Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27633253›Full record

SynthesisBMC public health2016

Does cost sharing do more harm or more good? - a systematic literature review.

Katarzyna Kolasa, Marta Kowalczyk

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC public health, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Out-of-pocket payments for treatment of COVID-19 in Iran.Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E · 2022
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Catastrophic Household Expenditure Associated with Out-of-Pocket Healthcare Payments in Spain.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Catastrophic long-term care expenditure: associated socio-demographic and economic factors.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2019
    Article
  18. Catastrophic financial effect of replacing informal care with formal care: a study based on haematological neoplasms.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2019
    Article
  19. Review
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

2 authors.

Katarzyna KolasaHealth Economics Department, Collegium Medicum Bydgoszcz, Sandomierska 16, 85-630, Bydgoszcz, Poland. kkolasa@wum.edu.pl.
Marta KowalczykPharmacoeconomics Department, Medical University of Warsaw, Żwirki i Wigury 81, 02-091, Warsaw, Poland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere are positive and negative consequences of the implementation of out of pocket (OOP) payments as a source of the healthcare financing. On the one hand, OOP burden increases awareness of treatment costs and limits unnecessary use of healthcare services. On the other hand, it may prevent the sick from accessing needed care. Consequently there are several aspects that ought to be taken into consideration while defining the optimal structure of OOP payments. The objective of this study was twofold. Firstly, it was to understand what actions are taken to decrease the OOP burden. Secondly, it was to address the question whether the implementation of any form of formal OOP payments may impact negatively upon fairness in financial contribution.

methodsThe literature search was conducted using the Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Library and Center of Review and Dissemination databases. Only studies which measured the Kakwani index of progressivity in at least two time points were included. Articles written in English published between January 2004 and September 2015 were searched. No geographical restriction was imposed. An increment of more than 0.10 in the Kakwani index was considered as a significant health policy impact.

resultsIn total 16 publications were included, of which nine studied attempts to decrease the OOP burden, four described the consequences of the introduction of formal fees, and three covered both topics. Overall, a significant health policy impact was noted in four cases. All of them related to a reduction in the OOP burden, with three and one noting a change towards the progressivity and regressivity of direct healthcare payments respectively. Among jurisdictions which introduced formal fees, none study noted a significant impact on the regressivity of OOP spendings.

conclusionsIn the majority of cases, a health policy impact on the distribution of OOP health payments was insignificant. The reduction of OOP burden cannot be achieved successfully without adequate extension of healthcare coverage or engagement of other sources of healthcare financing. When formal fees are being introduced, protection against catastrophic healthcare payments is needed for the most vulnerable groups.

Indexed as

Healthcare FinancingHealth ExpendituresCost SharingDelivery of Health CareFees and ChargesHealth Care CostsHealth PolicyHumansEquityKakwani indexOut of pocket paymentsProgressivity

Identifiers

PMID27633253
PMCPMC5025558

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.