Table 2.
Regression Model Examining the Effect of Sector and Medicine Type on Availability and Price
| CoeffICIENT | Std. Err. | t VALUE | P VALUE | 95% ConfIDENCE Interval | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Availability | ||||||
| PUBLIC SECTOR | Reference | |||||
| - PRIVATE RETAIL | 0.252 | 0.025 | 9.91 | < 0.001 | 0.202 | 0.302 |
| - PRIVATE CLINICS | 0.176 | 0.026 | 6.84 | < 0.001 | 0.126 | 0.227 |
| INFECTIOUS DISEASE | Reference | |||||
| - NCD | −0.143 | 0.023 | −6.33 | < 0.001 | − 0.187 | − 0.098 |
| - UNCATEGORIZED | 0.145 | 0.032 | 4.58 | < 0.001 | 0.083 | 0.207 |
| - GLOBAL | 0.185 | 0.026 | 7.26 | < 0.001 | 0.135 | 0.235 |
| - ESSENTIAL MEDICINES | −0.086 | 0.032 | −2.69 | 0.007 | −0.149 | − 0.023 |
| BARISAL | Reference | |||||
| - CHITTAGONG | 0.052 | 0.038 | 1.39 | 0.165 | −0.022 | 0.126 |
| - DHAKA | 0.113 | 0.036 | 3.16 | 0.002 | 0.043 | 0.183 |
| - DINAJPUR | 0.103 | 0.037 | 2.82 | 0.005 | 0.031 | 0.174 |
| - KHULNA | 0.030 | 0.035 | 0.84 | 0.404 | −0.040 | 0.099 |
| - SYLHET | 0.049 | 0.037 | 1.32 | 0.186 | −0.024 | 0.120 |
| CONSTANT | 0.418 | 0.044 | 9.49 | < 0.001 | 0.332 | 0.505 |
| Median Price Ratio | ||||||
| Public sector | Reference | |||||
| - Private retail | 0.768 | 0.179 | 4.30 | < 0.001 | 0.415 | 1.120 |
| - Private Clinics | 0.809 | 0.182 | 4.44 | < 0.001 | 0.449 | 1.170 |
| Infectious Disease | Reference | |||||
| - NCD | −0.486 | 0.170 | −2.85 | 0.005 | −0.823 | −0.149 |
| - uncategorized | −0.507 | 0.253 | −2.00 | 0.047 | −1.010 | −0.007 |
| Global | 0.659 | 0.193 | 3.42 | 0.001 | 0.277 | 1.040 |
| - essential medicines | 0.262 | 0.147 | 1.79 | 0.076 | −0.028 | 0.552 |
| - constant | 0.889 | 0.168 | 5.30 | < 0.001 | 0.557 | 1.220 |
Source: Authors’ Data
Notes: STD. ERR. = Standard Error. The number of observations for the analysis of availability was 1098, and for MPR was 144. The models were estimated with robust standard errors