ArticleThe European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care2026
The effect of higher out-of-pocket payments on drug prices and demand.
Article in The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Health care markets often lack a market force because the presence of health insurance undermines price signals. Patients have little incentive to shop for low-priced alternatives because they do not bear the full cost of their health care consumption. In turn, producers lack incentives to compete on prices. To improve efficiency in the pharmaceutical market, Switzerland introduced out-of-pocket price differentiation. As of July 1st 2011, substitutable pharmaceuticals with prices above a predefined threshold became subject to 20% coinsurance instead of the regular 10% coinsurance. Using comprehensive price data from public sources and patient drug use data from two Swiss health insurers, we analyze the price and demand response to this policy. Our analysis reveals an average pharmaceutical firm price reduction of 11%, with a more pronounced response from generic producers than from firms producing brand-name drugs. Regarding demand, we exploit a natural experiment in which one health insurer failed to timely implement the 20% coinsurance policy, resulting in quasi-random exposure to higher coinsurance. For patients affected by the policy, we find that the likelihood of purchasing a 20% coinsurance drug decreases by 4.3 and 1.3 percentage points for generic and brand-name drugs, respectively. These demand response estimates constitute lower bounds, as without the anticipatory behavior of producers, the demand response would likely have been more pronounced. Hence, our results indicate that the policy's effectiveness is based on the interaction between price-sensitive demand and profit-maximizing firms. Overall, our findings suggest that the (re)introduction of market-like mechanisms, such as price signals, can be effective in improving health care market efficiency.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42909537What 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.