↓ Skip to main content

The redistributive effects of copayment in outpatient prescriptions: evidence from Lombardy

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (64th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (54th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
21 Mendeley
Title
The redistributive effects of copayment in outpatient prescriptions: evidence from Lombardy
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, May 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12913-017-2248-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Paolo Berta, Rosella Levaggi, Gianmaria Martini, Stefano Verzillo

Abstract

In Italy, copayment has changed its nature and it can no longer be simply considered a system to curb inappropriate expenditure. It has become an important form of revenue for public health care provision, but it might also become a source of distortions in income and health benefits redistribution. We use a rich administrative dataset gathering information on patients demand (whose records have been matched to income declared for tax purposes) to study the effects of an additional copayment (the so called "superticket" introduced by the Italian government in 2012) in Lombardy, the biggest Italian Region whose socio-economic dimension is comparable to that of many European countries (e.g., the Netherlands, Switzerland, etc.). Our analysis shows that at the aggregate level the non-uniform superticket schedule adopted in Lombardy is slightly pro-poor, but this result coexists with evidences pointing towards possible cases of restriction to access caused by the additional copayment. The introduction of the superticket and the ensuing increase in the out-of pocket payment for health care raises questions about the distribution of the burden among patients, and the sustainability of the extra revenue through time. This issue needs to be further investigated by combining health status data with the information in this dataset.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 21 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 21 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Professor 3 14%
Student > Master 3 14%
Researcher 3 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 10%
Student > Bachelor 2 10%
Other 2 10%
Unknown 6 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 4 19%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 14%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 3 14%
Decision Sciences 1 5%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 5%
Other 2 10%
Unknown 7 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 25 May 2017.
All research outputs
#6,913,373
of 22,971,207 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#3,358
of 7,690 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#108,913
of 310,577 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#60
of 132 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,971,207 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,690 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 310,577 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 132 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its contemporaries.