Skip to main content
Download PDF
Download ePub

Strategies for reducing out of pocket payments in the health system: a scoping review

Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation volume 19, Article number: 47 (2021) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Direct out-of-pocket payments (OOP) are among the most important financing mechanisms in many health systems, especially in developing countries, adversely affecting equality and leading vulnerable groups to poverty. Therefore, this scoping review study was conducted to identify the strategies involving OOP reduction in health systems.

Methods

Articles published in English on strategies related to out-of-pocket payments were Searched and retrieved in the Web of Science, Scopus, PubMed, and Embase databases between January 2000 and November 2020, following PRISMA guidelines. As a result, 3710 papers were retrieved initially, and 40 were selected for full-text assessment.

Results

Out of 40 papers included, 22 (55%) and 18 (45%) of the study were conducted in developing and developed countries, respectively. The strategies were divided into four categories based on health system functions: health system stewardship, creating resources, health financing mechanisms, and delivering health services.As well, developing and developed countries applied different types of strategies to reduce OOP.

Conclusion

The present review identified some strategies that affect the OOP payments According to the health system functions framework. Considering the importance of stewardship, creating resources, the health financing mechanisms, and delivering health services in reducing OOP, this study could help policymakers make better decisions for reducing OOP expenditures.

Introduction

Nowadays, spending on health is rising, accounting for 10% of global gross domestic product (GDP). Government expenditures, out-of-pocket payments (OOPs), and sources like voluntary health insurance, employer-provided health programs, and activities by non-governmental organizations are all included in health spending [1].

As defined by the World Health Organization (WHO), OOP expenses are the individuals’ direct payments to healthcare providers at the time of service use [2]. OOPs, include purely private transactions (payments made by individuals to private doctors and pharmacies), official patient cost-sharing (user fees/copayments) within defined public or private benefit packages, and informal payments (payments beyond the prescriptions entitled as benefits, both in cash and in-kind). Therefore, OOPs may be explicitly some part of a policy or can occur through market transactions, or both [3].

OOP health expenditures may increase whenever households opt to access and receive health services but are not protected against high payments since medical costs are high. They do not have access to insurance coverage and other safeguards against OOPs [4]. The following factors significantly affect OOP health care costs: increased patient cost-sharing, development of high-deductible health care plans, and more use of costly biologic or designer drugs. OOP payments are not an efficient way of financing health care and may negatively affect equity and cause vulnerable groups to experience poverty [5]. High OOP medical costs can use up financial savings and damage credits and have a negative impact on the quality of life, medication adherence, and different health outcomes [6].

A new report by the World Bank Group stated that OOP payments accounted for a non-negligible part of total health care expenditures in Central and Eastern European countries. Also, Patients in developing countries spent half a trillion dollars each year (over $80 per person) out of their own pockets to receive health services [7]. Unfortunately, such expenses significantly harmed the poor [8]. The more the health sector grew, the less reliant it would be on OOP spending. The total OOP spending increased at least twice as much in low- and middle-income countries during 2000–2017 and reached 46% in high-income ones. However, its growth was slower than that of public spending in all income groups [9]. According to Adam Wagstaf (2020), OOP expenditures changed significantly within income groups, ranging from $32 in Sweden to $1200 in Switzerland in the high-income groups, and from six dollars in Madagascar to $100 in Cambodia, Haiti, and Nepal in the low-income ones [10].

There have been health financing policy reforms and measures in several countries recently to deal with the concerns over high OOP payments. While there is no remedy, available information suggests that having well-designed policies and strategies can help countries reduce OOP and its adverse effects successfully [2, 11]. In general, reforms can apply some key strategies to abolish user fees or charges in public health facilities and exempt specific community groups such as the poor and the vulnerable, and pregnant women and children from official payments. They should also exempt some health services such as maternal and child care from official payments and deliver them free of charge [12].

Due to the lack of resources, implementing effective policies can protect households against the common and high costs of the health system. To date, no known study has reviewed the proposed appreciate strategies for reducing OOP health payments worldwide. So, the present study aims to investigate strategies of reducing OOP payments in the health system through scoping review studies between 2000 and 2020. This review can help decision-makers learn from the effective experiences of other countries in reducing OOP health payments.

