Tuesday, 17 September 2013 00:21
-
- {{hitsCtrl.values.hits}}
DOES blacklisting of drug companies really make a difference? Sri Lanka’s Ministry of Health has decided to ban the purchase of pharma drugs from four Indian pharmaceutical companies due to quality issues. Companies from Bangladesh will now be approached to ensure that there is no shortage of drugs but whether these are sustainable practices remains to be seen.
Another issue is the tens of millions of tax money that has already been put into the bulging pockets of these companies. At best the cash will only be returned after long and arduous lawsuits and if experience is anything to go by, they will remain away from the grasp of the Health Ministry.
The Cosmetics, Devices & Drugs Regulatory Authority (CDDRA) Sri Lanka has decided to ban four Indian companies which supply drugs to Sri Lanka. This was after Health Minister Maithripala Sirisena ordered the immediate suspension of the four companies for repeated supply of substandard pharmaceutical drugs within the past four years.
The four companies have been identified in media as Laborate, Vivek, Bafna and Elysium Pharma of India. But what any member of the public will ask is why it took four years for these suspensions to take place and why no action was taken despite these companies repeatedly sending low quality drugs that could have had serious results on unfortunate patients.
Stories of expired saline, essential drug shortages, breakdown of machines and doctor and nurse disputes, not to mention the unreliability of medication hit headlines several times a week in Sri Lanka. There has even been talk by none other than the Minister himself that a “mafia” controls the drug trade, making effective policing all but impossible. Moreover, there is little or no transparency or accountability in the selection or blacklisting process, with the public having to take whatever is dealt out to them.
Drug companies in Bangladesh do not have a much shinier reputation than their Indian counterparts and without an effective, independent and accountable process in place, the dangers of substandard medical imports will never be adequately addressed. But no one seems to be interested in fast tracking this process. Pundits have lobbied for the Dr. Senaka Bibile drug policy that was recommended 40 years ago, but to no avail.
To make matters worse, there are greater threats looming. As Sri Lanka becomes more prosperous, so too does the propensity for non-communicable diseases that already make up an estimated 85% of deaths. The World Bank points out demographic transition stems from a larger proportion of older people in a population as a result of increased longevity and reduced fertility that usually accompany economic growth. As a result, older populations often face different types of diseases that can be more chronic and expensive to cure. A South Asia regional study found that South Asians suffer their first heart attacks six years earlier than other groups worldwide.
This burden of NCDs will rise in the future, in part, due to further ageing of the population with the doubling of the population over the age of 65 from 12.1% to 24.4% over the next 30 years. Clearly Sri Lanka’s limping health system is unprepared to deal with such challenges. Financial irresponsibility, mismanagement, corruption and that universal evil, politicisation, have made blacklisting all but pointless.
