and middle-income countries (LMICs). However, the magnitude of that threat for many medicines in different regions is not well described, and high-quality studies remain rare. Recent reviews of studies of cardiovascular and diabetes medicine quality recorded that 15.4% of cardiovascular and 6.8% of diabetes samples failed at least one quality test. Review authors warn that study quality was mixed. Because they did not record medicine volume, no study reflected the risk posed to patients.

Methods and findings

We investigated the quality of five medicines for cardiovascular disease and diabetes in Malang district, East Java, Indonesia. Our sample frame, based on dispensing volumes by outlet and price category, included sampling from public and private providers and pharmacies and reflected the potential risk posed to patients. The content of active ingredient was determined by high-performance liquid chromatography and compared with the labelled content. Dissolution testing was also performed.

We collected a total of 204 samples: amlodipine (88); captopril (22); furosemide (21); glibenclamide (21) and simvastatin (52), comprising 83 different brands/products. All were manufactured in Indonesia, and all samples met specifications for both assay and dissolution. None was suspected of being falsified.

Conclusions

While we cannot conclude that the prevalence of poor-quality medicines in Malang district is zero, our sampling method, which reflects likely exposure to specific brands and outlets, suggests that the risk to patients is very low; certainly nothing like the rates found in recent reviews of surveys in LMICs. Our study demonstrates the feasibility of sampling medicines based on likely exposure to specific products and underlines the dangers of extrapolating results across countries.

Challenges in maintaining medicine quality while aiming for universal health coverage: a qualitative analysis from Indonesia

Introduction

Indonesia, the world’s fourth most populous nation, is close to achieving universal health coverage (UHC). A widely-publicised falsified vaccine case in 2016, coupled with a significant financial deficit in the national insurance system, has contributed to concern that the rapid scale-up of UHC might undermine medicine quality. We investigated the political and economic factors that drive production and trade of poor-quality medicines in Indonesia.

Methods

We reviewed academic publications, government regulations, technical agency documents and news reports to develop a semi-structured questionnaire. We interviewed healthcare providers, policy-makers, medicine regulators, pharmaceutical manufacturers, patients and academics (n=31). We included those with in-depth knowledge about the falsified vaccine case or the pharmaceutical business, medicine regulation, prescribing practice and the implementation of UHC. We coded data using NVivo software and analysed by constant comparative method.

Results

The scale-up of UHC has cut revenues for physicians and pharmaceutical manufacturers. In the vaccine case, free, quality-assured vaccines were available but some physicians, seeking extra revenue, promoted expensive alternatives. Taking advantage of poor governance in private hospitals, they purchased cut-price ‘vaccines’ from freelance salespeople.

A single-winner public procurement system which does not explicitly consider quality has slashed the price paid for covered medicines. Trade, industrial and religious policies simultaneously increased production costs, pressuring profit margins for manufacturers and distributors. They reacted by cutting costs (potentially threatening quality) or by market withdrawal (leading to shortages which provide a market for falsifiers). Shortages and physician-promoted irrational demand push patients to buy medicines in unregulated channels, increasing exposure to falsified medicines.

Conclusion

Market factors, including political pressure to reduce medicine prices and healthcare provider incentives, can drive markets for substandard and falsified medicines. To protect progress towards UHC, policy-makers must consider the potential impact on medicine quality when formulating rules governing health financing, procurement, taxation and industry.

Elusive quality: the challenges and ethical dilemmas faced by international non-governmental organisations in sourcing quality assured medical products

Although medical products that are of sound quality are fundamental to the delivery of healthcare, so too is their availability, affordability, accessibility and acceptability. However, achieving all of these aims consistently and simultaneously may be unfeasible due to a host of barriers—no matter the country. If uncertainty, constraints and conflicting priorities also threaten their delivery, not only does the situation becomes yet more challenging, the morally just course of action becomes yet more opaque. While global health organisations, supply chains and projects are heterogenous, international non-governmental organisations (iNGOs) responding to humanitarian crises or delivering development assistance in low-income and middle-income countries are undoubtedly prone to this issue. In a novel framing of the problem of substandard and falsified medicines, this article explores some ethical dilemmas that, directly or indirectly, could result in the quality of medical products in iNGO health projects to be compromised. Drawing on a broad literature base and years of experience as a senior humanitarian pharmacist, the author reflects on the barriers, culture and system that contributes to the existence and persistence of substandard and falsified medical products in global assistance projects. The paper offers an in-depth examination of pressures that may arise in four key areas (capacity, supply chain, bureaucracy and quality assurance) and postulates on the myriad ways in which this may alter the attitudes, behaviours and decision-making of iNGOs in a manner that disincentivises the prioritisation of medical product quality. This paper does not seek to excoriate the aid sector, but rather to lend a new perspective: that such predicaments are overlooked, real-world ethical dilemmas in urgent need of greater openness, research, debate and guidance, for the benefit of moral decision-making and patient care.

