OBJECTIVE: To investigate the evidence available: 1) on government initiatives to mandate transparency in drug pricing worldwide, 2) on the reported effects of drug pricing transparency initiatives on drug price, and 3) on the limitations and barriers of the implementation of drug pricing transparency.
METHODS: Databases such as Medline-Ovid, Cochrane Central Register, PubMed, and Science Direct were used to search for relevant literature from inception to February 2018. A manual search of grey literature such as policy papers, governmental publications, and websites was also performed to obtain the information that was not available in the articles. Using narrative synthesis, the results were critically assessed and summarized according to its context of drug pricing approaches.
RESULTS: Of the 4382 relevant articles located, 12 studies met the inclusion criteria for drug price transparency initiatives. Only 3 studies reported the outcomes on the regulation of drug prices. Two studies in South Africa showed that price transparency initiatives did not necessarily reduce drug prices. Another study in the Philippines indicated a reduction in medicines' price based on the effects of government-mediated access prices. The limitations and barriers in price transparency initiatives include fragmentation of the healthcare system and nondisclosure of discounts and rebates by pharmaceutical companies.
CONCLUSION: Drug pricing transparency initiatives have been implemented in many countries and commonly coexist with a country's pricing policies. Nevertheless, due to sparse evidence, the effect of drug price transparency initiatives on price control is still inconclusive.
METHODOLOGY: Using the newly developed PID Life Index software, the index of implementation of principles of care in the management of PIDs patients involving the six participating SEA countries (Cambodia, Indonesia, Malaysia, Vietnam, Thailand, and Philippines) were extracted. For each of the six separate principles, the index from the six countries will be compared and presented based on the calculated index.
RESULTS: Comparative analysis of the six principles of care of PID in the SEA countries showed low diagnostic rate with minimal availability of diagnostic tests options. Generally, almost all SEA countries provide curative treatments, vaccines, and anti-infectious therapies although the reimbursement scheme varied in relieving patients' financial burden. We also highlighted the active involvement of patient organizations in SEA, with main areas of work focused on advocacy and increasing awareness among public and healthcare professionals.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: It is applaudable that the SEA continent is gradually strengthening its work in management of PID, especially in Thailand and Vietnam. However, more emphasis must be placed among stakeholders in SEA countries towards successful implementation of the PoC for a holistic management of PID patients.