Author
Listed:
- Natalie J Gauld
- Fiona S Kelly
- Lynne M Emmerton
- Stephen A Buetow
Abstract
Background: Despite similarities in health systems and Trans-Tasman Harmonization of medicines scheduling, New Zealand is more active than Australia in ‘switching’ (reclassifying) medicines from prescription to non-prescription. Objectives: To identify and compare enablers and barriers to switch in New Zealand and Australia. Methods: We conducted and analyzed 27 in-depth personal interviews with key participants in NZ and Australia and international participants previously located in Australia, and analyzed records of meetings considering switches (2000–2013). Analysis of both sets of data entailed a heuristic qualitative approach that embraced the lead researcher’s knowledge and experience. Results: The key themes identified were conservatism and political influences in Australia, and an open attitude, proactivity and flexibility in NZ. Pharmacist-only medicine schedules and individuals holding a progressive attitude were proposed to facilitate switch in both countries. A pharmacy retail group drove many switches in NZ (‘third-party switch’), unlike Australia. Barriers to switch in both countries included small market sizes, funding of prescription medicines and cost of doctor visits, and lack of market exclusivity. In Australia, advertising limitations for pharmacist-only medicines reportedly discouraged industry from submitting switch applications. Perceptions of pharmacy performance could help or hinder switches. Conclusion: Committee and regulator openness to switch, and confidence in pharmacy appear to influence consumer access to medicines. The pharmacist-only medicine schedule in Australasia and the rise of third-party switch and flexibility in switch in NZ could be considered elsewhere to enable switch.
Suggested Citation
Natalie J Gauld & Fiona S Kelly & Lynne M Emmerton & Stephen A Buetow, 2015.
"Widening Consumer Access to Medicines: A Comparison of Prescription to Non-Prescription Medicine Switch in Australia and New Zealand,"
PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(3), pages 1-22, March.
Handle:
RePEc:plo:pone00:0119011
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0119011
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0119011. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.