OBJECTIVE: To check the prices, availability, and affordability of the World Health Organization (WHO) key access antibiotics in private sector pharmacies of Lahore, Pakistan.
METHODOLOGY: A survey of WHO key access antibiotics from WHO essential medicine list 2017 was conducted in private sector pharmacies of 4 different regions of Lahore employing adapted WHO/HAI methodology. The comparison of prices and availability between originator brands (OB) and lowest price generics (LPG) were conducted followed by the effect of medicine price differences on patient's affordability. The data were analyzed using a preprogrammed WHO Microsoft excel workbook.
RESULTS: The mean availability of OB products was 45.20% and the availability of LPGs was 40.40%. The OBs of co-amoxiclav, clarithromycin and metronidazole and LPGs of azithromycin and ciprofloxacin were easily available (100%) in all private sector pharmacies. Whereas, antibiotics like chloramphenicol, cloxacillin, nitrofurantoin, spectinomycin, and cefazolin were totally unavailable in all the surveyed pharmacies. The OBs and LPGs with high MPRs were ceftriaxone (OB; 15.31, LPG; 6.38) and ciprofloxacin (OB; 12.42, LPG; 5.77). The median of brand premium obtained was 38.7%, which varied between the lowest brand premium of 3.97% for metronidazole and highest for ceftriaxone i.e. 140%. The cost of standard treatment was 0.5 day's wage (median) if using OB and 0.4 day's wage (median) for LPG, for a lowest paid unskilled government worker. Treatment with OB and LPG was unaffordable for ciprofloxacin (OB; 2.4, LPG; 1.1) & cefotaxime (OB; 12.7, LPG; 8.1).
CONCLUSION: There is dire need to properly implement price control policies to better regulate fragile antibiotic supply system so that the availability of both OB and LPG of key access antibiotics should be increased. The prices could be reduced by improving purchasing efficiency, excluding taxes and regulating mark-ups. This could increase the affordability of patients to complete their antibiotic therapy with subsequent reduction in antimicrobial resistance.
OBJECTIVES: To examine the differentials and determinants of the utilization of private providers for family planning services.
METHOD: This study used the 2014 Malaysian Population and Family Survey data. Cross-tabulations and logistic regression were performed on 1,817 current users of modern methods.
RESULTS: Overall, 26% of modern method users obtained their supplies from private clinics/pharmacies and 15.2% from other sources, such as drug stores and sundry shops. The odds of utilizing the private sector for family planning services differ significantly across regions and socio-economic groups. The odds of obtaining supply from the private clinics/pharmacies were higher among the Chinese and urban women (AOR > 1), and it was lower among those from the eastern region (AOR = 0.47, 95% CI = 0.30-0.73). Non-Bumiputera, urban, higher educated, and working women, and those whose husbands decided on family planning had higher odds of obtaining the supply from the other sources (AOR > 1).
CONCLUSION: The private sector complements and supplements the public sector in providing family planning services to the public.
Methods: This study used five series of National Health and Morbidity Survey data from 1986 to 2015. Healthcare utilisation for inpatient, outpatient and dental care were analysed. SES was grouped based on household expenditure variables accounting for total number of adults and children in the household using consumption per adult equivalents approach. The determination of healthcare utilisation across the SES segments was measured using concentration index.
Results: The overall distribution of inpatient utilisation tended towards the pro-poor, although only data from 1996 (P-value = 0.017) and 2006 (P-value = 0.021) were statistically significant (P < 0.05). Out-patient care showed changing trends from initially being pro-rich in 1986 (P < 0.05), then gradually switching to pro-poor in 2015 (P < 0.05). Dental care utilisation was significantly pro-rich throughout the survey period (P < 0.05). Public providers mostly showed significantly pro-poor trends for both in- and out-patient care (P < 0.05). Private providers, meanwhile, constantly showed a significantly pro-rich (P < 0.05) trend of utilisation.
Conclusion: Total health utilisation was close to being equal across SES throughout the years. However, this overall effect exhibited inequities as the effect of pro-rich utilisation in the private sector negated the pro-poor utilisation in the public sector. Strategies to improve equity should be consistent by increasing accessibility to the private sectors, which has been primarily dominated by the richest population.