Pharmaceutical subsidy policy in Iran: a qualitative stakeholder analysis

Abstract

Background Over the past three decades, allocation of foreign currency subsidies has been the primary strategy of various administrations in Iran to improve access to medicines. This strategy has resulted in several challenges, including stakeholder conflicts of interest. Objective To identify the power, interest, and role of the stakeholders in allocating foreign currency subsidies to medicines in the Iranian health system. Methods In this qualitative study, 39 semi-structured interviews were conducted. Key informants were recruited using a purposive sampling technique. The theoretical framework adopted by Varvasovszky and Brugha was employed. The data were analysed using directed content analysis. Results The foreign currency subsidy for medicines included 21 stakeholders in five main categories: governmental organizations, Iranian Parliament, general population, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and the pharmaceutical industry. Stakeholders varied in their level of participation and support in the policy-making process. Among them, the Iranian Government, Planning and Budget Organization, the Ministry of Health and Medical Education (MoHME), and Iran Food and Drug Administration (IFDA) were the most important stakeholders, with highly supportive positions, while domestic drug manufacturers were the strongest opponents of this policy. The Government of Iran is the most powerful institution with regard to the ability to allocate foreign currency subsidies to medicines, followed by the MoHME and the IFDA. Conclusion This study demonstrated that identifying and analysing the stakeholders involved in allocating foreign currency subsidies to medicines can provide valuable information for policy-makers to enable a more comprehensive understanding and better capacity to determine whether or not to eliminate these subsidies. Moreover, decision-making in this process is a long-term issue that requires consensus among all stakeholders. Because of the political and social consequences of eliminating foreign currency subsidies, the necessary political will is not institutionalized. We recommend a step-by-step approach in eliminating foreign currency subsidies if the requirements are met (i.e., those related to the consequences of such interventions). Therefore, revision of the current policy along with these requirements, in addition to financial transparency and enhanced efficiency, will facilitate progress towards achieving the Sustainable Development Goals by improving access to medicines.

Policy analysis of the protection of Iranian households against catastrophic health expenditures: a qualitative analysis

“…Both top-down and bottom-up approaches have not been employed in formulating and implementing policies. While establishing a dialogue or policy discourse to achieve interactive and inclusive policy-making could address the weaknesses of this policy [ 44 , 45 ]. Russell et al offer the only solution to tackling the problems associated with rapid growth in OOP in Australia by the involvement of all stakeholders including governments at all levels, providers, industry and consumers in priority decisions at a policy level [ 46 ].…”

Pharmaco‐disparities in heart failure: a survey of the affordability of guideline recommended therapy in 10 countries

“…The domestic market share is 80% in Bangladesh, and only 10% in Uganda 57,58 . Governments could promote domestic drug manufacture by subsidizing the cost of imported pharmaceutical ingredients and lifting import restrictions, which remain barriers to affordable domestic production 59 . Another barrier is patent law, particularly for agents without a generic equivalent (e.g.…”

Drivers of vulnerability to medicine smuggling and combat strategies: a qualitative study based on online news media analysis in Iran

“…Pharmaceutical expenses are a major cause of out-of-pocket payments and catastrophic health expenditures, which can lead to households falling into poverty as a result of severe or chronic illnesses. As a result, this reduces people’s access to medicine [ 12 ]. Outpatient medications and supplies represent more than 30% of all out-of-pocket costs, which is about twice the cost of inpatient services [ 13 ].…”