↓ Skip to main content

The impact of repeated cost containment policies on pharmaceutical expenditure: experience in Spain

Overview of attention for article published in HEPAC Health Economics in Prevention and Care, September 2010
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (65th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
35 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
105 Mendeley
Title
The impact of repeated cost containment policies on pharmaceutical expenditure: experience in Spain
Published in
HEPAC Health Economics in Prevention and Care, September 2010
DOI 10.1007/s10198-010-0271-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Iván Moreno-Torres, Jaume Puig-Junoy, Josep M. Raya

Abstract

The growth in expenditure on the financing of pharmaceuticals is a factor that accounts for a large part of the increase in public health spending in most developed countries. In an attempt to kerb this growth, many health authorities, particularly in Europe, have introduced numerous regulatory measures that have affected the market, especially on the supply side. These measures include the system of reference pricing, the reduction of wholesale distributors' and retailers' markups and compulsory reductions of ex-factory prices. We assess the impact of these cost containment measures on expenditure per capita, prescriptions per capita and the average price of pharmaceuticals financed by the public sector in Catalonia (Spain), from 1995 to 2006. We apply an autoregressive integrated moving average (ARIMA) time series model using dummy variables to represent the various cost containment measures implemented. Twelve of the 16 interventions analysed that were intended to contain the overall pharmaceutical expenditure were not effective in reducing it even in the short term, and the four that were effective were not so in the long term, thus amounting to a moderate annual saving.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 105 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 3 3%
United Kingdom 2 2%
United States 2 2%
Spain 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Unknown 96 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 16 15%
Researcher 15 14%
Other 12 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 9%
Student > Bachelor 9 9%
Other 27 26%
Unknown 17 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 20%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 19 18%
Social Sciences 13 12%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 12 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 6%
Other 14 13%
Unknown 20 19%
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 17 December 2021.
All research outputs
#7,355,485
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from HEPAC Health Economics in Prevention and Care
#491
of 1,303 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#33,697
of 103,821 outputs
Outputs of similar age from HEPAC Health Economics in Prevention and Care
#7
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 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 1,303 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% 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 103,821 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 65% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.