PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Hans V Hogerzeil

Publications and source records attributed to Hans V Hogerzeil.

10 recordsLinked to original sources

Is access to essential medicines as part of the fulfilment of the right to health enforceable through the courts?

BACKGROUND: Most countries in the world have become States parties to one or more international human rights treaties, thus creating an obligation by the State to its people towards the realisation of the right to health, which includes access to essential medicines. But whether such access is enforceable in practice is unknown. METHODS: We did a systematic search to identify completed court cases in low-income and middle-income countries in which individuals or groups had claimed access to essential medicines with reference to the right to health in general, or to specific human rights treaties ratified by the government. We identified and analysed 71 court cases from 12 countries in which access to essential medicines was claimed with reference to the right to health. FINDINGS: In 59 cases, access to essential medicines as part of the fulfilment of the right to health could indeed be enforced through the courts, with most coming from Central and Latin America. Success was mainly linked to constitutional provisions on the right to health, supported by the human rights treaties. Other success factors were a link between the right to health and the right to life, and support by public-interest non-government organisations. Individual cases have generated entitlements across a population group, the right to health was not restricted by limitations in social security coverage, and government policies have successfully been challenged in court. INTERPRETATION: Skilful litigation can help to ensure that governments fulfil their constitutional and international treaty obligations. Such assurances are especially valuable in countries in which social security systems are still being developed. However, redress mechanisms through the courts should be used as a last resort. Rather, policymakers should ensure that human rights standards guide their health policies and programmes from the outset.

Health Policy↗

Essential medicines and human rights: what can they learn from each other?

Most countries have acceded to at least one global or regional covenant or treaty confirming the right to health. After years of international discussions on human rights, many governments are now moving towards practical implementation of their commitments. A practical example may be of help to those governments who aim to translate their international treaty obligations into practice. WHO's Essential Medicines Programme is an example of how this transition from legal principles to practical implementation may be achieved. This programme has been consistent with human rights principles since its inception in the early 1980s, through its focus on equitable access to essential medicines. This paper provides a brief overview of what the international human rights instruments mention about access to essential medicines, and proposes five assessment questions and practical recommendations for governments. These recommendations cover the selection of essential medicines, participation in programme development, mechanisms for transparency and accountability, equitable access by vulnerable groups, and redress mechanisms.

Drugs, Essential↗

Could the WHO model list of essential medicines do more for the safe and appropriate use of injections?

A national drug policy addressing the safe and appropriate use of injections is an important element to prevent overuse and unsafe use of injections. Because the World Health Organization World Health Organization Model List of Essential Medicines is a keystone of national drug policies, the authors examined the way it addresses injection practices. They reviewed the 11th World Health Organization Model List of Essential Medicines to collect information on (1) injectable medicines, (2) diluents, and (3) the recommendations regarding the procurement of injection devices. Of 306 active ingredients on the list, 135 (44%) are mentioned in injectable form. Of these, 41 (30%) need diluents for reconstitution. The list does not mention the need to procure appropriate diluents, injection devices, and safety boxes in quantities that match the quantities of injectable medicines. In addition, the list provides limited information that can be used to forecast the needs of injection devices to administer the injectable medicines that are included in the list. Future revisions of the World Health Organization Model List of Essential Medicines should attempt to reduce the number of injectable formulations on the basis of evidence. In addition, the list should specify that when injectable medicines are being supplied, diluents, single-use syringes, and safety boxes should be supplied. The volume of syringes needed for administration should be specified for each injectable medication on the list to facilitate the forecasting of the needs of injection devices.

Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions↗

Prescription habits of dispensing and non-dispensing doctors in Zimbabwe.

The number of dispensing doctors has increased in the last decade, but the implication of this trend on the quality of health care and drug use is unknown. We present a comparative drug utilization study of 29 dispensing doctors and 28 non-dispensing doctors in Zimbabwe based on standard indicators developed by the World Health Organization. Dispensing doctors prescribed significantly more drugs per patient than non-dispensing doctors (2.3 versus 1.7), injected more patients (28.4% versus 9.5%), and prescribed more antibiotics (0.72 versus 0.54) and mixtures (0.43 versus 0.25) per encounter. Dispensing doctors also spent significantly less time on each encounter (8.7 min versus 13.0 min) than their non-dispensing colleagues. The use of generic name, brand name and essential drugs did not differ significantly between the two groups of practitioners. Multivariate analyses controlling for gender, race, place of education, location of practice and patients seen per day showed that dispensing by doctors was associated with less clinically and economically appropriate prescribing. These findings suggest that the quality of health care--as related to drug use, patient safety and treatment cost--is lower with dispensing doctors than with non-dispensing doctors.

Cohort Studies↗

Opposing the motion.

Explore the source record for details and available documents.

Decision Making↗