Cargando…

Does cost sharing do more harm or more good? - a systematic literature review

BACKGROUND: There are positive and negative consequences of the implementation of out of pocket (OOP) payments as a source of the healthcare financing. On the one hand, OOP burden increases awareness of treatment costs and limits unnecessary use of healthcare services. On the other hand, it may prev...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kolasa, Katarzyna, Kowalczyk, Marta
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5025558/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27633253
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12889-016-3624-6
_version_ 1782453976135892992
author Kolasa, Katarzyna
Kowalczyk, Marta
author_facet Kolasa, Katarzyna
Kowalczyk, Marta
author_sort Kolasa, Katarzyna
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: There are positive and negative consequences of the implementation of out of pocket (OOP) payments as a source of the healthcare financing. On the one hand, OOP burden increases awareness of treatment costs and limits unnecessary use of healthcare services. On the other hand, it may prevent the sick from accessing needed care. Consequently there are several aspects that ought to be taken into consideration while defining the optimal structure of OOP payments. The objective of this study was twofold. Firstly, it was to understand what actions are taken to decrease the OOP burden. Secondly, it was to address the question whether the implementation of any form of formal OOP payments may impact negatively upon fairness in financial contribution. METHODS: The literature search was conducted using the Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Library and Center of Review and Dissemination databases. Only studies which measured the Kakwani index of progressivity in at least two time points were included. Articles written in English published between January 2004 and September 2015 were searched. No geographical restriction was imposed. An increment of more than 0.10 in the Kakwani index was considered as a significant health policy impact. RESULTS: In total 16 publications were included, of which nine studied attempts to decrease the OOP burden, four described the consequences of the introduction of formal fees, and three covered both topics. Overall, a significant health policy impact was noted in four cases. All of them related to a reduction in the OOP burden, with three and one noting a change towards the progressivity and regressivity of direct healthcare payments respectively. Among jurisdictions which introduced formal fees, none study noted a significant impact on the regressivity of OOP spendings. CONCLUSIONS: In the majority of cases, a health policy impact on the distribution of OOP health payments was insignificant. The reduction of OOP burden cannot be achieved successfully without adequate extension of healthcare coverage or engagement of other sources of healthcare financing. When formal fees are being introduced, protection against catastrophic healthcare payments is needed for the most vulnerable groups.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5025558
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-50255582016-09-20 Does cost sharing do more harm or more good? - a systematic literature review Kolasa, Katarzyna Kowalczyk, Marta BMC Public Health Research Article BACKGROUND: There are positive and negative consequences of the implementation of out of pocket (OOP) payments as a source of the healthcare financing. On the one hand, OOP burden increases awareness of treatment costs and limits unnecessary use of healthcare services. On the other hand, it may prevent the sick from accessing needed care. Consequently there are several aspects that ought to be taken into consideration while defining the optimal structure of OOP payments. The objective of this study was twofold. Firstly, it was to understand what actions are taken to decrease the OOP burden. Secondly, it was to address the question whether the implementation of any form of formal OOP payments may impact negatively upon fairness in financial contribution. METHODS: The literature search was conducted using the Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Library and Center of Review and Dissemination databases. Only studies which measured the Kakwani index of progressivity in at least two time points were included. Articles written in English published between January 2004 and September 2015 were searched. No geographical restriction was imposed. An increment of more than 0.10 in the Kakwani index was considered as a significant health policy impact. RESULTS: In total 16 publications were included, of which nine studied attempts to decrease the OOP burden, four described the consequences of the introduction of formal fees, and three covered both topics. Overall, a significant health policy impact was noted in four cases. All of them related to a reduction in the OOP burden, with three and one noting a change towards the progressivity and regressivity of direct healthcare payments respectively. Among jurisdictions which introduced formal fees, none study noted a significant impact on the regressivity of OOP spendings. CONCLUSIONS: In the majority of cases, a health policy impact on the distribution of OOP health payments was insignificant. The reduction of OOP burden cannot be achieved successfully without adequate extension of healthcare coverage or engagement of other sources of healthcare financing. When formal fees are being introduced, protection against catastrophic healthcare payments is needed for the most vulnerable groups. BioMed Central 2016-09-15 /pmc/articles/PMC5025558/ /pubmed/27633253 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12889-016-3624-6 Text en © The Author(s). 2016 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research Article
Kolasa, Katarzyna
Kowalczyk, Marta
Does cost sharing do more harm or more good? - a systematic literature review
title Does cost sharing do more harm or more good? - a systematic literature review
title_full Does cost sharing do more harm or more good? - a systematic literature review
title_fullStr Does cost sharing do more harm or more good? - a systematic literature review
title_full_unstemmed Does cost sharing do more harm or more good? - a systematic literature review
title_short Does cost sharing do more harm or more good? - a systematic literature review
title_sort does cost sharing do more harm or more good? - a systematic literature review
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5025558/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27633253
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12889-016-3624-6
work_keys_str_mv AT kolasakatarzyna doescostsharingdomoreharmormoregoodasystematicliteraturereview
AT kowalczykmarta doescostsharingdomoreharmormoregoodasystematicliteraturereview