Item request has been placed! ×
Item request cannot be made. ×
loading  Processing Request

Is 50 cent the price of the optimal copayment? - a qualitative study of patient opinions and attitudes in response to a 50 cent charge on prescription drugs in a publicly funded health system in Ireland.

Item request has been placed! ×
Item request cannot be made. ×
loading   Processing Request
Read Online Read More Add to Saved list
  • Author(s): Sinnott SJ;Sinnott SJ; Guinane M; Whelton H; Byrne S
  • Source:
    BMC health services research [BMC Health Serv Res] 2013 Jan 10; Vol. 13, pp. 16. Date of Electronic Publication: 2013 Jan 10.
  • Publication Type:
    Journal Article
  • Language:
    English
  • Additional Information
    • Source:
      Publisher: BioMed Central Country of Publication: England NLM ID: 101088677 Publication Model: Electronic Cited Medium: Internet ISSN: 1472-6963 (Electronic) Linking ISSN: 14726963 NLM ISO Abbreviation: BMC Health Serv Res Subsets: MEDLINE
    • Publication Information:
      Original Publication: London : BioMed Central, [2001-
    • Subject Terms:
      Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice* ; Prescription Drugs*; Cost Sharing/*economics ; Patients/*psychology; Adult ; Aged ; Female ; Health Policy ; Humans ; Ireland ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Poverty Areas ; Qualitative Research ; Rural Population ; Suburban Population
    • Abstract:
      Background: A 50 cent prescription levy was introduced in 2010 on the General Medical Services (GMS) scheme (Irish public health insurance). This study sought to examine patient attitudes and opinions surrounding the 50 cent copayment. Given the small momentary value of the prescription fee, these results are of interest to policymakers internationally who wish to reduce copayments rather than abolish them.
      Methods: A qualitative research design was used; semi structured interviews were carried out. Twenty four GMS eligible participants were interviewed in 23 interviews. Fifteen females and 9 males took part. Ages varied from 31- >70 years. Patients were invited to be interviewed in both independent and chain community pharmacies in three types of setting; 1) a socially deprived urban area, 2) a suburban affluent area and 3) a rural area. The Framework method was used for data management and analysis using QSR International's NVivo 9.2 qualitative data analysis software. The "Francis method" was used to test for data saturation.
      Results: Results are of interest to the Irish context and also at a broader international level. Patients were mostly accepting of the prescription levy with some reservations concerning an increased price and the way in which generated revenue would be used by government. Participants identified waste of prescription drugs at the hand of patients (moral hazard), but there was discordant opinion on whether the 50 cent copayment would halt this moral hazard. Interviewees felt the levy was affordable, albeit some may suffer a financial impact more than others.
      Conclusions: This qualitative study gives important insights into the experiences of GMS patients with regard to the prescription levy. Information regarding the appropriateness of a 50 cent copayment as a symbolic copayment needs to be confirmed by quantitative analysis. Further insight is required from a younger population.
    • References:
      Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2008 Nov;17(11):1091-9. (PMID: 18942671)
      Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008 Jan 23;(1):CD007017. (PMID: 18254125)
      Psychol Health. 2010 Dec;25(10):1229-45. (PMID: 20204937)
      Med Care Res Rev. 2004 Dec;61(4):415-52. (PMID: 15536208)
      BMJ. 2000 May 6;320(7244):1246-50. (PMID: 10797036)
      Soc Work Public Health. 2012;27(3):238-49. (PMID: 22486429)
      Int J Health Care Finance Econ. 2006 Dec;6(4):290-9. (PMID: 17136599)
      J Gen Intern Med. 2007 Jun;22(6):805-10. (PMID: 17406952)
      Soc Sci Med. 2005 Apr;60(7):1437-43. (PMID: 15652677)
      N Engl J Med. 2006 Jun 1;354(22):2349-59. (PMID: 16738271)
      Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2005;4(1):23-35. (PMID: 16076236)
      Med Care. 2005 Jun;43(6):521-30. (PMID: 15908846)
      N Engl J Med. 1994 Sep 8;331(10):650-5. (PMID: 8052275)
      Int J Equity Health. 2008 May 02;7:12. (PMID: 18454849)
      Pharmacoeconomics. 2007;25(2):171-80. (PMID: 17249858)
      Health Soc Care Community. 2002 May;10(3):187-95. (PMID: 12121255)
      N Engl J Med. 1991 Oct 10;325(15):1072-7. (PMID: 1891009)
      Health Aff (Millwood). 2010 Nov;29(11):1995-2001. (PMID: 21041738)
      Int J Health Serv. 2004;34(1):101-22. (PMID: 15088676)
      JAMA. 2001 Jan 24-31;285(4):421-9. (PMID: 11242426)
      Int J Pharm Pract. 2010 Dec;18(6):332-40. (PMID: 21054593)
      Health Policy. 2000 Jun;52(2):129-45. (PMID: 10794841)
      Med Care Res Rev. 2005 Apr;62(2):231-49. (PMID: 15750178)
      J Am Geriatr Soc. 2004 Jan;52(1):93-8. (PMID: 14687321)
      JAMA. 2007 Jul 4;298(1):61-9. (PMID: 17609491)
      Res Social Adm Pharm. 2008 Dec;4(4):343-54. (PMID: 19064241)
      Health Aff (Millwood). 1999 Jan-Feb;18(1):180-93. (PMID: 9926655)
      Aust N Z J Public Health. 2004 Feb;28(1):62-7. (PMID: 15108749)
      P T. 2012 Jan;37(1):45-55. (PMID: 22346336)
    • Accession Number:
      0 (Prescription Drugs)
    • Publication Date:
      Date Created: 20130112 Date Completed: 20130617 Latest Revision: 20211021
    • Publication Date:
      20250114
    • Accession Number:
      PMC3549780
    • Accession Number:
      10.1186/1472-6963-13-16
    • Accession Number:
      23305316