The pros and cons of essential medicines for rich countries

doi:10.1136/bmj.329.7475.1172

BMJ 2004;329:1172 (13 November), doi:10.1136/bmj.329.7475.1172

Commentary

The pros and cons of essential medicines for rich countries

Marcus M Reidenberg, professor¹, Tom Walley, professor of clinical pharmacology²

¹ Weill Medical College of Cornell University, 1300 York Avenue, New York, NY 10021, USA, ² Department of Pharmacology and Therapeutics, University of Liverpool, Liverpool L69 3GF

Correspondence to: M M Reidenberg mmreid@med.cornell.edu

The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below.

Rising costs of drugs is universal. From 1998 to 2001, prescriptioncosts in the United States and England increased by 62% and30%, respectively. Could the essential drugs concept help richcountries to control the rise in drug costs? Hogerzeil¹ citesAustralia as an example, although experience there is hardlyencouraging: spending on medicines rose by 69% between 1998and 2002,² and the political difficulties of the process havebeen widely reported.³ But containing costs is not the onlyaim of the essential drugs concept, which primarily aims toincrease access and efficiency and to promote better healthand equity. These are also aims in rich countries, which alreadyapply many of the principles of the concept, both to improvecare and to manage costs.

The treatment of rheumatoid arthritis illustrates the problem.In the United States, pain and inflammation can be suppressedby ibuprofen at about $4 per month . . . [Full text of this article]

Add to CiteULike CiteULike Add to Complore Complore Add to Connotea Connotea Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us Add to Digg Digg Add to Reddit Reddit Add to StumbleUpon StumbleUpon Add to Technorati Technorati What's this?