Materials and methods

This study was carried out based on the Joanna Briggs Institute scoping review method as a framework [13], and a comprehensive systematic scoping review was performed to explain the strategies that could effectively reduce OOP health expenditures around the world. A defined question based on the PCC (Population, Concept, and Context) elements was raised at the first stage. All the countries in the world (Population), strategies and policies that affected OOP health expenditures (Concept), and all health systems having OOP payments (Context) were included in the question.

The second stage dealt with the target population, which comprised all the studies related to “Out-of-Pocket Expenditures” in various countries. To this end, all related studies conducted since 2000 were retrieved through the research strategy (Table 1).

Table 1 The search strategy of the research
Full size table

Thus, the original English keywords appropriate to the research objective were first selected based on the comments of the research team and the keywords used in available related studies. Then, PubMed, Scopus, ISI Web of Science, and Embase databases were searched. It was decided to identify all the articles with at least an English abstract indexed in one database.

The selection of the relevant studies was carried out in the third stage. First, 3710 articles were indexed in all databases. After deleting duplicates, 1474 English-language articles were selected for review. Then, 223 articles were excluded from the list after reviewing the titles and abstracts, and 108 were chosen to review the full-text, and finally, the research team chooses 40 papers (Fig. 1). It is worth mentioning that all of the research processes and selection of the papers were conducted by two researchers independently (FSJ and PB), and a third researcher was responsible for reaching consensus if necessary (SD). Also, the protocols and review studies were not included in the present research. Finally, the Critical Appraisal Skills Program (CASP) tool was used to evaluate the quality of the original articles since it worked as a guide to cover the essential areas for critical appraisal of articles effectively.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) flow diagram for thescoping review process

Full size image

In the last stage, the data were extracted from each study using the data-charting form (Appendix Table 4) and were collated and classified according to the thematic analysis provided.

In stage four, the data-charting form was used to extract data from each study (Appendix Table 4). Then, the collected data were collated and classified according to the thematic analysis in the last stage.

Results

The findings resulted from the analysis of 40 studies were summarized in Appendix Table 5. Among these studies, 20 (50%), 13 (32.5%), four (10%), and three (7.5%) studies belonged to Asian, American, European, and African countries, respectively. Furthermore, 22 (55%) and 18 (45%) belonged to developing and developed countries.

Other findings show that four main factors have been emphasized as the effective factors on reducing OOP payments in the health systems, including Health system stewardship, creating resources, the health financing mechanisms, and delivering health services (Table 2).

Table 2 Component affecting on out of pocket reducing
Full size table

As it derives from Table 2, 31 (77.5%) articles pointed to the “role of the healthcare system stewardship” as one of the main components in reducing OOP payments. The three subcomponents under the tutelage include legislation (40.5%), legislation implementation (42.5%), and effective monitoring (17%).

The second most referred main component belonged to the "health financing mechanisms " with 18 articles (45%) and three subcomponents, namely revenue collection (19%), pooling and Resource management (57%), payment and purchasing (24%).

The number of article on “delivering health services” were 15 (37.5%). It has two sub-components of preventive services (50%), and treatment (50%) have been considered as one of the main components affecting the reduction of OOP payments in health systems.

“Creating Resource” with ten articles (25%) and two sub-components, namely the physical resources (50%), human capital investment, and training (50%), also have the least referred in the articles.

As Table 3 shows, developed and developing countries have implemented various strategies to reduce OOP. Developed Asian countries have applied medical subsidy, universal health coverage, Choosing the right pharmacy, requesting inexpensive generic drugs by patients, the inclusion of dental care coverage in health insurance packages, control strategies drug price, performance-based payment, eliminating OOP costs for methods of contraception, choose a brand-name drug with a generic equivalent, free screening, drug coupons, promoting the quality of primary care services, ordering by physicians and telehealth as effective strategies in reducing OOP payments. Government support of public health insurance program, subsidy program for diseases with high economic burden, prevent and control chronic diseases, training the physicians, developing clinical guidelines, universal health coverage, diagnosis-related group (DRG) based payment system, expanding the dental health reform, providing care closer to home, Insurance for children, students, the elderly, the disabled, and other unemployed populations in urban regions groups not covered by basic health insurance catastrophic disease insurance, increase the efficiency and quality of care, free treatment to the vulnerable segment of the population, clear the system from informal payment, -innovative financing mechanisms on the collection, pooling and purchasing side, free gynecologic screening and discharging patients earlier are some strategies that Asian developing countries such as Iran, India, China, Bangladesh and the Philippines and African countries such as Ethiopia and Ghana have implemented to reduce their OOP payments.

