The European Journal of Health Economics

, Volume 15, Issue 8, pp 813–828 | Cite as

How does copayment for health care services affect demand, health and redistribution? A systematic review of the empirical evidence from 1990 to 2011

Original Paper

Abstract

This article reviews the quantitative evidence on the behavioural effects of copayment within the health area across a wide range of countries. The review distinguishes itself from previous similar reviews by having a high degree of transparency for the search strategy used to identify the studies included in the review as well as the criteria for inclusion and by including the most recent literature. Empirical studies were identified by performing searches in EconLit. The literature search identified a total of 47 studies of the behavioural effects of copayment. Considering the demand effects, the majority of the reviewed studies found that copayment reduces the use of prescription medicine, consultations with general practitioners and specialists, and ambulatory care, respectively. The literature found no significant effects of copayment on the prevalence of hospitalisations. The empirical evidence on whether copayment for some services, but not for others, causes substitution from the services that are subject to copayment to the ‘free’ services rather than lower total use is sparse and mixed. Likewise, the health effects of copayment have only been analysed empirically in a limited number of studies, of which half did not find any significant effects in the short term. Finally, the empirical evidence on the distributional consequences of copayment indicates that individuals with low income and in particular need of care generally reduce their use relatively more than the remaining population in consequence of copayment. Hence, it is clear that copayment involves some important economic and political trade-offs.

Keywords

Copayment Demand effects Behavioural effects Health Distributional consequences 

JEL Classification

I11 (Analysis of healthcare markets) I14 (Health and inequality) I18 (Government policy; regulation, public health) 