Strengthening multisectoral coordination on antimicrobial resistance: a landscape analysis of efforts in 11 countries

BACKGROUND

Increasingly, there has been recognition that siloed approaches focusing mainly on human health are ineffective for global antimicrobial resistance (AMR) containment efforts. The inherent complexities of AMR containment warrant a coordinated multisectoral approach. However, how to institutionalize a country's multisectoral coordination across sectors and between departments used to working in silos is an ongoing challenge. This paper describes the technical approach used by a donor-funded program to strengthen multisectoral coordination on AMR in 11 countries as part of their efforts to advance the objectives of the Global Health Security Agenda and discusses some of the challenges and lessons learned.

METHODS

The program conducted a rapid situational analysis of the Global Health Security Agenda and AMR landscape in each country and worked with the governments to identify the gaps, priorities, and potential activities in multisectoral coordination on AMR. Using the World Health Organization (WHO) Joint External Evaluation tool and the WHO Benchmarks for International Health Regulations (2005) Capacities as principal guidance, we worked with countries to achieve key milestones in enhancing effective multisectoral coordination on AMR.

RESULTS

The program's interventions led to the achievement of key benchmarks recommended actions, including the finalization of national action plans on AMR and tools to guide their implementation; strengthening the leadership, governance, and oversight capabilities of multisectoral governance structures; establishing and improving the functions of technical working groups on infection prevention and control and antimicrobial stewardship; and coordinating AMR activities within and across sectors.

CONCLUSION

A lot of learning still needs to be done to identify best practices for building mutual trust and adequately balancing the priorities of individual ministries with cross-cutting issues. Nevertheless, this paper provides some practical ideas for countries and implementing partners seeking to improve multisectoral coordination on AMR. It also demonstrates that the WHO benchmark actions, although not intended as an exhaustive list of recommendations, provide adequate guidance for increasing countries' capacity for effective multisectoral coordination on AMR in a standardized manner.

Quality of medicines for life-threatening pregnancy complications in low- and middle-income countries: A systematic review

Background

There are concerns about the quality of medicines available in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) to manage hemorrhage, pre-eclampsia/eclampsia and sepsis. We aimed to identify, critically appraise, and synthesize the findings of studies on the quality of these three types of medicines available in LMIC.

Methods

This systematic review searched Medline, EMBASE and LILACS (from inception to 25 May 2020) for studies on the quality of selected medicines available in LMIC that provided at least the amount of active pharmaceutical ingredient. We contacted study authors for additional information. We excluded simulation studies. We used the MEDQUARG tool to assess study quality. The main outcome was the prevalence of failed samples.

Findings

We identified 9699 unique citations and included 34 studies (3159 samples from 40 countries) in the review. Most studies (65%) had low quality (scores <6/12). Overall, 48.9% of 1890 uterotonic samples (19 studies) failed quality tests; failures rates were 75% for ergometrine and nearly 40% each for oxytocin and misoprostol. The overall prevalence of failed injectable antibiotics (1090 samples, 18 studies) was 13.4%, ranging from 2.9% for injectable metronidazole (34 samples, 3 studies) to 16.0% for cefazolin (449 samples, 2 studies). The prevalence of low quality magnesium sulphate (179 samples, 2 studies) was 3.4%. We did not find any studies on the quality of carbetocin, tranexamic acid, or clindamycin.

Conclusions

There is a widespread problem with the quality of medicines used to manage life-threatening maternal conditions in LMIC. This can be a contributing factor to high maternal mortality rates in these regions.

Impact of substandard and falsified antimalarials in Zambia: application of the SAFARI model

BACKGROUND

Many countries are striving to become malaria-free, but global reduction in case estimates has stagnated in recent years. Substandard and falsified medicines may contribute to this lack of progress. Zambia aims to eliminate their annual burden of 1.2 million pediatric malaria cases and 2500 child deaths due to malaria. We examined the health and economic impact of poor-quality antimalarials in Zambia.

