ABSTRACT
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.
Subject(s)
Diabetes Mellitus , Private Sector , Humans , Indonesia , Drug Costs , Commerce , Diabetes Mellitus/drug therapy , Health Services AccessibilityABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: In Indonesia, the world's fourth most populous country, cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) are a leading cause of death and disability. Government efforts to reduce the burden of CVD include a community-based prevention and early detection programme, and the provision of medicines to prevent cardiovascular events. Disruptions to medicine supply chains, service provision, and movement during the COVID-19 pandemic potentially threatened the continuity of these efforts. We investigated the distribution and dispensing of common CVD medicines in Malang district, East Java, before the pandemic and early in its course. METHODS: From January to October 2020, we collected monthly data on stock levels, sales or dispensing volumes, and price for five common CVD medicines (amlodipine, captopril, furosemide, glibenclamide and simvastatin), from a public and a private distributor, and from public health facilities (n = 4) and private pharmacies (n = 2). We further complied monthly data on patient numbers in two primary health centres. We tracked changes in stocks held and volumes dispensed by medicine type and sector, comparing the three months before the local COVID-19 response was mobilised with the subsequent seven months. We conducted interviews with pharmacists (n = 12), community health workers (n = 2) and a supply chain logistics manager to investigate the reasons for observed changes, and to learn details of any impacts or mitigation measures. RESULTS: The pandemic affected demand more than supply, causing medicine stocks to rise. Restricted service provision, lock-down measures and fear of infection contributed to a sharp drop in patient numbers and dispensing volumes in the public sector. Meanwhile private sector sales, especially of lower-priced CVD medicines, rose. Community health workers attributed some poor health outcomes to interruption in regular patient check-ups; this interruption was aggravated by formal mitigation policies. CONCLUSIONS: Fears that COVID-19 would interrupt medicine availability were unfounded in East Java. Public sector patients may have compensated for reduced service access by switching to private pharmacies. Mitigation policies that ignored administrative procedures were not effective.
ABSTRACT
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.