Table 3 Implemented interventions in developed and developing countries
Full size table

Discussion

Overall, the results showed that four main components—health system stewardship, financing mechanisms, service delivery, and creating resources—have been effective in reducing OOP payments in health systems of different countries. This category is similar to the functions introduced by the WHO report in 2000 [52].

Legislation, legislation implementation, and effective monitoring are considered as proposed subcomponents of the stewardship. The results of many studies have shown that health care governance around the world can reduce household health expenditures by legislation. For example, Rahman et al. (2020), in their research in Bangladesh, stated that health care governance, strengthening the rules and regulations related to care subsidies by public health centers, counseling and planning clinics for parents, and Community-based health centers for low-income consumers and patients with high economic burden can play an important role in reducing OOP healthcare costs [31]. Sarnak et al. (2017) cited federal government negotiations and legislation on the announcement of centralized prices. They approved drug ceiling rates in the United States as one factor in reducing OOP payments [22].

Ensuring implementation and monitoring the correctness of the laws by health system governance can also help reduce OOP payments. Several studies have identified the implementation of laws and programs related to global health care coverage as a way to protect households from these expenditures [22, 23, 28, 35, 36].

Control on the efficiency and quality of care and payment systems [18], Careful monitoring to clear the informal payments [29, 37] and ensuring the supply and availability of essential medicines [38] is also helpful in this regard.

According to the present study results, by investing in human capital investment and training and physical facilities, OOP payments can also be reduced. Providing the infrastructure for online video consultation in Australia [44], improving access to health facilities in India [32], physicians' training on various fields in Iran [17] and the United States [45], had been reported as effective strategies in reducing OOP.

On the other hand, the lack of financial protection has been recognized as a health system disease. OOP payments are one of the major financing mechanisms in many developing countries and put the poor's greatest pressure. Adequate financing and its functions, including revenue collection, risk pooling and purchasing, are introduced as the most important mechanisms in reducing the share of direct OOP payment [53]. For example, Aryeetey et al. (2016), in their study in Ghana, stated that enrolment into health insurance would reduce OOP payments by 80% [37].

Several studies have also expanded the intensity and health insurance coverage for dental services [21]، rare and incurable diseases treatment [31], and mentioned the support for vulnerable groups as effective factors in this regard [42]. A study in India found that using new methods of health financing to collect, pooling and purchasing would reduce the severity of poverty and OOP payments [5], including pay for performances [14] and diagnosis-related groups (DRGs) payments [18, 33, 49].

Also in this research, the provision of prevention and treatment services have been included as two sub-components of providing health services. Some studies have shown that taking precautionary measures can prevent many OOP payments in the future. Meda et al. (2019) stated that the implementation of screening programs for gynecological diseases in reproductive age would prevent cancer in later years and thus will lead to individual financial protection [16].

The results of a study by Kastor et al. Showed that launching national prevent and control cancer, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and stroke programs in India significantly reduces OOP payment [31].

It is worth mentioning that the studies obtained from the present study showed that in addition to preventive services, the providers' behaviors and actions are also effective in reducing OOP payments. physicians can replace generic drugs with brand drugs in their prescriptions [20, 39, 45] Limiting diagnostic-therapeutic tests and surgeries and preventing unnecessary admissions in special intensive care wards and alternative interventions, discharge patients quickly [50] And improve the quality and effectiveness of services [15, 18], play an effective role in reducing OOP payments.

Also, as this study shows, employing cost-effectiveness research for determining price ceilings, dental care coverage in health insurance packages, control strategies drug price, and on-line video consultation are some strategies implemented in developed countries. But developing countries have implemented strategies, such as government support of public health insurance programs, subsidy programs for diseases with high economic burdens, training the physicians, eliminate informal payments, and discharging patients earlier. Strategies such as free screening programs, universal health coverage, pay for performance, promoting the quality of care services and replacing the brand drug with generic have been common in both developed and developing countries. The reason for these differences can be sought in factors such as the medical capacity of countries, per capita government funding, different patterns of disease, the governing system, and the health financing system. A study in Iran cited economic factors, policy factors, social support organizations, insurance, cost of health services, tariffs, health services organizations, providers and consumers’ behaviors, and epidemiological conditions as factors influencing OOP health payments [54].

It should be noted that this study by a research team has reviewed articles related to effective solutions to reduce OOP payments in the health systems of different countries. The search strategy consisted of four electronic databases, and two independent researchers evaluated each article.

