From affordable to accessible: How the pharmaceutical industry transformed patient consumers into charity recipients.

IF 4.9 2区 医学 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Laura Halcomb
{"title":"From affordable to accessible: How the pharmaceutical industry transformed patient consumers into charity recipients.","authors":"Laura Halcomb","doi":"10.1016/j.socscimed.2024.117524","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Recent changes in healthcare pricing and financing have resulted in patients paying more out of pocket for their healthcare. As a result, more patients with insurance are being priced out of essential or desired medications. Pharmaceutical companies have responded by offering financial assistance programs for patients. Medical sociologists have productively used the concept of consumerism to describe the effects of markets on the provision of healthcare. But in this current context where financial assistance programs are increasingly important for patients seeking prescription drugs, what are the implications for medical sociological theories of patient consumerism? I use medical and economic sociology theories to analyze pharmaceutical executive testimonies in 34 federal US Congressional hearing transcripts prices from 1959 to 2020. Congressional testimony offers an ideal window into how these executives justify their prices and describe the implications for patients downstream in the healthcare system. I find that executives initially justified prices as fair and drugs as cost-effective because medications were an affordable form of healthcare. However, as drug prices rose, executives abandoned affordability arguments and instead argued drugs were accessible to patients though pharmaceutical company run financial assistance programs. Findings contribute to medical sociology by theorizing a system of corporate charity as the next phase of the capitalist US healthcare system and demonstrates how elite market actors (re)define downstream categories of consumers.</p>","PeriodicalId":49122,"journal":{"name":"Social Science & Medicine","volume":"363 ","pages":"117524"},"PeriodicalIF":4.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Social Science & Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2024.117524","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Recent changes in healthcare pricing and financing have resulted in patients paying more out of pocket for their healthcare. As a result, more patients with insurance are being priced out of essential or desired medications. Pharmaceutical companies have responded by offering financial assistance programs for patients. Medical sociologists have productively used the concept of consumerism to describe the effects of markets on the provision of healthcare. But in this current context where financial assistance programs are increasingly important for patients seeking prescription drugs, what are the implications for medical sociological theories of patient consumerism? I use medical and economic sociology theories to analyze pharmaceutical executive testimonies in 34 federal US Congressional hearing transcripts prices from 1959 to 2020. Congressional testimony offers an ideal window into how these executives justify their prices and describe the implications for patients downstream in the healthcare system. I find that executives initially justified prices as fair and drugs as cost-effective because medications were an affordable form of healthcare. However, as drug prices rose, executives abandoned affordability arguments and instead argued drugs were accessible to patients though pharmaceutical company run financial assistance programs. Findings contribute to medical sociology by theorizing a system of corporate charity as the next phase of the capitalist US healthcare system and demonstrates how elite market actors (re)define downstream categories of consumers.

从买得起到买得到:制药业如何将患者消费者转变为慈善受助者。
最近,医疗保健定价和融资方面的变化导致患者需要自付更多的医疗费用。因此,越来越多的有保险的患者无法获得必需或想要的药物。为此,制药公司为患者提供了经济援助计划。医学社会学家曾卓有成效地使用消费主义概念来描述市场对医疗服务的影响。但是,在当前经济援助计划对寻求处方药的患者越来越重要的背景下,患者消费主义的医学社会学理论会产生什么影响呢?我运用医疗社会学和经济社会学理论,分析了美国国会从 1959 年到 2020 年的 34 份联邦听证会记录中的制药企业高管证词。国会证词为我们提供了一个理想的窗口,让我们了解这些高管是如何证明其价格合理的,并描述其对医疗系统下游患者的影响。我发现,高管们最初认为价格是公平的,药物是具有成本效益的,因为药物是一种负担得起的医疗保健形式。然而,随着药品价格的上涨,高管们放弃了可负担性的论点,转而认为通过制药公司实施的经济援助计划,患者可以获得药品。研究结果通过将企业慈善体系理论化为美国资本主义医疗保健体系的下一阶段,为医学社会学做出了贡献,并展示了精英市场参与者如何(重新)定义下游消费者类别。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Social Science & Medicine
Social Science & Medicine PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
CiteScore
9.10
自引率
5.60%
发文量
762
审稿时长
38 days
期刊介绍: Social Science & Medicine provides an international and interdisciplinary forum for the dissemination of social science research on health. We publish original research articles (both empirical and theoretical), reviews, position papers and commentaries on health issues, to inform current research, policy and practice in all areas of common interest to social scientists, health practitioners, and policy makers. The journal publishes material relevant to any aspect of health from a wide range of social science disciplines (anthropology, economics, epidemiology, geography, policy, psychology, and sociology), and material relevant to the social sciences from any of the professions concerned with physical and mental health, health care, clinical practice, and health policy and organization. We encourage material which is of general interest to an international readership.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信