This was originally published on Global Health TV on August 31, 2018.
In the 1990s and 2000s, AIDS activists and other global
health advocates started pressuring pharmaceutical companies to share their
largesse with low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) by supplying critical
medicines for free or at subsidized prices, especially for HIV/AIDS. The
pressure was successful, and led to a series of access-to-medicine (AtM)
initiatives.
The international community increasingly recognizes that the
pharmaceutical industry must play a leading role in improving access to
medicines. And apparently pharma companies themselves also acknowledge this
responsibility, according to a study published
in Health Affairs by a team of researchers at Boston University Department
of Global Health. That study found that the number of these initiatives grew from
17 in 2000 to 102 in 2015. The researchers called this “clear evidence” that
pharmaceutical companies had responded to calls to increase their commitment to
improving access to medicines.
The industry’s role was first articulated when the
Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) were drafted in 2015. Goal 8, Target 8E read:
“In cooperation with pharmaceutical companies, provide access to affordable,
essential drugs in developing countries.”
The Sustainability Development Goals, which replaced the
MDGs in 2016, further enshrined that idea in Goal 3.8 which aims to “achieve
universal health coverage, including financial risk protection, access to
quality essential health care services and access to safe, effective, quality
and affordable essential medicines and vaccines for all.”
The Health Affairs study identified 385 health initiatives
across 21 companies. Of these, 120 were categorized as AtM initiatives.
Novartis was first with 14 initiatives, Sanofi was second with 13 and Roche was
third with 10 (21 were multi-company partnerships).
Eighty-eight percent of these initiatives focused on infectious
disease (including HIV and neglected tropical diseases), 52 percent addressed
non-communicable disease and 33 percent focused on maternal and child health
(some initiatives focused on multiple health areas).
The Access
to Medicine Foundation, funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
and the UK and Dutch governments, compiles an index on the progress made by
pharma companies to make their medicines accessible. Every two years since
2008, the Foundation has published the Access to Medicine Index. In 2016,
Glaxo Smith Kline, Johnson & Johnson and Novartis were named as the leading
companies.
The
Health Affairs article says the index has created an incentive for expanding
AtM initiatives, as well as for more transparent reporting. But it also says
that the index’s ranking methodology does not include a rigorous review of the
evidence and should be improved to hold companies more accountable.
The Boston University researchers found that few of these
initiatives evaluate their activities well. Of the 102 AtM initiatives
identified, the researchers found published evaluations for only seven. From
those seven, the researchers found 47 articles that met their inclusion
criteria but determined that 62 percent of these were low quality, 32 percent
were very low quality and 6 percent were moderate quality. None of them were
rated high quality.
“Overall, our findings suggest that current efforts to
evaluate the impact of industry-led access-to-medicines initiatives are
inadequate,” they write.
Boston University is now monitoring and evaluating an AtM
initiative in Kenya to address these concerns. The initiative, called Novartis
Access, seeks to provide 15 medicines to address breast cancer,
cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes and respiratory illnesses at a cost of
USD $1 per treatment per month. The project started in Kenya in 2015 and plans
to expand to 30 countries in coming years. Novartis Access hopes to reach 20
million people per year by 2020.
From the beginning, Novartis Access sought the help of
Boston University to evaluate its impact and the prices of these medicines at
health facilities and households in Kenya in an objective and transparent
manner. Novartis has no control over the evaluation process and Boston
University publishes protocols, agreements and all the results on this website.
“One things we know about programs offering low-priced
products – not just medicines but also food or fuel – is that it’s often not
the poorest people who benefit, but the middle-income groups who know how to
access the medicines and appropriate treatment,” said
Richard Laing, a professor at Boston University who is involved in the
evaluation. “For that reason, we’re very keen to find out what happens at the
household level, particularly to the poorest families.”
Laing said this evaluation is different because past efforts
to measure the impact of AtM programs have almost always occurred after the
fact: “The problem with these evaluations is that you don’t know what the
situation was like before, and there is often no control group, so the
evaluations have tended to be weak even when the best interventions have take
place.”
The Access to
Medicine Foundation welcomes additional efforts to evaluate the impact of
access to medicine programs, said Danny Edwards, research program manager for
the foundation.
“We've noticed an
increasing orientation of companies in this direction over recent years, from
University College London's independent evaluation of Novo Nordisk's Base of
the Pyramid Program, to Novartis Access, to the explicit commitment of companies
participating in Access Accelerated to evaluate and share the impact of the
work taking place under that umbrella, which includes Boston University, Union
of International Cancer Control and the World Bank."
No comments:
Post a Comment