探索需求侧零售药品支出改革的有效性:来自加权平均最小二乘估计的跨国证据。

IF 1.5 4区 经济学 Q3 BUSINESS, FINANCE International Journal of Health Economics and Management Pub Date : 2023-03-01 DOI:10.1007/s10754-022-09337-6
Michael Berger, Markus Pock, Miriam Reiss, Gerald Röhrling, Thomas Czypionka
{"title":"探索需求侧零售药品支出改革的有效性:来自加权平均最小二乘估计的跨国证据。","authors":"Michael Berger,&nbsp;Markus Pock,&nbsp;Miriam Reiss,&nbsp;Gerald Röhrling,&nbsp;Thomas Czypionka","doi":"10.1007/s10754-022-09337-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Increasing expenditures on retail pharmaceuticals bring a critical challenge to the financial stability of healthcare systems worldwide. Policy makers have reacted by introducing a range of measures to control the growth of public pharmaceutical expenditure (PPE). Using panel data on European and non-European OECD member countries from 1990 to 2015, we evaluate the effectiveness of six types of demand-side expenditure control measures including physician-level behaviour measures, system-level price-control measures and substitution measures, alongside a proxy for cost-sharing and add a new dimension to the existing empirical evidence hitherto based on national-level and meta-studies. We use the weighted-average least squares regression framework adapted for estimation with panel-corrected standard errors. Our empirical analysis suggests that direct patient cost-sharing and some-but not all-demand-side measures successfully dampened PPE growth in the past. Cost-sharing schemes stand out as a powerful mechanism to curb PPE growth, but bear a high risk of adverse effects. Other demand-side measures are more limited in effect, though may be more equitable. Due to limitations inherent in the study approach and the data, the results are only explorative.</p>","PeriodicalId":44403,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Health Economics and Management","volume":"23 1","pages":"149-172"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9968684/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Exploring the effectiveness of demand-side retail pharmaceutical expenditure reforms : Cross-country evidence from weighted-average least squares estimation.\",\"authors\":\"Michael Berger,&nbsp;Markus Pock,&nbsp;Miriam Reiss,&nbsp;Gerald Röhrling,&nbsp;Thomas Czypionka\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10754-022-09337-6\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Increasing expenditures on retail pharmaceuticals bring a critical challenge to the financial stability of healthcare systems worldwide. Policy makers have reacted by introducing a range of measures to control the growth of public pharmaceutical expenditure (PPE). Using panel data on European and non-European OECD member countries from 1990 to 2015, we evaluate the effectiveness of six types of demand-side expenditure control measures including physician-level behaviour measures, system-level price-control measures and substitution measures, alongside a proxy for cost-sharing and add a new dimension to the existing empirical evidence hitherto based on national-level and meta-studies. We use the weighted-average least squares regression framework adapted for estimation with panel-corrected standard errors. Our empirical analysis suggests that direct patient cost-sharing and some-but not all-demand-side measures successfully dampened PPE growth in the past. Cost-sharing schemes stand out as a powerful mechanism to curb PPE growth, but bear a high risk of adverse effects. Other demand-side measures are more limited in effect, though may be more equitable. Due to limitations inherent in the study approach and the data, the results are only explorative.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":44403,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Health Economics and Management\",\"volume\":\"23 1\",\"pages\":\"149-172\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9968684/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Health Economics and Management\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"96\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10754-022-09337-6\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"经济学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"BUSINESS, FINANCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Health Economics and Management","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10754-022-09337-6","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"BUSINESS, FINANCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

零售药品支出的增加给全球医疗保健系统的财务稳定性带来了严峻的挑战。决策者的反应是采取一系列措施来控制公共药品支出的增长。利用1990年至2015年欧洲和非欧洲经合组织成员国的面板数据,我们评估了六种需求侧支出控制措施的有效性,包括医生层面的行为措施、系统层面的价格控制措施和替代措施,以及成本分担的代理措施,并为迄今为止基于国家层面和元研究的现有经验证据增加了一个新的维度。我们使用加权平均最小二乘回归框架,适用于面板校正标准误差的估计。我们的实证分析表明,在过去,直接的患者成本分担和一些(但不是全部)需求方措施成功地抑制了个人防护装备的增长。费用分摊计划是遏制个人防护用品增长的有力机制,但也有很高的不利影响风险。其他需求侧措施的效果更为有限,尽管可能更为公平。由于研究方法和数据的局限性,研究结果只是探索性的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Exploring the effectiveness of demand-side retail pharmaceutical expenditure reforms : Cross-country evidence from weighted-average least squares estimation.

Increasing expenditures on retail pharmaceuticals bring a critical challenge to the financial stability of healthcare systems worldwide. Policy makers have reacted by introducing a range of measures to control the growth of public pharmaceutical expenditure (PPE). Using panel data on European and non-European OECD member countries from 1990 to 2015, we evaluate the effectiveness of six types of demand-side expenditure control measures including physician-level behaviour measures, system-level price-control measures and substitution measures, alongside a proxy for cost-sharing and add a new dimension to the existing empirical evidence hitherto based on national-level and meta-studies. We use the weighted-average least squares regression framework adapted for estimation with panel-corrected standard errors. Our empirical analysis suggests that direct patient cost-sharing and some-but not all-demand-side measures successfully dampened PPE growth in the past. Cost-sharing schemes stand out as a powerful mechanism to curb PPE growth, but bear a high risk of adverse effects. Other demand-side measures are more limited in effect, though may be more equitable. Due to limitations inherent in the study approach and the data, the results are only explorative.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
18
期刊介绍: The focus of the International Journal of Health Economics and Management is on health care systems and on the behavior of consumers, patients, and providers of such services. The links among management, public policy, payment, and performance are core topics of the relaunched journal. The demand for health care and its cost remain central concerns. Even as medical innovation allows providers to improve the lives of their patients, questions remain about how to efficiently deliver health care services, how to pay for it, and who should pay for it. These are central questions facing innovators, providers, and payers in the public and private sectors. One key to answering these questions is to understand how people choose among alternative arrangements, either in markets or through the political process. The choices made by healthcare managers concerning the organization and production of that care are also crucial. There is an important connection between the management of a health care system and its economic performance. The primary audience for this journal will be health economists and researchers in health management, along with the larger group of health services researchers. In addition, research and policy analysis reported in the journal should be of interest to health care providers, managers and policymakers, who need to know about the pressures facing insurers and governments, with consequences for regulation and mandates. The editors of the journal encourage submissions that analyze the behavior and interaction of the actors in health care, viz. consumers, providers, insurers, and governments. Preference will be given to contributions that combine theoretical with empirical work, evaluate conflicting findings, present new information, or compare experiences between countries and jurisdictions. In addition to conventional research articles, the journal will include specific subsections for shorter concise research findings and cont ributions to management and policy that provide important descriptive data or arguments about what policies follow from research findings. The composition of the editorial board is designed to cover the range of interest among economics and management researchers.Officially cited as: Int J Health Econ ManagFrom 2001 to 2014 the journal was published as International Journal of Health Care Finance and Economics. (Articles published in Vol. 1-14 officially cited as: Int J Health Care Finance Econ)
期刊最新文献
Can health financing programmes reduce food insecurity in a developing country? Estimating price elasticities of demand for pain relief drugs: evidence from Medicare Part D. Internet use, dietary habits and adolescent obesity: evidence from China. The pharmaceutical distributors' efficiency in Italy: an assessment of the impact of the 2010 reimbursable drug pricing reform. Feeling discriminated means poor self-perceived health: a gender analysis using SHARE.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1