This study faces several limitations including limitations related to databases and search strategies by researchers. As well the suggested strategies were not surveyed regarding to effectiveness or cost. Therefore, more studies are needed to check the cost and effectiveness of suggested strategies for reducing OOP.

Conclusion

One of the most important characteristics of successful countries in providing maximum health for their communities is the rationality of the financing method and maximizing the share of the public sector in the share of OOP payments in health services so that people feel comfortable when the disease occurs. In case of disability and poverty, do not give up health services.

The present review identified the importance of each health system's functions that affect the reduction of OOP payments. Given that OOP payments are the worst form of financing in any health system, the strategies proposed and successfully implemented worldwide must be considered by policymakers when making future decisions to target health systems. Approach their goals, which include promoting health, increasing accountability, and equitable financial participation.

Availability of data and materials

Data of this research is available and could be sent upon contact with the corresponding author.

References

  1. World Health Organization. Countries are spending more on health, but people are still paying too much out of their own pockets. 2019.

  2. Kalantari H, Davari M, Akbari M, Hejazi SM, Kalantari M, Zakerin S, et al. The estimation of direct medical costs of treating patients with chronic hepatitis B and C in iran. Int J Prev Med. 2012;3(3):191.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Tarricone R. Cost-of-illness analysis: what room in health economics? Health Policy. 2006;77(1):51–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Sriram S, Khan MM. Effect of health insurance program for the poor on out-of-pocket inpatient care cost in India: evidence from a nationally representative cross-sectional survey. BMC Health Serv Res. 2020;20(1):1–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Garg CC, Karan AK. Reducing out-of-pocket expenditures to reduce poverty: a disaggregated analysis at rural-urban and state level in India. Health Policy Plan. 2009;24(2):116–28.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Hunter WG, Zhang CZ, Hesson A, Davis JK, Kirby C, Williamson LD, et al. What strategies do physicians and patients discuss to reduce out-of-pocket costs? Analysis of cost-saving strategies in 1755 outpatient clinic visits. Med Decis Making. 2016;36(7):900–10.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Baji P, Pavlova M, Gulácsi L, Groot W. Changes in equity in out-of-pocket payments during the period of health care reforms: evidence from Hungary. Int J Equity Health. 2012;11(1):36.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. World Bank: People Spend Half a Trillion Dollars Out-Of-Pocket on Health in Developing Countries Annually. 2019.

  9. World Health Organization.Global spending on health: a world in transition. 2019.

  10. Wagstaff A, Eozenou P, Smitz M. Out-of-pocket expenditures on health: a global stocktake. World Bank Res Obs. 2020;35(2):123–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Tabari-Khomeiran R, Delavari S, Rezaei S, Rad EH, Shahmoradi M. The effect of Iranian health system reform plan on payments and costs of coronary artery bypass surgery in private hospitals of Iran. Int J Hum Rights Healthc. 2019;12(3):208–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. World Health Organization. Developing a national health financing strategy. 2017.

