Wednesday, January 27, 2010

Health Transparency 3: MeTA Forum January 2010 (Prevention vs. Medication)

The “3rd MeTA Forum” is on-going, January 26-27, at Diamond Hotel, Manila. It is sponsored by the MeTA Philippines.

I attended day 1 yesterday, and the topics were some updates on what MeTA International and MeTA Philippines have achieved so far in making medicines become more accessible to the poor. Other topics were procurement of essential medicines by the public sector (DOH-affiliated hospitals, local government units), and financing of such medicines.

There is a long and expanded discussion on medicines, their high prices compared to some Asian countries, the shenanigans in public procurement of medicines, other curative aspects of healthcare. Buried or not even mentioned in the discussions, is the preventive aspect of healthcare.

When people live in dirty places, say under a bridge or a creek with stagnant water, or shrubby areas that attract mosquitoes and various insects, people there, especially children, will be susceptible to various types of diseases. Or when people don’t observe proper hygiene like washing their hands well before eating. Or when people over-drink, over-smoke, over-eat fatty food, and so on.

So when people become sickly, the eyes of the public and political leaders are on medicines and the pharmaceutical companies that produce medicines.

Anyway, this is a forum by an organization with explicit and categorical mission to make access to quality medicines be easier to the poor. So we stick to the subject.

What I find rather strange, if not hypocritical, is the continued insistence that various government units, national and local, should be in the business of medicine procurement and distribution to the poor.

Last year in the 2nd MeTA Forum, there was a speaker from WB-Manila who documented instances of many drug warehouses by some big LGUs in the country – where rats, cockroaches, dust and garbage mix up in one room with useful drugs and expired drugs, and the room has no temperature control. In this case, even if we assume that there was no corruption and robbery in drug procurement, the big problem is the quality and efficacy of those medicines that LGUs will distribute to the public.

Yesterday, there was a session where speakers noted that drug procurement prices by government units are several times higher than those in a number of Asian countries. Which point to either, (a) certain government personnel are bloating their procurement amount so they can pocket and steal more money, or (b) pharma companies here, especially the multinationals, tend to price their products a lot higher in the Philippines than in other Asian countries. Or both happened.

If the main explanation is (a) above, then it’s one clear case of government failure, happening persistently. Then there should be some persecution of guilty parties in order to send a strong signal to other government personnel that stealing is heavily penalized, not forgotten. Then corruption in public procurement will be drastically reduced, if not controlled.

If the main explanation is (b) above, then it’s one clear case of the lack of competition among pharma companies, foreign and local. One policy implication is to encourage the entry of more players, both foreign and local, both manufacturers and traders (wholesalers, retailers).

Sadly, public policy actions in either (a) or (b) are not being done. Public procurement continues, foreign loans by the WB and other foreign aid institutions continue, poor health outcomes in the public continue, and endless taxation to pay for ever-rising expenditures and public debts on drug procurement and related healthcare items, continue.

So what is the result, the state of public health, especially the poor people, remains generally unchanged while public debts and taxes keep rising?

Cheap But Not Available

A presentation by Dr. Delen dela Paz of Health Action Information Network (HAIN) and also a faculty member at the UP College of Medicine, she mentioned one result of the HAIN medicines survey in 2009: essential generic drugs' prices in public drugstores are about 1/3 than prices in private drugstores. So many poor people go to government-run or sponsored "botika". Problem is that availability of such cheap drugs were only 31% in public outlets vs. 61% availability in private drugstores.

So, the hard lesson: cheap, yes, but less or not available.

Which is better: more expensive but available vs cheap but not available? If one is very sick, then price becomes a secondary issue compared to availability of a product that can make him/her well.

And this is one long-term effect of drug price control that advocates of the measure, including those in the government, seem not to realize: more effective drugs, more disease-killer medications, will theoretically be sold "cheaper" in the Philippines. But their availability is zero. Manufacturers and sellers of those drugs will sell such products in Singapore or Hong Kong or Japan or other Asian countries which have no drug price control policy, and not bring such products in countries where a price control is being implemented, or pulled out but can be re-implemented anytime, depending not on any health emergency, but on certain political emergencies of the big politicians and the administration in power. So desperate patients will be forced to purchase such drugs abroad, at a more expensive price because of the cost of shipping and storage.

Meanwhile, MeTA PHilippines leaders gave a press conference. Dr. Alberto Romualdez, former DOH Secretary and currently MeTA Philippines chairman, said that "More than half of the country’s annual expenditures for health products ranging from P100 billion to P150 billion are unnecessary because they hardly provide any therapeutic effect", see here, http://www.philstar.com/Article.aspx?articleId=544389

This is related to "irrational drug use" issue. People are buying medicines and vitamins even with little or no proven therapeutic effect simply because such drugs are cheap, or are heavily advertised (broadcast media, outdoor billboards, etc.).

One big local pharma company is the heaviest spender on drug advertising in the country.

No comments: