Literature DB >> 12678309

Cost to the patient or cost to the healthcare system? Which one matters the most for GP prescribing decisions? A UK-Italy comparison.

Karen Hassell1, Vincenzo Atella, Ellen I Schafheutle, Marjorie C Weiss, Peter R Noyce.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Charges for health services help contain healthcare costs. Despite showing that medicine consumption decreases when charges are increased there is little research that illuminates how doctors 'manage' the charge system to help patients who cannot afford treatment. This paper describes how the charge system influences the prescribing decisions of Italian and UK physicians.
METHODS: The data are from the qualitative stage of a multi-stage study exploring cost related influences on GP and patient decision-making regarding medicine use. The analysis presented is based on transcripts of focus groups conducted with general practitioners.
RESULTS: To help patients who have difficulties affording their medication Italian GPs rely on a smaller number of cost reduction strategies compared to their UK counterparts. They use 'samples' left by pharmaceutical companies, or diagnose patients with pathologies that allow exemption. Occasionally they recommend some delay or change therapy to a cheaper but less effective alternative. Italian and UK GPs have firm views about preventing patients abusing the NHS and believe costs to the system are as important as costs to the individual patient. Prescribing budgets were not viewed in a positive light by Italian GPs.
CONCLUSION: Due to the nature of the charge system in Italy GPs there are able to choose a reimbursable product for patients, so have less need than UK doctors to look for other means of reducing costs. Conversely, the UK GPs have developed a large number of cost reduction strategies, probably because of the charge system itself and the relatively high charges incurred by patients.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12678309     DOI: 10.1093/eurpub/13.1.18

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Public Health        ISSN: 1101-1262            Impact factor:   3.367


  6 in total

1.  Health impact assessment: assessing opportunities and barriers to intersectoral health improvement in an expanded European Union.

Authors:  Karen Lock; Martin McKee
Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health       Date:  2005-05       Impact factor: 3.710

2.  Breaking bread: examining the impact of policy changes in access to state-funded provisions of gluten-free foods in England.

Authors:  Myles-Jay Linton; Tim Jones; Amanda Owen-Smith; Rupert A Payne; Joanna Coast; Joel Glynn; William Hollingworth
Journal:  BMC Med       Date:  2018-08-02       Impact factor: 8.775

3.  Appropriateness in Dentistry: A Survey Discovers Improper Procedures in Oral Medicine and Surgery.

Authors:  Giacomo Oteri; Vera Panzarella; Antonia Marcianò; Olga Di Fede; Laura Maniscalco; Matteo Peditto; Giuseppina Campisi
Journal:  Int J Dent       Date:  2018-04-04

4.  Cost-related medication nonadherence among over-indebted individuals enrolled in statutory health insurance in Germany: a cross-sectional population study.

Authors:  Jacqueline Warth; Marie-Therese Puth; Judith Tillmann; Niklas Beckmann; Johannes Porz; Ulrike Zier; Klaus Weckbecker; Birgitta Weltermann; Eva Münster
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2019-11-26       Impact factor: 2.655

5.  Physician Behavior under Prospective Payment Schemes-Evidence from Artefactual Field and Lab Experiments.

Authors:  Simon Reif; Lucas Hafner; Michael Seebauer
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2020-07-31       Impact factor: 4.614

6.  Impact of pharmaceutical promotion on prescribing decisions of general practitioners in Eastern Turkey.

Authors:  Serhat Vancelik; Nazim E Beyhun; Hamit Acemoglu; Oksan Calikoglu
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2007-06-25       Impact factor: 3.295

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.