ABSTRACT
Introduction: The concerns of inaccessibility to essential medicines in India are well-studied and documented. Pradhan Mantri Bhartiya Janaushadhi Priyojana (PMBJP) is one of the policy initiatives to address the inaccessibility of essential medicine. Janaushadhi Kendra (People's Medicine Centre), which is part of PMBJP is being enquired in a limited way to understand its effectiveness. The province of Odisha has been chosen as the study area for the evaluation of People's Medicine Centres. Objective: The present study intends to inquire into the nature of People's Medicine Centre ownership, pharmacists' motivations and incentives to engage in business, perceived customers' trust and satisfaction, scheme beneficiaries, and challenges. Methods: A qualitative research approach has been adopted to evaluate the broader subjective accounts of the pharmacists and People's Medicine Centre. An open-ended interview guide was used. The topics of ownership, motivation, incentives, trust, satisfaction, perceived benefits, and challenges has been recorded from the participants. A total of seventeen in-depth interviews were conducted in the province of Odisha, India. Results: The study found that the ownership of People's Medicine Centre was of two types in the province of Odisha: public-NGO-owned People's Medicine Centres and public-private-owned People's Medicine Centres. The financial incentive provisions in the scheme attracted the private pharmacists. Pharmacists highlighted about the lower price of generic medicines compared to branded medicines, which is very popular among patients. They also pointed out that there is no difference in the efficacy of both medicines. The attitude of physicians, especially private physicians, were considered problematic for popularity and acceptance. Conclusion: The People's Medicine Centres in Odisha established themselves as trusted outlets despite physicians' unfavourable attitudes. Although the centres have not reached the required geographical coverage, economically developed regions have large number of centres, while backward regions have minimal presence. The scheme needs to be more conducive to the welfare of the masses living in remote and rural areas.
