ArticleBMJ open2021
Impact of differential copayment on patient healthcare choice: evidence from South Korean National Cohort Study.
Article in BMJ open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- IARC Group 1 Pharmaceuticals and Associated Cancer Risks: A Nationwide Population-Based Cohort Study in Korea.Cancer research and treatment · 2026Article
- The Association of Outpatient Cost-Sharing Policy with Health and Economic Outcomes for Rural Children in China: A Cross-Sectional Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Measuring the Burden of Disease in Korea Using Disability-Adjusted Life Years (2008-2020).Journal of Korean medical science · 2024Article
- Economic and cost considerations of delivering and using mobile X-ray services in residential aged care facilities: A qualitative study.Australasian journal on ageing · 2023Article
- Copayment Adjustments Under Bundled and Two-Tiered Pricing: Welfare Implications for Outpatient Care in Taiwanese Hospitals.Inquiry : a journal of medical care organization, provision and financingArticle
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveWe evaluate the effectiveness of mild disease differential copayment policy aimed at reducing unnecessary patient visits to secondary/tertiary healthcare institutions in South Korea.
designRetrospective study using difference-in-difference design.
settingSample Research database provided by the Korean National Health Insurance Service, between 2010 and 2013.
participants206 947 patients who visited healthcare institutions to treat mild diseases during the sample period.
methodsA linear probability model with difference-in-difference approach was adopted to estimate the changes in patients' healthcare choices associated with the differential copayment policy. The dependent variable was a binary variable denoting whether a patient visited primary healthcare or secondary/tertiary healthcare to treat her/his mild disease. Patients' individual characteristics were controlled with a fixed effect.
resultsWe observed significant decrease in the proportion of patients choosing secondary/tertiary healthcare over primary healthcare by 2.99 per cent point. The decrease associated with the policy was smaller by 14% in the low-income group compared with richer population, greater by 19% among the residents of Seoul metropolitan area than among people living elsewhere, and greater among frequent healthcare visitors by 33% than among people who less frequently visit healthcare.
conclusionThe mild disease differential copayment policy of South Korea was successful in discouraging unnecessary visits to secondary/tertiary healthcare institutions to treat mild diseases that can be treated well in primary healthcare.
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.