corner
Healthy Skepticism
Join us to help reduce harm from misleading health information.
Increase font size   Decrease font size   Print-friendly view   Print
Register Log in

Healthy Skepticism Library item: 13719

Warning: This library includes all items relevant to health product marketing that we are aware of regardless of quality. Often we do not agree with all or part of the contents.

 

Publication type: Journal Article

Alexander GC, Zhang J, Basu A.
Characteristics of patients receiving pharmaceutical samples and association between sample receipt and out-of-pocket prescription costs.
Med Care 2008 Apr; 46:(4):394-402
http://pt.wkhealth.com/pt/re/lwwgateway/landingpage.htm;jsessionid=L6BPtgm0GJD26nFB3pbwzpphQk92cVKhdpkpp2bcK8kV8k9GcR5P!62360543!181195629!8091!-1?an=00005650-200804000-00009


Abstract:

BACKGROUND: Pharmaceutical samples are widely used for promotion and marketing, yet little is known about who receives samples or how their use is associated with patient’s prescription costs.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the characteristics of those receiving samples and the relationship between sample receipt and out-of-pocket prescription costs.

DESIGN, SUBJECTS, AND MEASURES: We divided the 2002-2003 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, a nationally representative, panel-design longitudinal study, into baseline and analysis periods. We conducted logistic and generalized linear regression analysis of 5709 individuals in the analysis period who did not receive samples during the baseline period. The primary outcome measures were sample receipt and prescription expenditures.

RESULTS: Fourteen percent of individuals received at least 1 sample during the analysis period. On multivariate analyses sample receipt was greater among those who were younger and those not on Medicaid. In generalized linear regressions controlling for demographic characteristics and health care utilization, the predicted 180-day out-of-pocket prescription expenditures were $178 [standard error (SE), $3.9] for those never receiving samples. Among those receiving samples, the corresponding out-of-pocket expenditures were $166 (SE, $8.9) for periods before sample receipt (P = 0.16 for comparison with those not receiving samples), $244 (SE, $9.2) for periods during sample receipt (P < 0.001 for comparison with periods before sample receipt) and $212 (SE, $12.4) for periods following sample receipt (P = 0.008 for comparison with periods before sample receipt). Results were qualitatively similar when total prescription costs were examined.

CONCLUSIONS: Individuals receiving samples have higher prescription expenditures than their counterparts. These findings suggest that sample recipients remain disproportionately burdened by prescription costs even after sample receipt.

Keywords:
Publication Types: Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't Research Support, U.S. Gov't, P.H.S. MeSH Terms: Chronic Disease Drug Industry Fees, Pharmaceutical/statistics & numerical data* Female Humans Insurance Coverage/statistics & numerical data Insurance, Health/statistics & numerical data Male Marketing/methods* Middle Aged Patient Compliance Patients* Socioeconomic Factors

 

  Healthy Skepticism on RSS   Healthy Skepticism on Facebook   Healthy Skepticism on Twitter

Please
Click to Register

(read more)

then
Click to Log in
for free access to more features of this website.

Forgot your username or password?

You are invited to
apply for membership
of Healthy Skepticism,
if you support our aims.

Pay a subscription

Support our work with a donation

Buy Healthy Skepticism T Shirts


If there is something you don't like, please tell us. If you like our work, please tell others.

Email a Friend








Far too large a section of the treatment of disease is to-day controlled by the big manufacturing pharmacists, who have enslaved us in a plausible pseudo-science...
The blind faith which some men have in medicines illustrates too often the greatest of all human capacities - the capacity for self deception...
Some one will say, Is this all your science has to tell us? Is this the outcome of decades of good clinical work, of patient study of the disease, of anxious trial in such good faith of so many drugs? Give us back the childlike trust of the fathers in antimony and in the lancet rather than this cold nihilism. Not at all! Let us accept the truth, however unpleasant it may be, and with the death rate staring us in the face, let us not be deceived with vain fancies...
we need a stern, iconoclastic spirit which leads, not to nihilism, but to an active skepticism - not the passive skepticism, born of despair, but the active skepticism born of a knowledge that recognizes its limitations and knows full well that only in this attitude of mind can true progress be made.
- William Osler 1909