Let’s get it straight, is NMS supposed to re-export antiretroviral drugs?
May 28, 2003
SIR — The behaviour of the managers at the National Medical Stores (NMS) deserves comment. We appreciate the intervention of the Minister of State for Health, Mr Mike Mukula in the matter, but we feel more needs to be done
SIR — The behaviour of the managers at the National Medical Stores (NMS) deserves comment.
We appreciate the intervention of the Minister of State for Health, Mr Mike Mukula in the matter, but we feel more needs to be done.
Last year, Pfizer Inc, the world’s largest pharmaceutical firm started a Diflucan donation programme for AIDS patients in developing countries.
The drug, whose generic name is fluconazole, manages oral thrush and prevents re-occurrence of cryptococcal meningitis. Indeed, our government received (and perhaps continues to receive) her share through NMS, and the international community is using Uganda as a successful example in the fight against HIV/AIDS.
Unfortunately, health workers, and patients alike, siphoned some of the specially packaged fluconazole into private pharmacies and clinics. But in our setting, the price of this drug is too expensive for most HIV patients.
Public pharmacies can’t procure the drug either, and the Ministry of Health reacted. But it is so hard to ignore that the international community as well as Pfizer noted the loophole in Uganda’s pharmaceutical set-up.
As if that was not bad enough, NMS was reported to be involved in a more disastrous scheme than the fluconazole saga.
According to The New Vision of May 15, NMS, which was created by an act of parliament, planned to liaise with local private companies to export imported subsidised anti-retrovirals (ARVs)!
Following this information, Robert Rutagi, the general manager of NMS seemed to give somewhat distorted information on the matter: one was that NMS was purchasing this drug from Kenya for re-sale to the public.
Secondly, he told the public that he was using only the “commercial†channel to do this. The implication he creates here is that subsidised ARVs are only handled through bodies like Medical Access Uganda Ltd for free distribution and that subsidised ARVs are not commercially handled. It would appear there are things that Ugandans are not being told.
First, we were told of an attempt to purchase from GlaxoSmithKline (GSK)of UK for re-export to Europe. Now, we seem to be given the impression that the purchase was being made from Kenya for re-distribution to the public in Uganda.
This subject also came up for discussion on Mwenda Live FM 93.3 on May 19. Unfortunately, Andrew Mwenda himself did not seem to be helpful here.
For instance, when Patrick Adele from Nairobi who oversees GSK operations in Uganda phoned in and was about to repeat to the public his warning to NMS and other dealers in Uganda against re-exporting their products, Mwenda was more interested in the difference between commercial and subsidised ARVs. Both Mwenda and Rutagi interpreted the matter completely out of context.
This overshadowed the critical information as to whether NMS has interests to re-export the ARVs or not. The truth of the matter is that through meticulous global arrangement, pharmaceutical firms allow poor countries to buy ARVs cheaply on condition that governments prevent the drugs from finding their way back to markets of rich countries where they are sold at higher prices.
In any case, if one has to sell ARVs to NMS, it is logical to suggest that prior negotiations are made with the knowledge that the drugs are going to the public in Uganda. If it turns out that the other party, NMS, is dishonest, it is reasonable to assume the ARVs manufacturers could take issue with Uganda on this matter.
We therefore wonder whether such high calibre corruption should go unchecked. If those involved are “well-connected†and are probably untouchable, should HIV infected Ugandans who might have started taking the subsidised ARVs stop simply because a few greedy individuals want to benefit?
Should the good image of Uganda, as a forefront fighter against HIV, which was created over time by a visionary leadership, be washed down the gutter with one simple reckless activity of a few individuals?
We appreciate the recent intervention by Mr Mukula over the issue, but we think more needs to be done to stem the looming excesses like it was swiftly done over the Diflucan saga.
This is a matter of life and death and needs to be handled firmly and decisively.
Name withheld
We appreciate the intervention of the Minister of State for Health, Mr Mike Mukula in the matter, but we feel more needs to be done.
Last year, Pfizer Inc, the world’s largest pharmaceutical firm started a Diflucan donation programme for AIDS patients in developing countries.
The drug, whose generic name is fluconazole, manages oral thrush and prevents re-occurrence of cryptococcal meningitis. Indeed, our government received (and perhaps continues to receive) her share through NMS, and the international community is using Uganda as a successful example in the fight against HIV/AIDS.
Unfortunately, health workers, and patients alike, siphoned some of the specially packaged fluconazole into private pharmacies and clinics. But in our setting, the price of this drug is too expensive for most HIV patients.
Public pharmacies can’t procure the drug either, and the Ministry of Health reacted. But it is so hard to ignore that the international community as well as Pfizer noted the loophole in Uganda’s pharmaceutical set-up.
As if that was not bad enough, NMS was reported to be involved in a more disastrous scheme than the fluconazole saga.
According to The New Vision of May 15, NMS, which was created by an act of parliament, planned to liaise with local private companies to export imported subsidised anti-retrovirals (ARVs)!
Following this information, Robert Rutagi, the general manager of NMS seemed to give somewhat distorted information on the matter: one was that NMS was purchasing this drug from Kenya for re-sale to the public.
Secondly, he told the public that he was using only the “commercial†channel to do this. The implication he creates here is that subsidised ARVs are only handled through bodies like Medical Access Uganda Ltd for free distribution and that subsidised ARVs are not commercially handled. It would appear there are things that Ugandans are not being told.
First, we were told of an attempt to purchase from GlaxoSmithKline (GSK)of UK for re-export to Europe. Now, we seem to be given the impression that the purchase was being made from Kenya for re-distribution to the public in Uganda.
This subject also came up for discussion on Mwenda Live FM 93.3 on May 19. Unfortunately, Andrew Mwenda himself did not seem to be helpful here.
For instance, when Patrick Adele from Nairobi who oversees GSK operations in Uganda phoned in and was about to repeat to the public his warning to NMS and other dealers in Uganda against re-exporting their products, Mwenda was more interested in the difference between commercial and subsidised ARVs. Both Mwenda and Rutagi interpreted the matter completely out of context.
This overshadowed the critical information as to whether NMS has interests to re-export the ARVs or not. The truth of the matter is that through meticulous global arrangement, pharmaceutical firms allow poor countries to buy ARVs cheaply on condition that governments prevent the drugs from finding their way back to markets of rich countries where they are sold at higher prices.
In any case, if one has to sell ARVs to NMS, it is logical to suggest that prior negotiations are made with the knowledge that the drugs are going to the public in Uganda. If it turns out that the other party, NMS, is dishonest, it is reasonable to assume the ARVs manufacturers could take issue with Uganda on this matter.
We therefore wonder whether such high calibre corruption should go unchecked. If those involved are “well-connected†and are probably untouchable, should HIV infected Ugandans who might have started taking the subsidised ARVs stop simply because a few greedy individuals want to benefit?
Should the good image of Uganda, as a forefront fighter against HIV, which was created over time by a visionary leadership, be washed down the gutter with one simple reckless activity of a few individuals?
We appreciate the recent intervention by Mr Mukula over the issue, but we think more needs to be done to stem the looming excesses like it was swiftly done over the Diflucan saga.
This is a matter of life and death and needs to be handled firmly and decisively.
Name withheld