MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2121918894 · doi:10.1071/ah11153

The affordability of prescription medicines in Australia: are copayments and safety net thresholds too high?

2012· article· en· W2121918894 on OpenAlex
Andrew Searles, Evan Doran, Thomas Faunce, David Henry

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAustralian Health Review · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicPharmaceutical Economics and Policy
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences
FundersHunter Medical Research Institute
KeywordsMedical prescriptionMedicinePharmaceutical Benefits SchemeHealth economicsFamily medicineEnvironmental healthPopulation healthPublic healthPopulationNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective. To create and report survey-based indicators of the affordability of prescription medicines for patients in Australia. Method. A cross-sectional study of 1502 randomly selected participants in the Hunter Region of NSW, were interviewed by telephone. Main outcome measure. The self-reported financial burden of obtaining prescription medicines. Results. Data collection was completed with a response rate of 59.0%. Participants who had received and filled at least one prescription medicine in the previous 3 months, and eligible for analysis (n=952), were asked to self-report the level of financial burden from obtaining these medicines. Extreme and heavy financial burdens were reported by 2.1% and 6.8% of participants, respectively. A moderate level of burden was experienced by a further 19.5%. Low burden was recorded for participants who said that their prescription medicines presented either a slight burden (29.0%) or were no burden at all (42.6%). Conclusion. A substantial minority of participants who had obtained prescription medicines in the 3 months prior to survey experienced a level of financial burden from the cost of these medicines that was reported as being moderate to extreme. What is known about the topic? The Australian National Medicines Policy aims to, amongst other things, facilitate access to medicines at a cost that is affordable to individuals and the community. Copayments combined with the safety net and brand price premium are the main determinants of the amount that patients pay for PBS listed prescription medicines. Previous surveys have reported on selected aspects of medicine affordability in Australia and have shown some groups in the population experience difficulty with the cost of their medicines. What does this paper add? This paper develops and reports on a set of indicators that can be used to periodically measure the level of self-reported financial burden experienced by Australians when obtaining prescription medicines. The analysis assesses affordability issues for both general patients and patients who are able to access prescription medicines using a concession card. What are the implications? Our research suggests that, as they stand, the copayment and safety net thresholds are not protecting nearly one-third of Australian patients from financial burden. Ongoing monitoring and evaluation is required to ensure the copayment and safety net thresholds do not jeopardise the National Medicines Policy’s principle of equitable and affordable access to medicines.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.418
Threshold uncertainty score0.501

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.162
GPT teacher head0.389
Teacher spread0.227 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it