ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND The burden of cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) and response to health systems vary widely at the subnational level in India. Our study aimed to assess the variation in state-level access to medicines for CVDs by comparing the essential medicines lists (EMLs) at the national and subnational levels in India and by rapid appraisal of the existing policies and processes of drug procurement. METHODS We assessed the inclusion of six classes of medicines for CVDs in the recent and publicly available national and subnational EMLs from July to September 2018 in the states of Telangana and Madhya Pradesh. We examined the drug procurement and distribution policies and processes using documentary review and five key informant interviews between March and June 2018. RESULTS The WHO’s EML, India’s national EML, and 21 of 28 publicly available (75%) Indian state and Union Territory EMLs included all six classes of essential medicines for CVDs. However, some medicines were not included in the policy packages of essential medicines meant for primary health centres. Both the states used centralized tendering and decentralized distribution as part of the public sector drug procurement process. The requirement was based on the previous year’s consumption. The approximate time between procurement planning and distribution was 7–8 months in both the states. CONCLUSION Substantial variation exists in the selection of drugs for CVDs in EMLs at the subnational level in India. Improving forecasting techniques for requirement of medicines and reducing time lags between forecasting and distribution to health facilities may allow for better access to essential medicines.
ABSTRACT
Background & objectives: Cardiovascular disease (CVD) and diabetes have become a leading threat to public health in India. This study examines socio-economic differences in self-reported morbidity due to CVD and diabetes, where people having these conditions seek care, how much households pay for and how they finance hospital treatment for these conditions. Methods: Data for this study are taken from the National Sample Survey Organization (NSSO) 60th round on ‘Morbidity and Health Care’ conducted between January and June 2004. Information from 2,129 and 438 individuals hospitalized for CVD and diabetes was analyzed. Results: The self-reported prevalence among adults was 12 per cent for CVD, 4 per cent (7% urban and 3% rural) for heart disease and 6 per cent (10% in urban and 4% in rural) for diabetes. Both self-reported CVD and diabetes appeared to afflict the wealthier more. The private sector was the main provider of outpatient and inpatient care for CVD and diabetes treatment, though the poor depended more on the public sector. Out-of-pocket payments (OOPS) for hospital treatment claimed a large share of annual household expenditures; 30 per cent for CVD and 17 per cent for diabetes. The OOPS share for diabetes treatment declined with increasing income. The majority of OOPS for hospital treatment paid by the poor was financed through borrowings. Interpretation & conclusions: The considerable financial strain which households, particularly the poor, face in treating CVD and diabetes is alarming. As the burden due to CVD and diabetes increases in India, more households will be subject to these financial strains and unfortunately, the economically vulnerable among them will be the worst affected. While primary prevention of these conditions need more emphasis, in addition, insurance schemes targeted at the poor like the RSBY have an important role to play in financially protecting vulnerable households.