|
![]() |
|
→ Contents list for this issue
→ More articles on Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme
→ More articles on Health policy
→ More articles on Health economics
Click to Login
Hide the Login Box
→ Click here for subscription options
Copayments — Evidence and Critiques
Introduction
—Ideas
—The Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme
—Moral hazard and the PBS
—Cost sharing and the PBS
—Problems with moral hazard
—Consumer or provider moral hazard?
—Moral hazard — welfare decreasing or increasing?
—Cost sharing — the blunt instrument
—Cost sharing needs care
—Conclusion
—Acknowledgements
—Competing interests
—References
—Author details
In this paper we argue that Australia’s pharmaceutical cost sharing policy has been applied as if cost sharing is unproblematic for medicine affordability and good health outcomes. Australian and international experience with pharmaceutical cost sharing strongly suggests a negative impact on affordability and quality use of medicines, disproportionately affecting low income patients. We argue that Australia’s use of cost sharing reflects the currency of a cognitively powerful and morally charged idea – moral hazard. Moral hazard refers to the change in behaviour induced by insurance coverage. Applied to pharmaceuticals, this means that low out-of-pocket cost will lead to waste. Moral hazard mixes the explanatory power of price with the intuitively cogent notion that if people do not experience consequences they will behave irresponsibly. Cost sharing policy has gone unscrutinised and uncontested not because cost sharing is unproblematic, but because in the light of the idea of moral hazard it has all the question-deadening weight of common sense.
Login or register to purchase access to the full article
|
|
| Home | Archives | Terms of use | Contact | Topics |
©Aust Health Rev 2009 www.aushealthreview.com.au PRINT ISSN: 0156-5788 ONLINE ISSN: 1449-8944