  13. Schofield D, Cunich M, Shrestha R, Passey M, Veerman L, Tanton R, et al. The indirect costs of ischemic heart disease through lost productive life years for Australia from 2015 to 2030: results from a microsimulation model. BMC Public Health. 2019;19(1):1–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Kircher SM, Meeker CR, Nimeiri H, Geynisman DM, Zafar SY, Shankaran V, et al. The parity paradigm: can legislation help reduce the cost burden of oral anticancer medications? Value Health. 2016;19(1):88–98.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Ergo A, Htoo TS, Badiani-Magnusson R, Royono R. A new hope: from neglect of the health sector to aspirations for Universal Health Coverage in Myanmar. Health Policy Plan. 2019;34(Supplement_1):i38–46.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Meda IB, Baguiya A, Ridde V, Ouédraogo HG, Dumont A, Kouanda S. Out-of-pocket payments in the context of a free maternal health care policy in Burkina Faso: a national cross-sectional survey. Heal Econ Rev. 2019;9(1):11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Heydari M, Mehraeen M, Joulaei H. Over Medication and Waste of Resources in Physicians’ Prescriptions: A Cross Sectional Study in Southwestern Iran. Shiraz E Med J. 2020. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.5812/semj.97662.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Dou G, Wang Q, Ying X. Reducing the medical economic burden of health insurance in China: achievements and challenges. Biosci Trends. 2018;12(3):215–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Molla AA, Chi C, Mondaca ALN. Predictors of high out-of-pocket healthcare expenditure: an analysis using Bangladesh household income and expenditure survey, 2010. BMC Health Serv Res. 2017;17(1):94.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Zuvekas SH, Meyerhoefer CD. State variations in the out-of-pocket spending burden for outpatient mental health treatment. Health Aff. 2009;28(3):713–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Orenstein L, Chetrit A, Oberman B, Benderly M, Kalter-Leibovici O. Factors associated with disparities in out-of-pocket expenditure on dental care: results from two cross-sectional national surveys. Isr J Health Policy Res. 2020;9(1):1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Sarnak DO, Squires D, Kuzmak G, Bishop S. Paying for prescription drugs around the world: why is the US an outlier? Issue Br. 2017;2017:1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Miyawaki A, Kobayashi Y. Effect of a medical subsidy on health service utilization among schoolchildren: a community-based natural experiment in Japan. Health Policy. 2019;123(4):353–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Gotsadze G, Bennett S, Ranson K, Gzirishvili D. Health care-seeking behaviour and out-of-pocket payments in Tbilisi, Georgia. Health Policy Plan. 2005;20(4):232–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Starner CI, Alexander GC, Bowen K, Qiu Y, Wickersham PJ, Gleason PJ. Specialty drug coupons lower out-of-pocket costs and may improve adherence at the risk of increasing premiums. Health Aff. 2014;33(10):1761–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Becker NV, Polsky D. Women saw large decrease in out-of-pocket spending for contraceptives after ACA mandate removed cost sharing. Health Aff. 2015;34(7):1204–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Finer LB, Sonfield A, Jones RK. Changes in out-of-pocket payments for contraception by privately insured women during implementation of the federal contraceptive coverage requirement. Contraception. 2014;89(2):97–102.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Bernabé E, Masood M, Vujicic M. The impact of out-of-pocket payments for dental care on household finances in low and middle income countries. BMC Public Health. 2017;17(1):109.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Erus B, Aktakke N. Impact of healthcare reforms on out-of-pocket health expenditures in Turkey for public insurees. Eur J Health Econ. 2012;13(3):337–46.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Rahman MM, Gilmour S, Saito E, Sultana P, Shibuya K. Health-related financial catastrophe, inequality and chronic illness in Bangladesh. PLoS One. 2013;8(2):e56873.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Kastor A, Mohanty SK. Disease-specific out-of-pocket and catastrophic health expenditure on hospitalization in India: Do Indian households face distress health financing? PLoS One. 2018;13(5):e0196106.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Bose M, Dutta A. Health financing strategies to reduce out-of-pocket burden in India: a comparative study of three states. BMC Health Serv Res. 2018;18(1):830.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Jian W, Lu M, Chan KY, Poon AN, Han W, Hu M, et al. Payment reform pilot in Beijing hospitals reduced expenditures and out-of-pocket payments per admission. Health Aff. 2015;34(10):1745–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Rahman MM, Zhang C, Swe KT, Rahman MS, Islam MR, Kamrujjaman M, et al. Disease-specific out-of-pocket healthcare expenditure in urban Bangladesh: a Bayesian analysis. PLoS One. 2020;15(1):e0227565.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Khan JA, Ahmed S, Sultana M, Sarker AR, Chakrovorty S, Rahman MH, et al. The effect of a community-based health insurance on the out-of-pocket payments for utilizing medically trained providers in Bangladesh. Int Health. 2020;12(4):287–98.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Tobe M, Stickley A, del Rosario Jr RB, Shibuya K. Out-of-pocket medical expenses for inpatient care among beneficiaries of the National Health Insurance Program in the Philippines. Health Policy Plan. 2013;28(5):536–48.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Aryeetey GC, Westeneng J, Spaan E, Jehu-Appiah C, Agyepong IA, Baltussen R. Can health insurance protect against out-of-pocket and catastrophic expenditures and also support poverty reduction? Evidence from Ghana’s National Health Insurance Scheme. Int J Equity Health. 2016;15(1):116.