Availability of essential medicines in Ethiopia: an efficiency-equity trade-off?

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the availability and cost of essential medicines in health centres in rural Ethiopia, and to explore if the fee waiver system protects patients from having to pay for medicines. METHODS: The study took place in five health centres in rural Ethiopia. Availability and price of selected key essential medicines was established in the budget and special pharmacy of the health centre, as well as private outlets. Information on availability and cost of prescribed drugs was obtained through patient exit-interviews. RESULTS: Availability based of essential drugs at facility level was 91% based on a list of selected drugs vs. 84% based on prescriptions filled. However, less than half the prescribed drugs were obtained from the budget pharmacy, and one in six patients was forced to purchase drugs in the private sector, where drugs are roughly twice as expensive. The waiver system did not safeguard against having to pay for medicines. CONCLUSION: A revolving drug fund system in Ethiopia seems to improve availability of medicines, and can improve affordability by protecting people from purchasing drugs in the private sector. However, it may result in a parallel system, whereby the poor cannot access drugs if these are not available in the budget pharmacy. Equity is a concern in the absence of an adequate mechanism to protect the poor from catastrophic health expenditure

Health worker perspectives on user fee removal in Zambia.

UNLABELLED: BACKGROUND: User fees for primary care services were removed in rural districts in Zambia in 2006. Experience from other countries has suggested that health workers play a key role in determining the success of a fee removal policy, but also find the implementation of such a policy challenging. The policy was introduced against a backdrop of a major shortage in qualified health staff. METHODS: As part of a larger study on the experience and effect of user fee removal in Zambia, a number of case studies at the facility level were conducted. As part of these, quantitative and qualitative data were collected to evaluate health workers' satisfaction and experiences in charging and non-charging facilities. RESULTS: Our findings show that health-care workers have mixed feelings about the policy change and its consequences. We found some evidence that personnel motivation was higher in non-charging facilities compared to facilities still charging. Yet it is unclear whether this effect was due to differences in the user fee policy or to the fact that a lot of staff interviewed in non-charging facilities were working in mission facilities, where we found a significantly higher motivation. Health workers expressed satisfaction with an apparent increase in the number of patients visiting the facilities and the removal of a deterring factor for many needy patients, but also complained about an increased workload. Furthermore, working conditions were said to have worsened, which staff felt was linked to the absence of additional resources to deal with the increased demand or replace the loss of revenue generated by fees. CONCLUSION: These findings highlight the need to pay attention to supply-side measures when removing demand-side barriers such as user fees and in particular to be concerned about the burden that increased demand can place on already over-stretched health workers