ArticleJournal of pharmaceutical policy and practice2025
On paper; in practice: measuring compliance with official pricing policies in a large field study of essential medicines in Indonesia.
Article in Journal of pharmaceutical policy and practice, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: In 2015, Indonesia Ministry of Health (MoH) issued a decree to ensure the affordability of medicines by providing transparent prices which obliged all manufacturers to print a maximum retail price (MRP) on medicine primary packaging. We measure the compliance of manufacturers and retailers with the regulation stated in the decree and estimate the retailers' profit. Methods: Five essential medicines (allopurinol, amlodipine, amoxicillin, cefixime, dexamethasone) were purchased from randomly selected health facilities, retail pharmacies and online outlets in Indonesia. We recorded retailer's selling price and product's MRP. We also sourced product's list price and sales volume from pharmaceutical market data. We conducted an MRP policy implementation analysis by evaluating three indicators (retail price transparency, permitted MRP and permitted sales price). We also estimated the retailers' profit by taking into account the profit margin and sales volume. Results: Of 1249 sampled medicines, nearly all samples (99.4%) had visible MRP on their packaging indicating high transparency compliance. For unbranded generics, none complied with permitted MRP with a median ratio of printed MRP to permitted MRP being 3.5 (IQR 2.6-7.9), whilst higher compliance (11.2%) was observed for branded generics (IQR 1.1-1.7, median 1.1). 33% of the samples were sold above the printed MRP with the lowest compliance to actual selling price being documented in hospitals. Branded generics accounted for 79% of the product value across the study medicines and generated more profits than the unbranded versions. Conclusion: The transparency implementation through printed MRP and the compliance with permitted sales price regulation contribute to retailer accountability. Rules restricting permitted MRPs for unbranded generics, irrational since their inception, while they never set any limits at all on the price of branded medicines. This showed not enough evidence that the policy contributed to its objective of ensuring affordability.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.