The Problem With Consumer Affordability of Prescription Medications in the United States
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Consumer affordability of prescription drugs is an ongoing problem in the United States. This study was undertaken to research the financial, physical, and economic effects of drug prices on consumers and the methods used by consumers to address such effects. Rational choice and power and politics theories were used to explain the decisions consumers make when they could not afford their medications and the role policies and politics play in drug pricing. The research questions concerned the relationship between consumers’ perceptions of drug pricing and their ability to purchase medications. The quantitative nonexperimental study involved the administration of a survey featuring selected questions from the 2019 KFF Health Tracking Poll. The sample size of 87 participants was comprised of individuals over 26 years old. All participants had to have their own medical insurance. Data was analyzed using chi-square test of independence to determine relationships between the categorical variables. Results showed no correlation between participants’ opinions on the price of medications and whether they were generic or should be purchased from Canada; however, participants did not believe drugs were priced fairly. There was a positive correlation between the cost of prescription and the use of drug discount programs. Policymakers and other stakeholders should consider the patient’s perspective when evaluating programs aimed at lowering the cost of medications, and they should seek to raise prescribers’ awareness of such programs. By doing so, policymakers and other stakeholders may be able to foster positive social change by providing financial, economic, and physical relief to consumers.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".