Project description:IntroductionAdequate and sustainable funding of national medicine regulatory agencies (NMRAs) is key for assurance of quality, safety and efficacy of medical products circulating in a market. The study aimed to determine factors affecting NMRAs funding in five East African Community (EAC) countries namely: Burundi, Kenya, Rwanda, Tanzania (Mainland and Zanzibar) and Uganda.MethodologyAn exploratory, mixed method design using both qualitative and quantitative data, was employed. Data from six NMRAs was collected through a combination of semi-structured interviews, questionnaires, and checklists for the period 2011/12-2014/15 while 2010/11 data served as baseline. Interviews were conducted with heads of NMRAs and monitoring and evaluation experts of the respective agencies. NMRA's financing was assessed using six indicators namely, funding policy, financial autonomy, the total annual budget, actual funding per annum, funds received from various sources, and the NMRA expenditure.ResultsThe average total annual budget for all the EAC countries during the study period 2011-2015 ranged from USD 824,328.67 to USD 10,724,536.50. The low budget in Zanzibar may be attributed to population and pharmaceutical market size. Uganda's attainment of 98.75% (USD 10,656,704) revenue from industry fees is a result of deliberate government policy change from 100% reliance on donor funding over a period of 10 years (1995-2015). On average, the proportion of revenue against budget per annum is 54.8% (USD 458,970.11), 98.7% (USD 10,302,295.25) and 100% (USD 7,375,802.08) for Zanzibar Food & Drugs Agency (ZFDA), Uganda National Drug Authority (NDA) and Tanzania Medicines and Medical Devices Authority (TMDA) respectively. Governments, industry fees and donors are the major sources of funding across all NMRAs in the EAC region, with TMDA and Uganda NDA relying more on industry fees by 73.20% (USD 4,664,777.59) and 98.25% (USD 8,077,238.20) respectively. While Burundi relies solely on government funding, ZFDA, on the other hand, received on average 50.40% (USD 252,557.22) from government and 40.60% (USD 165,303.34) from industry fees and the remaining 9% from donors and other sources. An overall contribution of funds received from donors by each NMRA was the least among other sources of financing. Observation of expenditure patterns indicated operational costs to be the major expense in the majority of the NMRAs, followed by salaries and infrastructure development. The Kenya NMRA has the highest degree of average expenditure across all three categories, with the least average expenditures being marked by Burundi NMRA. The operational costs on average increased considerably in all the NMRAs during the study period.ConclusionEvidence from the EAC suggests that government and industry fees are the main sources of funding while donor contributions vary from country to country. Government policy, legal framework, and fees structure are the key enablers of NMRAs funding sustainability.

Project description:BackgroundMedicines regulatory harmonization has been recommended as one way to improve access to quality-assured medicines in low- and middle-income countries. The rationale is that by lowering barriers to entry more manufacturers will be enticed to enter the market, while the capacity at the national medicines regulatory authorities is strengthened. The African Medicines Regulatory Harmonization Initiative, agreed in 2009, is developing regional platforms with harmonized regulatory procedures for the registration of medicines. The first region to implement medicines regulatory harmonization was the East African Community (EAC). The harmonization was based on the existing EAC Free Trade Agreement, which officially launched the free movement of goods and services in 2010.Methods and findingsIn this study we conducted semi-structured interviews and performed document reviews. The main target group for our interviews was pharmaceutical companies. We interviewed 18 companies, including 64% of the total companies who had experienced the EAC joint product assessment procedure, and two EAC-based national medicines regulatory authorities. We found that generally pharmaceutical companies are supportive of the African-based MRH efforts and appreciative of the progress being achieved. However, many companies are now hesitant to use the joint product assessment procedure until efficiency improvements are made. Common frustrations were the length of time to receive the actual marketing authorization; unexpectedly higher quality standards than national procedures; and challenges in getting all EAC countries to recognize EAC approvals. Smaller, less attractive markets have not yet become more attractive from a corporate perspective, and there is no free trade of pharmaceuticals in the EAC region.ConclusionsPharmaceutical companies agree that medicines regulatory harmonization is the way forward. However, regulatory medicines harmonization must actually result in quicker access to the harmonized markets for quality-assured medicines. At this time, improvements are required to the current EAC processes to meet the vision of harmonization.

