CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 102Pharmaceutical Economics and PolicyHealthcare Systems and ReformsHealthcare Policy and Management

Pharmaceutical policies: effects of cap and co-payment on rational use of medicines.

Open access
Luiza, Vera Lucia, Chaves, Luisa A, Silva, Rondineli M, Emmerick, Isabel Cristina M, Chaves, Gabriela C, Fonseca de Araújo, Silvia Cristina, Moraes, Elaine L, Oxman, Andrew D·2015·Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd007017.pub2PMC PMC7386822
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Growing expenditures on prescription medicines represent a major challenge to many health systems. Cap and co-payment policies are intended as an incentive to deter unnecessary or marginal utilisation, and to reduce third-party payer expenditures by shifting parts of the financial burden from insurers to patients, thus increasing their financial responsibility for prescription medicines. Direct patient payment policies include caps (maximum numbers of prescriptions or medicines that are reimbursed), fixed co-payments (patients pay a fixed amount per prescription or medicine), co-insurance (patients pay a percentage of the price), ceilings (patients pay the full price or part of the cost up to a ceiling, after which medicines are free or are available at reduced cost) and tier co-payments (differential co-payments usually assigned to generic and brand medicines). This is the first update of the original review. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effects of cap and co-payment (cost-sharing) policies on use of medicines, healthcare utilisation, health outcomes and costs (expenditures). SEARCH METHODS: For this update, we searched the following databases and websites: The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (including the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Group Specialised Register, Cochrane Library; MEDLINE, Ovid; EMBASE, Ovid; IPSA, EBSCO; EconLit, ProQuest; Worldwide Political Science Abstracts, ProQuest; PAIS International, ProQuest; INRUD Bibliography; WHOLIS, WHO; LILACS), VHL; Global Health Library WHO; PubMed, NHL; SCOPUS; SciELO, BIREME; OpenGrey; JOLIS Library Network; OECD Library; World Bank e-Library; World Health Organization, WHO; World Bank Documents & Reports; International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), WHO; ClinicalTrials.gov, NIH. We searched all databases during January and February 2013, apart from SciELO, which we searched in January 2012, and ICTRP and ClinicalTrials.gov, which we searched in March 2014. SELECTION CRITERIA: We defined policies in this review as laws, rules or financial or administrative orders made by governments, non-government organisations or private insurers. We included randomised controlled trials, non-randomised controlled trials, interrupted time series studies, repeated measures studies and controlled before-after studies of cap or co-payment policies for a large jurisdiction or system of care. To be included, a study had to include an objective measure of at least one of the following outcomes: medicine use, healthcare utilisation, health outcomes or costs (expenditures). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed study limitations. We reanalysed time series data for studies with sufficient data, if appropriate analyses were not reported. MAIN RESULTS: We included 32 full-text articles (17 new) reporting evaluations of 39 different interventions (one study - Newhouse 1993 - comprises five papers). We excluded from this update eight controlled before-after studies included in the previous version of this review, because they included only one site in their intervention or control groups. Five papers evaluated caps, and six evaluated a cap with co-insurance and a ceiling. Six evaluated fixed co-payment, two evaluated tiered fixed co-payment, 10 evaluated a ceiling with fixed co-payment and 10 evaluated a ceiling with co-insurance. Only one evaluation was a randomised trial. The certainty of the evidence was found to be generally low to very low.Increasing the amount of money that people pay for medicines may reduce insurers' medicine expenditures and may reduce patients' medicine use. This may include reductions in the use of life-sustaining medicines as well as medicines that are important in treating chronic conditions and medicines for asymptomatic conditions. These types of interventions may lead to small decreases in or uncertain effects on healthcare utilisation. We found no studies that reliably reported the effects of these types of interventions on health outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The diversity of interventions and outcomes addressed across studies and differences in settings, populations and comparisons made it difficult to summarise results across studies. Cap and co-payment polices may reduce the use of medicines and reduce medicine expenditures for health insurers. However, they may also reduce the use of life-sustaining medicines or medicines that are important in treating chronic, including symptomatic, conditions and, consequently, could increase the use of healthcare services. Fixed co-payment with a ceiling and tiered fixed co-payment may be less likely to reduce the use of essential medicines or to increase the use of healthcare services.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/14651858.cd007017.pub2

Cites

177 of 177 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

1 retracted

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Luiza, V. L., Chaves, L. A., Silva, R. M., Emmerick, I. C. M., Chaves, G. C., Fonseca de Araújo, S. C., Moraes, E. L., & Oxman, A. D.
Affiliations
  • Sergio Arouca National School of Public Health; Nucleus for Pharmaceutical Policies; Rua Leopoldo Bulhões, 1480 - Manguinhos Rio de Janeiro Brazil 21041 210
  • Harvard University (US)
  • Rio de Janeiro Municipality Health Secretariat; Rio de Janeiro Brazil
  • Ministério da Saúde (BR)
  • Nasjonalt Kunnskapssenter for Helsetjenesten (NO)
ORCID
Venue
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2015-05-08
Volume
2015
Issue
5
Pages
CD007017-CD007017
ISSN
  • 1361-6137 (ISSN-L)
  • 1465-1858
DOI
10.1002/14651858.cd007017.pub2
PMC
PMC7386822
OpenAlex
W1893873165
Cited by
102
References
177
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 2
FWCI
2.82
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Pharmaceutical Economics and Policy
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Finance › Healthcare Systems and Reforms
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Healthcare Policy and Management
Keywords
cost sharing, rational drug use, health care utilization, prescription drug spending, patient financial responsibility, health policy evaluation, health outcomes, health care costs, third-party payers, health insurance coverage
MeSH terms
Drug and Narcotic Control, Pharmaceutical Preparations, Fees, Pharmaceutical, Insurance, Health, Reimbursement, Drug Costs, Cost Sharing

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review