With the increasing number of cancer cases worldwide, genetic testing for familiar cancers seems inevitable, yet little is known on population interest and the monetary value for cancer genetic risk information. The current study aimed to determine the willingness to undergo and pay for cancer genetic testing among the Malaysian population. A self-administered questionnaire was distributed to cancer patients and their family members in the oncology and daycare units in several government hospitals. Of 641 respondents (354 patients, 287 family members), 267 (41.7%) were willing to undergo cancer genetic testing. The median that respondents were willing to pay was USD 48.31 (MYR 200.00) IQR USD 96.91 (MYR 400), while 143 (22.3%) respondents were willing to pay a shared cost with the insurance company. Regression analysis identified independent positive predictors of willingness to pay as respondent's status as a family member, high education level, and willingness to undergo cancer genetic testing in general, while in patients, female gender and high level of education were identified as independent positive predictors. Generally, the population needs more information to undergo and pay for cancer genetic testing. This will increase the utilization of the services offered, and with cost-sharing practices with the provider, it can be implemented population-wide.
Throughout the world, policy makers are considering or implementing financing strategies that are likely to have a substantial impact on the equity of health financing. The assessment of the equity implication is clearly important, given the potential impact that alternative finance sources have on households. Households incur out-of-pocket payment directly from their budget, apart from their public or private insurance. Out-of-pocket payment is the primary concern, given their undesirable impact on households. Progressivity measures departures from proportionality in the relationship between out-of-pocket payment and ability to pay. It is the most frequently used yardstick to assess the equity of out-of-pocket payments in empirical studies. This paper provides an evaluation of such progressivity measures, undertaken using four approaches (proportion approach, tabulation approach, concentration curve and Kakwani's index), in order to reveal their usefulness and underlying notion. It is illustrated empirically with data on out-of-pocket payment for health care in Malaysia for 1998/ 1999, based on the nationally representative Household Expenditure Survey. Results indicate that out-of-pocket payments are mildly progressive, whilst the four approaches have their benefits and limitations in assessing equity implications. This analysis is of interest from a policy perspective, given Malaysia's heavy reliance on out-of-pocket payments to finance health care.
Matched MeSH terms: Cost Sharing/trends*; Cost Sharing/statistics & numerical data
BACKGROUND: A previous systematic review reported that increase in patients' medication cost-sharing reduced patients' adherence to medication. However, a study among patients with medication subsidies who received medication at no cost found that medication nonadherence was also high. To our knowledge, no study has evaluated the influence of different medication payment schemes on patients' medication adherence.
OBJECTIVE: This study aims to review research reporting the influence of payment schemes and their association with patients' medication adherence behavior.
METHODS: This study was conducted using systematic review of published articles. Relevant published articles were located through three electronic databases Medline, ProQuest Medical Library, and ScienceDirect since inception to February 2015. Included articles were then reviewed and summarized narratively.
RESULTS: Of the total of 2,683 articles located, 21 were included in the final analysis. There were four types of medication payment schemes reported in the included studies: 1) out-of-pocket expenditure or copayments; 2) drug coverage or insurance benefit; 3) prescription cap; and 4) medication subsidies. Our review found that patients with "lower self-paying constraint" were more likely to adhere to their medication (adherence rate ranged between 28.5% and 94.3%). Surprisingly, the adherence rate among patients who received medication as fully subsidized was similar (rate between 34% and 84.6%) as that of other payment schemes. The studies that evaluated patients with fully subsidized payment scheme found that the medication adherence was poor among patients with nonsevere illness.
CONCLUSION: Although medication adherence was improved with the reduction of cost-sharing such as lower copayment, higher drug coverage, and prescription cap, patients with full-medication subsidies payment scheme (received medication at no cost) were also found to have poor adherence to their medication. Future studies comparing factors that may influence patients' adherence to medication among patients who received medication subsidies should be done to develop strategies to overcome medication nonadherence.
KEYWORDS: drug cost; medication adherence; medication payment scheme