References

  1. 1.
    Rovira, J., et al.: Comparing cost-sharing in European Union member states: a system-oriented framework. In: Leidl, R. (ed.) Health Care and Its Financing in the Single European Market, pp. 183–211. IOS Press, Amsterdam (1998)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hansen, S.W., Houlberg, K.: Brugerbetaling på sundheds- og ældreområdet i komparativt perspektiv. AKF, Copenhagen (2012)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gibson, T.B., Ozminkowski, R.J., Goetzel, R.Z.: The effects of prescription drug cost sharing: a review of the evidence. Am. J. Manag. Care 11, 730–740 (2005)PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Goldman, D.P., Joyce, G.F., Zheng, Y.: Prescription drug cost sharing. Associations with medication and medical utilization and spending and health. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 298(1), 61–69 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gemmill, M.C., Thomson, S., Mossialos, E.: What impact do prescription drug charges have on efficiency and equity? Evidence from high-income countries. Int. J. Equity Health 7(12), (2008)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lexchin, J., Grootendorst, P.: Effects of prescription drug user fees on drug and health services use and on health status in vulnerable populations: a systematic review of the evidence. Int. J. Health Serv. 34(1), 101–122 (2004)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Carrieri, V.: The effects of cost-sharing in health care: what do we know from empirical evidence? Economia politica. J. Anal. Inst. Econ. 2, 351–374 (2010)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Holst, J.: Patient Cost Sharing—Reforms without Evidence, pp. 1–146. Social Science Research Centre, Berlin (2010)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Swartz, K.: Cost-sharing: effects on spending and outcomes. In: The Synthesis Project, pp. 1–36. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (2010)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rice, T., Matsuoka, K.Y.: The impact of cost-sharing on appropriate utilization and health status: a review of the literature on seniors. Med. Care Res. Rev. 61(4), 415–452 (2004)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Manning, W.G., et al.: Health insurance and the demand for medical care: evidence from a randomized experiment. Am. Econ. Rev. 77, 251–277 (1987)PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lohr, K.N., et al.: Use of medical care in the RAND health insurance experiment. Med. Care 24(9 Suppl), S1–S87 (1986)PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Shapiro, M.F., Ware, J.E., Sherbourne, C.D.: Effects of cost sharing on seeking care for serious and minor symptoms. Results of a randomized controlled trial. Ann. Intern. Med. 104(2), 246–251 (1986)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Siu, A.L., et al.: Inappropriate use of hospitals in a randomized trial of health insurance plans. N. Engl. J. Med. 315, 1259–1266 (1986)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Brook, R.H., et al.: Does free care improve adults’ health? Results from a randomized controlled trial. N. Engl. J. Med. 309(23), 1426–1434 (1983)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Robinson, R.: User charges for health care. In: Mossialos, E., et al. (eds.) Funding Health Care: Options for Europe, pp. 161–183. Open University Press, London (2002)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Arrow, K.J.: Uncertainty and the welfare economics of medical care. Am. Econ. Rev. 53, 941–973 (1963)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Pauly, M.V.: The economics of moral hazard: comment. Am. Econ. Rev. 58, 531–537 (1968)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    The World Bank: Country and Lending Groups. 2012 [cited 2012 27/2]. Available from: http://data.worldbank.org/about/country-classifications/country-and-lending-groups#High_income
  20. 20.
    Atherly, A.: Medicare’s accidental stepchild. Med. Care Res. Rev. 2, 131–161 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kiil, A.: Does employment-based private health insurance increase the use of covered health care services? A matching estimator approach. Int. J. Health Care Financ. Econ. 12(1), 1–38 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Almarsdóttir, A.B., Morgall, J.M., Grimsson, A.: Cost containment of pharmaceutical use in Iceland: the impact of liberalisation and user charges. J. Health Serv. Res. Policy 5(2), 109–113 (2000)PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Atella, V., et al.: Drug compliance, co-payment and health outcomes: evidence from a panel of Italian patients. Health Econ. 15, 875–892 (2006)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Augurzky, B., Bauer, T.K., Schaffner, S.: Copayments in the German Health System: Does It Work? in IZA Discussion Paper No. 2290 (2006)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Blais, L., et al.: Impact of a cost sharing drug insurance plan on drug utilization among individuals receiving social assistance. Health Policy 64, 163–172 (2003)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Bolin, K., et al.: Utilisation of physician services in the 50+ population. The relative importance of individual versus institutional factors in 10 European countries. Int. J. Health Care Financ. Econ. 9(1), 83–112 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Cherkin, D.C., Grothaus, L., Wagner, E.H.: Is magnitude of co-payment effect related to income? Using census data for health services research. Soc. Sci. Med. 43(1), 33–41 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Christensen, B.: Characteristics of attenders and non-attenders at health examinations for ischaemic heart disease in general practice. Scand. J. Prim. Health Care 13, 26–31 (1995)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Christensen, B.: Payment and attendance at general practice preventive health examinations. Fam. Med. 27(8), 531–534 (1995)PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Cockx, B., Brasseur, C.: The demand for physician services. Evidence from a natural experiment. J. Health Econ. 22, 881–913 (2003)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Contoyannis, P., et al.: Estimating the price elasticity of expenditure for prescription drugs in the presence of non-linear price schedules: an illustration from Quebec. Can. Health Econ. 14, 909–923 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Costa-Font, J., Kanavos, P., Rovira, J.: Determinants of out-of-pocket pharmaceutical expenditure and access to drugs in Catalonia. Appl. Econ. 39(5), 541–551 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Elofsson, S., Undén, A.-L., Krakau, I.: Patient charges—a hindrance to financially and psychologically disadvantage groups seeking care. Soc. Sci. Med. 46(10), 1375–1380 (1998)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Fiorio, C.V., Siciliani, L.: Co-payments and the demand for pharmaceuticals: evidence from Italy. Econ. Model. 27, 835–841 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Grootendorst, P., Levine, M.: Do Drug Plans Matter? Effects of Drug Plan Eligibility on Drug Use Among the Elderly, Social Assistance Recipients and the General Population, in QSEP Research Report No. 372. McMaster University (2002)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Gundgaard, J.: Income-related inequality in utilization of health services in Denmark: evidence from Funen County. Scand. J. Public Health 34, 10 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Jordin, B., Engholm, G.: Besöksfrekvenser för unga och äldre efter införandet av avgiftsfrihet för patienter yngre än 20 år. Socialmedicinsk tidsskrift: Organ för sjuk- och hälsovård 1, 85–90 (2001)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Kim, J.Y., Ko, S.K., Yang, B.M.: The effects of patient cost sharing on ambulatory utilization in South Korea. Health Policy 72(3), 293–300 (2005)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Kupor, S.A., et al.: The effect of copayments and income on the utilization of medical care by subscribers to Japan’s National Health Insurance System. Int. J. Health Serv. 25(2), 295–312 (1995)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Krutilová, V.: Impact of user fees in health care system on health care consumption. Rev. Econ. Perspect. 