Editorial - The Star, 29 April 2008
How often do you pause to consider what goes into the medication you swallow, be it prescribed by a doctor or bought over the counter? The answer in most cases is probably "Never". Maybe that's because you don't want to be put off by the list of possible side effects, however rare, that are listed in the accompanying leaflets. But more likely because the names of the ingredients are not only tongue-twisting but also meaningless to the lay person.
But, this man made-medication is not the only option available, and pharmaceutical companies, are increasingly recognising this by turning back to nature for their raw materials.
Now this apparent good news is tempered by the reaction of scientists who warn that the world risks destroying huge amounts of potential antibiotics and other vital medicines unless it halts the rapid extinction of thousands of plants and animal species.
Previewing, Sustaining Life, a book sounding the alarm, the head of The United Nations Envirinment Programme says tecchnological advances in the 19th and 20th centuries took the focus away from traditional cures for illnesses. But now the planet "is losing the intellectual patents of nature before we even have a chance to understand or unravel them".
It's a call that the world ignores at its peril.
Editorial - The Star, 29 April 200b
The Afruka Range consists of innovative products designed specifically to provide optimal nutrition through the use of unmodified natural ingredients to compromised and convalescing individuals. The entire range is recorded with The Medicines Control Council (Republic of South Africa). It is now increasingly being used by Hospitals; Corporates; NGO's; Municipalities and Countries in Southern Africa, because it offers significant advantages over conventional products in the market. The products are also making good inroads into the retail market both locally and in neighbouring countries.
Afruka is quickly digested by the body and for this reason the positive results of the program are evident within days of commencing treatment. It is simple to take, by both children and adults, without the need for healthcare supervision. Afruka products are free from the dangerous side effects of drug related therapy.
It is recommended by doctors and occupational health professionals for use alongside medication, particularly as a nutritional supplement, with anti-biotic treatment of chronic diseases and anti-retroviral programmes.
Afruka Products are:
• Recorded as a Complimentary and Supplementary Medicines by The Medicines Control Council, MCC (Republic of South Africa)
• Registered by the National Pharmaceutical Product Index; NAPPI Codes
• Manufactured with strict adherence to the required level of Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) as stipulated by The World Health Organisation and as required by Statute in The Republic of South Africa.
• Manufactured and distributed in compliance with the Medical Regulatory Controls of the following countries where they are Registered under the relevant Food & Drug Regulatory Departments:
South Africa; Botswana; Swaziland; Ghana; Tanzania; Namibia.
• Made to WHO specifications which set them apart from other products.
• Subjected to stringent Standardisation Controls. Certificates of Analysis are provided for all raw materials. Afruka applies identical standards to the production i.e. identical standards to all batches of pharmaceutical products manufactured within its facility without exception.
• Subject to Quality Control and Stability Studies in compliance with GMP. All batches produced have retention samples taken for the purpose of quality control of the final product and for ongoing stability studies. Sample batches are retained for a period of two years.
February 2008
..and this is the continuation of our news article two.
hide extraImmobility of indecision is both costly and deadly
March 6, 2008
By Ian Sanne
Company shareholders should be asking their boards whether they are addressing the HIV/Aids risk to their employees and the business through a well-supported, independent and outsourced HIV treatment programme that targets the early identification of those living with the virus and needing treatment.
Unfortunately, many directors are destroying shareholder value by holding off on treatment or implementing minimalist interventions in the misguided belief that they are addressing the HIV risk to their business and still saving money.
Timing is the key, but instead we are seeing what has been called the immobility of indecision.
By allowing another year of indecision to go by, directors fail to appreciate the extent of the opportunity costs. Because of this failing, it is imperative that they put the management of HIV/Aids in the hands of financially astute business managers.
Last week we explored current thinking on the economic fundamentals of a firm wishing to sponsor the treatment of HIV/Aids in its workforce. In a nutshell, sick employees cost the employer money, and treatment costs less.
If you allow an employee to traverse most of the disease cycle and initiate treatment only in the last six months of that person's life, you have carried the cost of illness plus the price of treatment.
In addition, treatment is more important for an (advanced) ill patient and potentially less successful.
Most firms make one of two critical mistakes: they offer treatment in isolation, targeting only the employees they absolutely have to pay for; or they offer a comprehensive programme but don't get it working correctly.
One in two currently recognised intervention programmes suffers from the first problem. Employers decide to minimise costs and make a public offer of treatment to employees, with the intention of treating only the very few who will identify themselves out of pure desperation.
What these employers fail to realise is that these people identify themselves so late that every rand the company pays is a rand lost, and the company has done absolutely nothing to curtail the effect of HIV on the business.
In short, the whole economic viability argument, which shows that the effect of Aids can be significantly reduced, is lost. Company executives need to re-evaluate these decisions in the interests of value creation.
The second problem is subtler. Some companies truly do intend to manage HIV-positive employees, but audits of patients across several companies that are providing treatment show that most of these patients are in an advanced stage of the disease.
However, through a comprehensive treatment programme introduced about four years ago, our Right To Care specialists are able to identify when patients should start treatment before they become sick, with a counselling and testing uptake of up to 90 percent of employees.
Sometimes the problem is a result of poor management, but mostly it is a reflection of misaligned incentives.
Often the party paying for treatment is external to the company, such as a medical aid, and has absolutely no financial incentive to identify and treat patients early. In a welcome development, medical schemes such as Discovery are moving towards partnering with employers to increase the access to counselling and testing.
From an employer's perspective, early treatment is the only financially attractive solution, and the key lies in identifying patients early. This in turn means the employer must drive an education and awareness programme and not leave it up to the paying party.
New educational messages are required to explain the merit of early identification and push the proportion of testing up to 100 percent.
One such message would be to show employees that if they are diagnosed as HIV positive too late, their kids would be orphaned while in primary school. But if they are diagnosed early, they have a chance of seeing their kids through to matriculation and beyond.
The second issue is the timing of the intervention. Many directors cannot "see" the death rate, but I should point out that 40 percent of all deaths in South Africa today are related to HIV - and for every person who dies with Aids, there are 10 more with HIV.
Employers wait to see how they can offer treatment in collaboration with their medical aids, or imagine that by delaying an Aids programme for a year they will save a year of costs. The same logic could be applied to delaying your home loan repayments.
Yet it is very easy to get started straight away and to ensure that the employer is not locked into anything that cannot be changed. But first it is important that programmes are outsourced to people who are completely independent of the party footing the bill and will ensure employee confidentiality.
The right kind of funding model, of the type offered by independent risk management brokers, puts the company in the position of being the financing party.
This model allows the employer to recoup costs from a medical aid - and simultaneously manage uninsured employees within exactly the same programme.
Dr Ian Sanne is the founder and managing director of Right To Care, a non-profit section 21 company specialising in HIV/Aids disease management at Helen Joseph Hospital in Johannesburg. He has been treating HIV patients for more than 10 years.