As someone who directly involves pharmaceutical sales in Malaysia, I am faced with an issue that seems to escalate in its severity day in and out. I do not have the evidence to justify it nor the evidence to push it aside. But I'm facing it every time I talk to a decision maker in the government setting.
And in the last write up, we just talk about whether smart Pharmaceutical company marketing is needed more by the public than ever before.
For example, right now, there are only two leading insulin manufacturers, namely Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly:
Why?
I don't know because I was not directly involved. It puzzles me, though, why such a thing happens if it does happen.
Why spend more when a cheaper alternative is available?
Both products were in the government listing.
Both products had the same indication.
But why the higher priced item?
On the other hand, there's a massive cost-cutting exercise taking place subtly. Cheaper drugs are replacing more expensive ones for simple to complex diseases. Since I directly involved with this issue, it puzzles me as well.
How the Government decides which cheaper drug to use to replace the premium drugs?
What're the criteria?
I can't say that this often happens, but I see the VVIP and VIP seem to escape this situation.
Again, I wonder whether using a cheaper drug is a blanket rule for everyone or just for certain people?
And certain places seem to escape from this rule too.
Certain areas of this country, up north or down south, appears to have easier access to premium pharmaceutical products.
I wonder why...
I asked a sales representative from another company, who cover such areas once, and she could not answer me.
If a hospital in the north can use the premium product to treat, say diabetes, then why the same product could not be made available for a hospital on the east coast?
I got a feeling that there's a political power-play behind this, but like I said earlier, I have no evidence to justify it.
This sidetracks a bit from our discussion, but I was told by a friend who works at the lab that now, companies that supply reagents for biochemical tests, must register with the Ministry of Health and Ministry of Finance to run their operation.
My friend said that the reason because it is easier for the Ministry to monitor the source of the reagent supply. But the downside to that is since many companies that supply reagents are small to medium companies, they find this to be burdening due to lower profit margin. He said that the Government is seen to take up a higher proportion of the share, which causes the overall net effect of smaller profit for the supplier.
Massive speculation, I would say, but who am I to accept or reject it?
What say you oh people from the diagnostic end?
Back to the matter in hand...
The burning question that I have, if this whole scenario of cost-cutting, access imbalance, and inequitable distribution are real: what's the reason?
With so many skeletons in the closet being exposed within Malaysia's politic nowadays, could it be possible that the real story behind the pharmaceutical industry is hidden from the public?
Am I just being paranoid with this post?
Whatever it is, I can assure you that when I talk to a healthcare provider in a Government hospital tomorrow, the issue of cost cutting will surface.
And I won't be amazed.
Can someone satisfy my inquisitive mind whether the Malaysian government is limiting access to premium pharmaceutical products is real or just my paranoia?
I'm sure others are dying to know the answer too :)
For example, right now, there are only two leading insulin manufacturers, namely Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly:
Why?
I don't know because I was not directly involved. It puzzles me, though, why such a thing happens if it does happen.
Why spend more when a cheaper alternative is available?
Both products were in the government listing.
Both products had the same indication.
But why the higher priced item?
On the other hand, there's a massive cost-cutting exercise taking place subtly. Cheaper drugs are replacing more expensive ones for simple to complex diseases. Since I directly involved with this issue, it puzzles me as well.
How the Government decides which cheaper drug to use to replace the premium drugs?
What're the criteria?
I can't say that this often happens, but I see the VVIP and VIP seem to escape this situation.
Again, I wonder whether using a cheaper drug is a blanket rule for everyone or just for certain people?
And certain places seem to escape from this rule too.
Certain areas of this country, up north or down south, appears to have easier access to premium pharmaceutical products.
I wonder why...
I asked a sales representative from another company, who cover such areas once, and she could not answer me.
If a hospital in the north can use the premium product to treat, say diabetes, then why the same product could not be made available for a hospital on the east coast?
I got a feeling that there's a political power-play behind this, but like I said earlier, I have no evidence to justify it.
This sidetracks a bit from our discussion, but I was told by a friend who works at the lab that now, companies that supply reagents for biochemical tests, must register with the Ministry of Health and Ministry of Finance to run their operation.
My friend said that the reason because it is easier for the Ministry to monitor the source of the reagent supply. But the downside to that is since many companies that supply reagents are small to medium companies, they find this to be burdening due to lower profit margin. He said that the Government is seen to take up a higher proportion of the share, which causes the overall net effect of smaller profit for the supplier.
Massive speculation, I would say, but who am I to accept or reject it?
What say you oh people from the diagnostic end?
Back to the matter in hand...
The burning question that I have, if this whole scenario of cost-cutting, access imbalance, and inequitable distribution are real: what's the reason?
- Is saving cost is more important now?
- How about the criteria for choosing a cheaper drug over the premium drug?
- Can healthcare be improved with such initiatives?
- Why the speculation comes about in the first place?
With so many skeletons in the closet being exposed within Malaysia's politic nowadays, could it be possible that the real story behind the pharmaceutical industry is hidden from the public?
Am I just being paranoid with this post?
Whatever it is, I can assure you that when I talk to a healthcare provider in a Government hospital tomorrow, the issue of cost cutting will surface.
And I won't be amazed.
Can someone satisfy my inquisitive mind whether the Malaysian government is limiting access to premium pharmaceutical products is real or just my paranoia?
I'm sure others are dying to know the answer too :)
No comments:
Post a Comment