Suchergebnisse

BACKGROUND: Policy approaches have been considered to address inconsistent and inequitable prescription drug coverage in Canada, including a national essential medicines list. We sought to explore key factors influencing the acceptability and feasibility of an essential medicines list in Canada. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews with decision-makers and other key stakeholders from government or pan-Canadian institutions, civil society and the private sector across Canada. We analyzed data using inductive thematic analysis and by applying Kingdon's Multiple Streams Framework to analyze the emergent themes deductively. RESULTS: We conducted 21 interviews before thematic saturation was achieved. We categorized emergent themes to describe the problem, the essential medicines list policy (including content and process), and politics. There was consensus among participants that prescription drug coverage was an important problem to address. Participants differed in their views on how to define essential medicines and concerns about what would be excluded from an essential medicines list. There was consensus on important features for a process to develop an essential medicines list: an independent decision-making body, use of defined selection criteria based on quality evidence, and clear communication of the purpose of the essential medicines list. Federal government financing and the broader pharmacare model, engagement of various interest groups and changing political agendas emerged as core political factors to consider if developing a Canadian essential medicines list. INTERPRETATION: Although stakeholders' views on the content of a Canadian essential medicines list varied, there was consensus on the process to formulate and implement an essential medicines list or common national formulary, including choosing medicines based on best evidence. Greater understanding is now needed on how patients, clinicians and the public perceive the concept of an essential medicines list.

BACKGROUND: Policy approaches have been considered to address inconsistent and inequitable prescription drug coverage in Canada, including a national essential medicines list. We sought to explore key factors influencing the acceptability and feasibility of an essential medicines list in Canada. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews with decision-makers and other key stakeholders from government or pan-Canadian institutions, civil society and the private sector across Canada. We analyzed data using inductive thematic analysis and by applying Kingdon's Multiple Streams Framework to analyze the emergent themes deductively. RESULTS: We conducted 21 interviews before thematic saturation was achieved. We categorized emergent themes to describe the problem, the essential medicines list policy (including content and process), and politics. There was consensus among participants that prescription drug coverage was an important problem to address. Participants differed in their views on how to define essential medicines and concerns about what would be excluded from an essential medicines list. There was consensus on important features for a process to develop an essential medicines list: an independent decision-making body, use of defined selection criteria based on quality evidence, and clear communication of the purpose of the essential medicines list. Federal government financing and the broader pharmacare model, engagement of various interest groups and changing political agendas emerged as core political factors to consider if developing a Canadian essential medicines list. INTERPRETATION: Although stakeholders' views on the content of a Canadian essential medicines list varied, there was consensus on the process to formulate and implement an essential medicines list or common national formulary, including choosing medicines based on best evidence. Greater understanding is now needed on how patients, clinicians and the public perceive the concept of an essential medicines list.

KEY POINTS In Canada, commercial data brokers collect deidentified patient data from pharmacies, private drug insurers, the federal government and medical clinics without patient consent. Although pharmaceutical companies are the data brokers' primary customers, academics and nonprofit and public entities also use commercial data sets, given the absence of a coordinated public approach to collecting these data across Canada. Risks of commercialized patient data include loss of anonymity, surveillance and marketing, discrimination and violation of Indigenous data sovereignty. Coordinated infrastructure for the collection and coordination of health data across Canada and updated privacy legislation would protect individuals and communities and enable appropriate data uses.

OBJECTIVES: Examining the availability of essential medicines is a necessary step to monitor country-level progress towards universal health coverage. We compared the 2017 essential medicine lists (EML) of 137 countries to the WHO Model List to assess differences by drug class and country setting. METHODS: We extracted all medicines prioritised at country level from most recently available national EMLs and compared each national EML with the 2017 WHO Model List of Essential Medicines (MLEM) as the reference standard. We assess EMLs by WHO region and for different types of medicine subgroups (eg, cancer, anti-infectives, cardiac, psychiatric and anaesthesia medicines) using within second-level anatomical therapeutic class (ATC) drug classes of the ATC Index. RESULTS: We included 406 medicines from WHO's 2017 MLEM to compare to 137 concurrent national EMLs. We found a median of 315 (range from 44 to 983) medicines listed on national EMLs. The global median F1 score was 0.59 (IQR 0.47–0.70, maximum possible score indicating alignment with MLEM is 1). The F1 score was the highest (ie, most similar to MLEM) in the South-East Asia region and the lowest in the European region (ie, most dissimilar to MLEM). The F1 score was highest for stomatological preparations (median: 1.00), gynaecological—anti-infectives and antiseptics (median: 1.00), and medicated dressings (median: 1.00), and lowest for 9 anatomical or pharmacological groups (median: 0.00, eg, treatments for bone diseases, digestive enzymes). CONCLUSIONS: Most countries are expected to improve their national health coverage by 2030 offering access to essential medicines, but our results revealed substantial gaps in selection of medicines at the national level compared with those recommended by WHO. It is crucial that governments consider investing in those effective medicines that are now neglected and continue monitoring progress towards essential medicine access as part of universal health coverage.