Access to health care is a fundamental human right recognised by governments around the world. Fulfilment of that right must include access to good quality, affordable medicines. Yet one in every three people in the world does not have the basic medicines they need.

Availability can be restricted by a variety of factors, ranging from cost of medicines to transport problems and from fraud and inefficiency in the supply chain (for example in 2008 the Uganda Minister of Health told reporters that half the medicines bought by the government for the public health system were being siphoned off)  to doctors’ lack of knowledge about specific drugs. Weak health systems, a common deficiency in developing countries, can mean that staff and infrastructure to prescribe, dispense and deliver medicines are not available.

A vivid example of what availability means in practice is the treatment of AIDS. The development of a class of drugs known as anti-retrovirals (ARVs) promised to turn AIDS from a certain killer to a potentially manageable chronic illness. Partly because of their cost, they were available to some HIV-positive people in industrialised countries but to only a lucky few in the developing world. A concerted international effort is changing the situation. Data from Botswana suggest that in the year after anti-retroviral treatment was made widely available in the country, adult deaths fell eight per cent. UNAIDS/WHO reported that scaling up antiretroviral treatment in low- and middle-income countries in the four years to 2006 saved about two million life-years.

Inequity in securing access to drugs is matched by an imbalance in the way international pharmaceutical companies undertake research. Over 90 per cent of medicines research and development focuses on the medical conditions of the richest 20 per cent of the world’s population. New medicine is needed for diseases that disproportionately affect the poor, especially neglected diseases.

Increased transparency and accountability can ease all these problems and bottlenecks. MeTA’s approach is to organise multi-stakeholder groups – committees of people representing all organisations with an interest in health provision – and for participants to then harness the power of information to tackle the problems.

MeTA believes its work can add real value to the work that participating countries and their international partners are already doing to increase access to medicines and improve health.

News Stories

Displaying results 51 to 60 out of 161

02/10/2009

Roll Back Malaria uses text messaging to improve access to stocks of malaria medicines in Tanzania

29/09/2009

Stop the Stock-Outs campaign activists in Kenya, Malawi, Uganda and Zambia use text messaging to report stock-outs of essential medicines - IRIN

21/09/2009

MeTA and International Pharmaceutical Federation (FIP) organise joint workshop on transparency in pharmacy practice

21/09/2009

In Peru, the multi-stakeholder process gives greater breadth of vision, an integrated approach to tackling problems and guarantees greater efficiency

21/09/2009

MeTA may be a long term strategy, but in Ghana the multi-stakeholder process is already changing the way the sectors’ work together

21/09/2009

The multi-stakeholder process offers Jordan the freedom to set an agenda that meets the country's needs and to work collaboratively

18/09/2009

Members of the Coalition for Health Advocacy and Transparency speak of the advantages and challenges of working in a multi-stakeholder group

18/09/2009

Why multi-stakeholder processes are the way to deal with the complexities of improving access to medicines

15/09/2009

Health is a factor for human dignity and social and economic development - Bishkek news agency 24.kg

11/09/2009

The Indian district of Chittorgarh increases access to medicines for the very poor with an initiative to sell generic drugs at cost price.

Displaying results 51 to 60 out of 161