ArticleCost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E2025
Out-of-pocket pharmaceutical expenditure and potential misuse of public resources - analysis in the Italian context.
Article in Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The increase in longevity determines a greater need to receive medical care and pharmacological treatments. The introduction of patient cost-sharing in pharmaceutical expenditures aims to finance the National/Regional Health System while simultaneously reducing excessive consumption of health services. However, in the context of national health insurance, decreasing drug expenditures can lead to increased hospitalization costs. This phenomenon highlights the complexity of healthcare financing, where measures intended to control spending in one area may inadvertently escalate costs in another, necessitating a careful evaluation of health policies and their broader implications on patient care and system sustainability. The main focus of the analysis is to examine drug expenditures and the private purchase of drugs. Specifically, the analysis investigates the spending on drug therapies across different regional macro-areas (the Italian regional macro-areas are geographical subdivisions used to organize activities and services, particularly in the context of healthcare and scientific research.). Moreover, it analized the variability in the use of AIFA (Italian Medicines Agency) notes, a regulatory tool used in Italy to define the reimbursement criteria and therapeutic indications for which a drug can be prescribed at the expense of the National Health Service (SSN), and the extent to which individuals resort to private purchasing for drugs that are in total Health Service reimbursement. Additionally, the analysis delves into the top 30 active substances that significantly impact pharmaceutical spending, as reported in the Osmed 2022 report. This research found heterogeneous use of AIFA notes for many drugs across Italy. Inappropriate use of restrictive notes at prescription indicates high patient out-of-pocket spending, constituting financial damage. Comparing regional ratios to national benchmarks reveals deviations in prescribing behavior and AIFA note use by GPs. Regions with highest inappropriate AIFA note use also have highest out-of-pocket spending and lowest incomes, suggesting cultural factors drive branded over generic drug choices when public reimbursement is available.There can be many causes, including a cultural nature, which push patients to purchase the originator drug by paying the excess amount.
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.