Search

Colonial medical education and public health policies emerged from an intriguing discourse of negotiation between the government and the people. These 'structured conflicts', rooted in the politics and the debates of the colonial institutions not only provided opportunities for creative thinking about public health but also for imposing constraints. The colonial and post-colonial India medical legislative debates revealing a new language of protest, assumed greater significance with the growing nationalist movement and the general (though variegated) intellectual polarisation – western and indigenous systems of medicine. Problematising the historiographic assertion of medical modernisation in colonial India to be a part of 'civilising mission', this paper argues that legislature emerged as a platform of activism and protest against the colonial and post-colonial State's appropriation of modernity. While some members appealed for extending the benefit of 'modern' western medicine to the general Indian population, some debated in favour of introducing the indigenous medical systems to the terms of modern professionalisation. The post-colonial policies reveal the true significance of the legislative debates in reviving the position of indigenous systems of medicine in the context of professional modernity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In India, 50-65% of the population face difficulties in accessing medicines. The Health Impact Fund (HIF) is a novel proposal whereby pharmaceutical companies would be paid based on the measured global health impact of their drugs. We conducted a key stakeholder analysis to explore access to medicines in India, acceptability of the HIF and potential barriers and facilitators at policy level. Objectives: To conduct a stakeholder analysis of the HIF in India: to determine key stakeholder views regarding access to medicines in India; to evaluate acceptability of the HIF; and to assess potential barriers and facilitators to the HIF as a policy. Methods: In New Delhi, we conducted semi-structured interviews. There was purposive recruitment of participants with snowball sampling. Transcribed data were analysed using stakeholder analysis frameworks and directed content analysis. Results: Participation rate was 29% (14/49). 14 semi-structured interviews were conducted among stakeholders in New Delhi. All participants highlighted access to medicines as a problem in India. There were mixed views about the HIF in terms of relevance and scaleability. Stakeholders felt it should focus on diseases with limited or no market and potentially incorporate direct investment in research. Conclusions: First, access to medicines is perceived to be a major problem in India by all stakeholders, but affordability is just one factor. Second, stakeholders despite considerable support for the idea of the HIF, there are major concerns about scaleability, generalisability and impact on access to medicines. Third, the HIF and other novel drug-related health policies can afford to be more radical, e.g. working outside the existing intellectual property rights regime, targeting generic as well as branded drugs, or extending to research and development. Further innovations in access to medicines must involve country-specific key stakeholders in order to increase the likelihood of their success. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]