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Rout SK, Choudhury S. Does public health system provide adequate financial risk protection to its clients? Out of pocket expenditure on inpatient care at secondary level public health institutions: causes and determinants in an eastern Indian state. Int J Health Plann Manage. 2018;33(2):e500–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. McIntyre WF, Belesiotis P, McClure GR, Demers C, Chahill G, Hayes A, et al. Strategies to reduce out-of-pocket medication costs for Canadians living with heart failure. Cardiovasc Drugs Ther. 2020. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1007/s10557-020-07046-1.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Hill SC. Individual insurance benefits to be available under health reform would have cut out-of-pocket spending in 2001–08. Health Aff. 2012;31(6):1349–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Aji B, De Allegri M, Souares A, Sauerborn R. The impact of health insurance programs on out-of-pocket expenditures in Indonesia: an increase or a decrease? Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2013;10(7):2995–3013.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Shahrawat R, Rao KD. Insured yet vulnerable: out-of-pocket payments and India’s poor. Health Policy Plan. 2012;27(3):213–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Baird KE. The financial burden of out-of-pocket expenses in the United States and Canada: how different is the United States? SAGE Open Med. 2016;4:2050312115623792.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. Loh P, Sabesan S, Allen D, Caldwell P, Mozer R, Komesaroff PA, et al. Practical aspects of telehealth: financial considerations. Intern Med J. 2013;43(7):829–34.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Alexander GC, Casalino LP, Meltzer DO. Physician strategies to reduce patients’ out-of-pocket prescription costs. Arch Intern Med. 2005;165(6):633–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Cutler TW, Stebbins MR, Smith AR, Patel RA, Lipton HL. Promoting access and reducing expected out-of-pocket prescription drug costs for vulnerable medicare beneficiaries: a pharmacist-directed model. Med Care. 2011;1:343–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Dodson SE, Ruisinger JF, Howard PA, Hare SE, Barnes BJ. Community pharmacy-based medication therapy management services: financial impact for patients. Pharm Pract. 2012;10(3):119.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Atella V, Brugiavini A, Pace N. The health care system reform in China: effects on out-of-pocket expenses and saving. China Econ Rev. 2015;34:182–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Meng Z, Ma Y, Song S, Li Y, Wang D, Si Y, et al. Economic implications of chinese diagnosis-related group-based payment systems for critically Ill patients in ICUs. Crit Care Med. 2020;48(7):e565–73.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Miljeteig I, Defaye FB, Wakim P, Desalegn DN, Berhane Y, Norheim OF, et al. Financial risk protection at the bedside: How Ethiopian physicians try to minimize out-of-pocket health expenditures. PLoS One. 2019;14(2):e0212129.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. Harvey SC, Vegesna A, Mass S, Clarke J, Skoufalos A. Understanding patient options, utilization patterns, and burdens associated with breast cancer screening. J Womens Health. 2014;23(S1):S-3-S-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. World Health Organization. The world health report 2000: health systems: improving performance. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Asefzadeh S, Alijanzadeh M, Peyravian F. Out of pocket expenditures for outpatient clinics in teaching hospitals. Payesh. 2014;13(3):267–76.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Kavosi Z, Lankarani KB, Dehnavieh R, Ghorbanian A. Influential factors of out of pocket payments for health care in Iran: A foresight approach using the cross impact analysis. J Pak Med Assoc. 2020;70(11):1918–26.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Authors would like to thank Shiraz University of Medical Sciences (SUMS) for financial support of the research.

Funding

The study has been funded by Shiraz University of Medical Sciences (SUMS) under the code of 23113.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Student Research Committee, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran

    Faride Sadat Jalali & Parisa Bikineh

  2. Health Human Resources Research Center, School of Health Management and Information Sciences, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran

    Sajad Delavari

Authors
  1. Faride Sadat Jalali
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Parisa Bikineh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sajad Delavari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

FSJ and PB did the search and screaning and data extraction. SD raised the research idea and supervises all phase of the research. All authors have equal contribution in drafting and reviewing the manuscript. All authors have read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sajad Delavari.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The study protocol has been approved by ethics committee of Shiraz University of Medical Sciences under the code of IR.SUMS.REC.1400.030.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare they have no competing interest regarding to this research.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix 1

Appendix 1

See Tables 4 and 5.

Table 4 A draft chart of data extraction
Full size table
Table 5 Selected Studies on out of pocket reducing strategies
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Jalali, F.S., Bikineh, P. & Delavari, S. Strategies for reducing out of pocket payments in the health system: a scoping review. Cost Eff Resour Alloc 19, 47 (2021). https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1186/s12962-021-00301-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1186/s12962-021-00301-8

Keywords

Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation

ISSN: 1478-7547

Contact us