Priority Setting in Selection and Distribution of new Antimalarials in Tanzania, Analysis and Evaluation against Accountability for Reasonableness

Tanzania like many other malaria endemic countries changed its National Malaria Treatment Policy in 2006 due to Sulphadoxine/Pyrimethamine (SP). Selection of Artemether-Lumefantrine (ALu) as the first line antimalarial drug and its selective distribution to public and Faith based health facilities were two priority-setting decisions underlying the policy change. However, today, there are people who are still using Sulphadoxine/Perimethamine because they have no access to Artemether-Lumefantrine. To analyze and evaluate whether the priority decisions for selection and distribution of subsidized Artemether-Lumefantrine satisfies the conditions of fair process as suggested in the ethical framework of accountability for reasonableness. A Qualitative study involving review of the guidelines and in depth interviews with key informants from the task force was conducted. The analysis followed an editing organizing style. The audio data was transcribed into text and loaded into QDA program whereby coding, connections and analysis was performed. The result are presented under the four thematic areas of the accountability for reasonableness (AfR) framework which are publicity, relevance, appeals r however its selective distribution was partly based on donor requirement. Appeals & Revision: there was no well defined and reliable appeal mechanism, apart from the use of newspapers. Enforcement: There was any enforcement mechanism to ensure the other three conditions are fulfilled. The change of National Malaria Treatment Policy was necessary, however the priority decisions of selection and distribution of Artemether-Lumefantrine which underlined this change does not fully satisfy the four conditions of fair process prescribed in the the ethical framework of accountability for reasonableness. Decision making in priority is considered to be a technical area for experts and their views are assumed to represent those of other people in the society. This study suggests involvement by inputs obtained from large scale survey studies, four group discussions and by rapid appraisal method. Task forces or committees are formed to oversee priority setting decisions; however, the whole process is conducted in ad hoc and under limited freedom to discuss issues of significant implications. Reliable appeal and revision mechanisms need to be put in place to accommodate new findings, arguments and deliberations once priority decisions have been made. This will make the whole process of policy to be continuous rather than an event.