Project description:IntroductionPooled procurement of health commodities has increasingly been promoted as a solution to reduce prices, increase availability, and achieve more efficient procurement processes. However, little is known about what is required to implement pooled procurement mechanisms successfully and how they function under specific circumstances. Therefore, the aim of this systematic review is to synthesize empirically grounded insights by identifying the elements that are essential for setting up and operating pooled procurement mechanisms of medicines and vaccines.MethodsOur review was based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. We searched PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science for empirical studies on pooled procurement of medicines and vaccines using various search terms. Publications were assessed based on predetermined eligibility criteria.ResultsOur initial search yielded 1596 publications, of which 44 were eventually included in our review. Most of the included articles focused on pooled procurement mechanisms that operated on a sub-national level (43%), procured a variety of products (38%), and were set up with the goal to contain costs (64%). The review identified several elements that are essential for pooled procurement mechanisms to function. We organized these elements around three key actors in the mechanism: buyers, the pooled procurement organization, and suppliers. To participate in pooled procurement, buyers need a sufficient level of technical capacity, financial capacity and compatible laws and regulations. To carry out pooled procurement, the pooled procurement organization needs sufficient financial capacity, technical capacity, and independent operations. To supply the mechanism with health commodities, suppliers need sufficient incentives, such as a sufficient market size and a prompt payment mechanism.ConclusionPooled procurement mechanisms are very diverse. They differ in characteristics and organizational structures and are set up to achieve a variety of goals. While certain essential elements are more likely to increase successful implementation and functioning of pooled procurement mechanisms, the organizational structure must be aligned with the goals of the mechanism, and adapted to the local contextual environment.

Project description:IntroductionBuyers of medicines and vaccines are increasingly interested in pooling their procurement to improve access to affordable and quality-assured health commodities. However, the academic literature has provided no detailed description of how pooled procurement mechanisms are set up and develop over time. These insights are valuable as it increases our understanding of implementing and operating pooled procurement mechanisms successfully. Therefore, the aim of this paper is twofold. First, to explore how such mechanisms evolve over time. Second, to clarify the work that is needed to set up and sustain a pooled procurement mechanism. These findings have been translated into our Pooled Procurement Guidance document.MethodsThis qualitative study draws upon theoretical insights from organizational life cycles, collaborative and network governance, semi-structured interviews with procurement experts and academic and grey literature documents on pooled procurement of medicines and vaccines.ResultsWe identified four general developmental stages of pooled procurement mechanisms: promise, creation, early operational and mature. The promise stage is characterized by initiating engagement between participating actors, while they try to convert their perceived problem(s) or opportunities into a shared vision. The creation stage is where the participating actors formalize and design the mechanism through consensus-building, articulation of a shared plan, and mobilize resources to put the shared plan into action. The early operational stage is where the shared plan is being executed. The newly established or appointed procurement organization is required to learn fast from experience while showing flexibility to the changing needs of buyers and suppliers. Once operations are routinized, the mechanism enters the mature stage. During this stage, the pooled procurement organization develops into a trusted player that provides sufficient incentives for all actors involved. Importantly, pooled procurement mechanisms can stagnate or turn inactive at any time during the developmental process when alignment between actors is threatened.ConclusionsPooled procurement mechanisms evolve over time. Setting up such mechanisms is a collaborative process that relies on intentional efforts by key actors involved. To increase the lifespan of pooled procurement mechanisms, key actors need to sustain a relative alignment of goals, needs, motivations and purpose of the mechanism throughout its entire life cycle.

Project description:The WHO Model List of Essential Medicines (MLEM) has since 1977 helped prioritize and ensure availability of medicines especially in low- and middle-income countries. The MLEM consists mainly of generic medicines, though recent trends point towards listing expensive on-patent medicines and increasing global support for medicines against non-communicable diseases. However, the implications of such changes for national essential medicines list (NEML) updates for access to essential medicines has received relatively little attention. This study examined how government agencies and other actors in Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania participate in and influence the NEML update process and subsequent availability of prioritized medicines; and the alignment of these processes to WHO guidance. A mixed study design was used, with qualitative documentary review, key informant interviews and thematic data analysis. Results show that NEML updating processes were similar amongst the three countries and aligned to WHO guidelines, albeit conducted irregularly, with tendency to reprioritization during procurement stages, and were not always accompanied by revision of clinical guidelines. Variations were noted in the inclusion of medicines against cancer and hepatitis C, and the utilization of health technology assessment (HTA). For medicines against diseases with high global engagement, such as HIV/AIDS and TB, national stakeholders had more limited inputs in prioritization and funding. Furthermore, national actors were not influenced by the pharmaceutical industry during the NEML update process, nor were any conflicting agendas identified between health, trade and industrial policies. Hence, the study suggests that more attention should be paid to the combination of HTAs and NEMLs, particularly as countries work towards universal health coverage, in addition to heightened awareness of how global disease-specific initiatives may confound national implementation of the NEML. The study concludes with a call to strengthen country-level policy and procedural coherence around the process of prioritizing and ensuring availability of essential medicines.

Dataset Information

Towards regional access to medicines: the development of the East African Community pooled procurement mechanism

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets