ReviewJournal of bioethical inquiry2019
Co-payment for Unfunded Additional Care in Publicly Funded Healthcare Systems: Ethical Issues.
Review in Journal of bioethical inquiry, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Stakeholder priorities for advancing integrative oncology across a pluralistic health system: a qualitative study from Singapore.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026Article
- Socioeconomic barriers to healthcare cost-sharing in the Czech Republic: limited awareness and resistance.Health economics review · 2026Article
- Should Patients Be Allowed to Pay Out of Pocket? The Ethical Dilemma of Access to Expensive Anti-cancer Treatments in Universal Healthcare Systems: A Dutch Case Study.Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2024Article
- An Egalitarian Perspective on Information Sharing: The Example of Health Care Priorities.Health care analysis : HCA : journal of health philosophy and policy · 2024Article
- Can Voluntary Health Insurance for Non-reimbursed Expensive New Treatments Be Just?Public health ethics · 2023Article
- Responsibility for Funding Refractive Correction in Publicly Funded Health Care Systems: An Ethical Analysis.Health care analysis : HCA : journal of health philosophy and policy · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The burdens of resource constraints in publicly funded healthcare systems urge decision makers in countries like Sweden, Norway and the UK to find new financial solutions. One proposal that has been put forward is co-payment-a financial model where some treatment or care is made available to patients who are willing and able to pay the costs that exceed the available alternatives fully covered by public means. Co-payment of this sort has been associated with various ethical concerns. These range from worries that it has a negative impact on patients' wellbeing and on health care institutions, to fears that co-payment is in conflict with core values of publicly funded health care systems. This article provides an overview of the main ethical issues associated with co-payment, and ethical arguments both in support of and against it will be presented and analyzed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.