Austerity, economic hardship and access to medications: a repeated cross-sectional population survey study, 2013-2020

Financial burden of medicines in five Northern European countries: A decommodification perspective

Affordable access to healthcare including medicines is a key social policy goal in Europe. However, it has rarely been addressed in comparative social policy research. Although the concept of decommodification has already been used in the context of healthcare and sickness benefits, we argue that the scope of such studies should be expanded to medicines to understand how welfare states protect their citizens from market forces in case of illness. We examine and compare the relationship between income, other characteristics, and subjective financial burden of medicines (FBM) across five countries with universal health systems pursuing egalitarian aims (Denmark, Finland, the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden). Analyses using 2017 EU-SILC microdata and linear probability models showed large differences in the level of FBM across countries, with the highest income quintile in Finland reporting FBM more frequently than the lowest income quintile in Denmark. Finland differed from the rest by increasing probability of FBM with age. In other countries, middle-aged adults tended to be the most affected, and older adults were well-protected. The association between income and FBM was strongest in the Netherlands; however, the higher probability of FBM was skewed towards the lower quintiles in all countries. FBM and financial burden of medical care were strongly associated although FBM tended to be more common. Unmet needs for medical examination were rare and lacked sensitivity in capturing manifestations of market risk. Decommodification literature has focused healthcare services as proxy of access; nevertheless, our study shows that further functions, and broader outcomes should be examined to capture market risk. Our evidence further highlights that important differences can be found even in countries with relatively similar health policy aims. The cost of medicines should be considered in comparative studies of health and welfare states.

Combining legal epidemiology and implementation science to improve global access to medicines: challenges and opportunities

Laws and policies affecting access to medicines have been in the global health spotlight for decades, yet our understanding of their effects remains substantially underdeveloped. The emerging field of legal epidemiology combined with the methods of implementation science presents an opportunity to help address this gap. Legal epidemiology refers to the scientific study and deployment of law as a factor in the cause, distribution, and prevention of disease and injury in a population. Legal epidemiology studies consist of a systematic collection and coding of laws and policies relating to a particular topic. Quasi-experimental or observational research methods can then be applied to take advantage of natural experiments resulting from heterogenous adoption and/or implementation of laws and policies. Often legal epidemiology studies fail to account for heterogenous law implementation processes, presenting a need and opportunity to integrate implementation science methods. Researchers may face challenges in integrating these methods for access to medicines studies, including data access issues and a complex legal and implementation environment. Yet, the opportunities presented by increasingly transparent legal environments, improved monitoring of medicine availability, universal health coverage expansion, and electronic health and insurance records integration may facilitate overcoming these challenges. Improved collaboration and communication between researchers, health authorities, manufacturers, and health providers from public and private sectors will be critical. In spite of the challenges, combining the fields of legal epidemiology and implementation science may present an important strategy toward creating a legal and policy environment that supports global and equitable access to medicines.