Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24618721›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2014

A systematic review of cost-sharing strategies used within publicly-funded drug plans in member countries of the organisation for economic co-operation and development.

Lianne Barnieh, Fiona Clement, Anthony Harris, Marja Blom, Cam Donaldson, Scott Klarenbach, Don Husereau, Diane Lorenzetti, Braden Manns

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Observational
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Regulating pharmaceutical companies' financial largesse.Israel journal of health policy research · 2018
    Article
  14. Drug coverage in Canada: gaps and opportunities.Journal of psychiatry & neuroscience : JPN · 2018
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Lianne BarniehDepartment of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Fiona ClementDepartment of Community Health Sciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Anthony HarrisCentre for Health Economics, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
Marja BlomFaculty of Pharmacy, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.
Cam DonaldsonYunus Centre for Social Business & Health, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, United Kingdom.
Scott KlarenbachDepartment of Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Don HusereauDepartment of Epidemiology and Community Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Diane LorenzettiDepartment of Community Health Sciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Braden MannsDepartment of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPublicly-funded drug plans vary in strategies used and policies employed to reduce continually increasing pharmaceutical expenditures. We systematically reviewed the utilization of cost-sharing strategies and physician-directed prescribing regulations in publicly-funded formularies within member nations of the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). METHODS &

findingsUsing the OECD nations as the sampling frame, a search for cost-sharing strategies and physician-directed prescribing regulations was done using published and grey literature. Collected data was verified by a system expert within the prescription drug insurance plan in each country, to ensure the accuracy of key data elements across plans. Significant variation in the use of cost-sharing mechanisms was seen. Copayments were the most commonly used cost-containment measure, though their use and amount varied for those with certain conditions, most often chronic diseases (in 17 countries), and by socio-economic status (either income or employment status), or with age (in 15 countries). Caps and deductibles were only used by five systems. Drug cost-containment strategies targeting physicians were also identified in 24 countries, including guideline-based prescribing, prescription monitoring and incentive structures.

conclusionsThere was variable use of cost-containment strategies to limit pharmaceutical expenditures in publicly funded formularies within OECD countries. Further research is needed to determine the best approach to constrain costs while maintaining access to pharmaceutical drugs.

Indexed as

Cost SharingInsurance, Pharmaceutical ServicesOrganisation for Economic Co-Operation and DevelopmentPrescription DrugsDrug UtilizationHumansPractice Patterns, Physicians'Prescription Drugs

Identifiers

PMID24618721
PMCPMC3949707

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.