METHODS

An agent-based model, Substandard and Falsified Antimalarial Research Impact (SAFARI), was modified and applied to Zambia. The model was developed to simulate population characteristics, malaria incidence, patient care-seeking, disease progression, treatment outcomes, and associated costs of malaria for children under age five. Zambia-specific demographic, epidemiological, and cost inputs were extracted from the literature. Simulations were run to estimate the health and economic impact of poor-quality antimalarials, the effect of potential artemisinin resistance, and six additional malaria focused policy interventions.

RESULTS

We simulated annual malaria cases among Zambian children under five. At baseline, we found 2610 deaths resulting in $141.5 million in annual economic burden of malaria. We estimated that elimination of substandard and falsified antimalarials would result in an 8.1% (n = 213) reduction in under-five deaths, prevent 937 hospitalizations, and realize $8.5 million in economic savings, annually. Potential artemisinin resistance could further increase deaths by 6.3% (n = 166) and cost an additional $9.7 million every year.

CONCLUSIONS

Eliminating substandard and falsified antimalarials is an important step towards a malaria-free Zambia. Beyond the dissemination of insecticide-treated bed nets, indoor residual spraying, and other malaria control measures, attention must also be paid to assure the quality of antimalarial treatments.

Importance of medicine quality in achieving universal health coverage

OBJECTIVE

To assess the importance of ensuring medicine quality in order to achieve universal health coverage (UHC).

METHODS

We developed a systems map connecting medicines quality assurance systems with UHC goals to illustrate the ensuing impact of quality-assured medicines in the implementation of UHC. The association between UHC and medicine quality was further examined in the context of essential medicines in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) by analyzing data on reported prevalence of substandard and falsified essential medicines and established indicators for UHC. Finally, we examined the health and economic savings of improving antimalarial quality in four countries in sub-Saharan Africa: the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), Nigeria, Uganda, and Zambia.

FINDINGS

A systems perspective demonstrates how quality assurance of medicines supports dimensions of UHC. Across 63 LMICs, the reported prevalence of substandard and falsified essential medicines was found to be negatively associated with both an indicator for coverage of essential services (p = 0.05) and with an indicator for government effectiveness (p = 0.04). We estimated that investing in improving the quality of antimalarials by 10% would result in annual savings of $8.3 million in Zambia, $14 million in Uganda, $79 million in two DRC regions, and $598 million in Nigeria, and was more impactful compared to other potential investments we examined. Costs of substandard and falsified antimalarials per malaria case ranged from $7 to $86, while costs per death due to poor-quality antimalarials ranged from $14,000 to $72,000.

CONCLUSION

Medicines quality assurance systems play a critical role in reaching UHC goals. By ensuring the quality of essential medicines, they help deliver effective treatments that lead to less illness and result in health care savings that can be reinvested towards UHC.

Tackling the blind spot of poor-quality medicines in Universal Health Coverage

BACKGROUND

Universal Health Coverage (UHC) is challenged by the prevalence of poor-quality medicines, those that either do not meet required specifications (substandard) or are outrightly fraudulent (falsified), especially in Low- and Middle-Income Countries, LMICs. Whereas poor-quality medicines are a significant burden in these countries, medicine quality still remains a neglected component of UHC programs. This article describes key barriers to quality medicines and presents five select approaches leveraging the scale-up of UHC for medicine quality assurance.

MAIN BODY

Barriers to medicine quality assurance, while numerous, are described in five key inter-related domains as: low political priority, weak regulatory systems capacity, poor access to accredited facilities and licensed outlets, medicine manufacturing and other supply-chain challenges, and lack of public awareness. Five select approaches for leveraging the scale-up of UHC for medicine quality assurance in LMICs are (1): political commitment (2) strengthening the capacity of regulatory authorities and investment in detection technologies as part of national security (3); licensing of medicines outlets and expanding pharmacovigilance (4); strengthening the supply-chain; and (5) public awareness and participation.

CONCLUSIONS

Unchecked, poor-quality medicines can jeopardize UHC. National governments in LMICs need to prioritize medicine quality assurance through enforcing policies, regulatory strengthening and investments in technologies. Healthcare facilities and insurance schemes under UHC also play critical roles through incorporating medicine quality assurance into procurement practices and by promoting awareness among beneficiaries. Tackling medicine quality with a committed systems approach will enhance progress towards UHC implementation.