10(4), 113–132 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Layte, R., et al.: Do consultation charges deter general practitioner use among older people? Soc. Sci. Med. 68, 1432–1438 (2009)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Li, X., et al.: The impact of cost sharing of prescription drug expenditures on health care utilization by the elderly: own- and cross-price elasticities. Health Policy 82, 340–347 (2007)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Lostao, L., et al.: Patient cost sharing and social inequalities in access to health care in three western European countries. Soc. Sci. Med. 65, 367–376 (2007)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Lostao, L., et al.: Patient cost sharing and physician visits by socioeconomic position: findings in three Western European countries. J. Epidemiol. Community Health 61(5), 416–420 (2007)PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Lundberg, L., et al.: Effects of user charges on the use of prescription medicines in different socio-economic groups. Health Policy 44, 123–134 (1998)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    McManus, P., et al.: Prescription drug utilization following patient co-payment changes in Australia. Pharmacoepidemiol. Drug Saf. 5, 385–392 (1996)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Nexøe, J., Kragstrup, J., Rønne, T.: Impact of postal invitations and user fee on influenza vaccination rates among the elderly. Scand. J. Prim. Health Care 15, 109–112 (1997)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Nolan, A.: Evaluating the impact of eligibility for free care on the use of general practitioner (GP) services: a difference-in-difference matching approach. Soc. Sci. Med. 67, 1164–1172 (2008)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    O’Reilly, D., et al.: Consultation charges in Ireland deter a large proportion of patients from seeing the GP: results of a cross-sectional survey. Eur. J. Gen. Pract. 13, 231–236 (2007)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Or, Z., Jusot, F., Yilmaz, E.: Impact of Health Care System on Socioeconomic Inequalities in Doctor Use, in IRDES Working Paper No. 17, Paris (2008)Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Pilote, L., et al.: The effects of cost-sharing on essential drug prescriptions, utilization of medical care and outcomes after acute myocardial infarction in elderly patients. Can. Med. Assoc. J. 167(3), 246–252 (2002)Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Poirier, S., et al.: The effect of a $2 co-payment on prescription refill rates of quebec elderly and its relationship to socio-economic status. Can. Pharm. J. 130(10), 30–34 (1998)Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Puig-Junoy, J., García-Gómez, P., Casado-Marín, D.: Free Medicines Thanks to Retirement: Moral Hazard and Hospitalization Offsets in an NHS, in Tintenberg Institute Discussion Paper 108/3 (2011)Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Rosen, B., et al.: When co-payments for physician visits can affect supply as well as demand: findings from a natural experiment in Israel’s national health insurance system. Int. J. Health Plan. Manag. 26, e68–e84 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Rückert, I.-M., Böcken, J., Mielck, A.: Are German patients burdened by the practice charge for physician visits (‘Praxisgebuehr’)? A cross sectional analysis of socio-economic and health related factors. BMC Health Serv. Res. 8(232), 2008Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Schreyögg, J., Grabka, M.M.: Copayments for Ambulatory Care in Germany: A Natural Experiment Using a Difference-in-Difference Approach, in SOEP Papers on Multidisciplinary Panel Data Research. DIW, Berlin (2008)Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Scott, K.M., Marwick, J.C., Crampton, P.R.: Utilization of general practitioner services in New Zealand and its relationship with income, ethnicity and government subsidy. Health Serv. Manag. Res. 16(1), 45–55 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Simonsen, M., Skipper, L., Skipper, N.: Price Sensitivity of Demand for Prescription Drugs: Exploiting a Regression Kink Design, in Economics Working Paper. School of Economics and Management, Aarhus University (2010)Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Skipper, N.: On Utilization and Stockpiling of Prescription Drugs when Co-payments Increase: Heterogeneity Across Types of Drugs, in Economics Working Paper. School of Economics and Management, Aarhus University (2010)Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Street, A., Jones, A., Furuta, A.: Cost-sharing and pharmaceutical utilisation and expenditure in Russia. J. Health Econ. 18, 459–472 (1999)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Tamblyn, R., et al.: Adverse events associated with prescription drug cost-sharing among poor and elderly persons. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 285(4), 421–429 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    van de Voorde, C., van Doorslaer, E., Schokkaert, E.: Effects of cost sharing on physician utilization under favourable conditions for supplier-induced demand. Health Econ. 10, 457–471 (2001)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    van Doorslaer, E., et al.: The redistributive effect of health care finance in twelve OECD countries. J. Health Econ. 18, 291–313 (1999)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Wagstaff, A., et al.: Equity in the finance of health care: some further international comparisons. J. Health Econ. 18, 263–290 (1999)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Wang, P.S., et al.: Impact of drug cost sharing on service use and adverse clinical outcomes in elderly receiving antidepressants. J. Mental Health Policy Econ. 13(1), 37–44 (2010)Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Winkelmann, R.: Co-payments for prescription drugs and the demand for doctor visits—evidence from a natural experiment. Health Econ. 13, 1081–1089 (2004)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Zápal, J.: Doctor-visit co-payment exemption for children: first look at the data. Czech J. Econ. Financ. 60(1), 58–72 (2010)Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Zhong, H.: Equity in pharmaceutical utilization in Ontario: a cross-section and over time analysis. Can. Public Policy 33(4), 487–507 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Louckx, F.: Patient cost sharing and access to health care. In: Mackenbach, J., Bakker, M. (eds.) Reducing Inequalities in Health. A European Perspective, pp. 188–198. Routledge, London (2002)Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Paulus, A., Sutherland, H., Tsakloglou, P.: The distributional impact of in-kind public benefits in European countries. J. Policy Anal. Manag. 29, 243–266 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Aaberge, R., et al.: The Distributional Impact of Public Services when Needs Differ, in IZA Discussion Paper No. 4826. Institute for the study of Labor, Bonn (2010)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.KORA, Danish Institute for Local and Regional Government ResearchCopenhagenDenmark

Personalised recommendations