Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2021 Jul 13;14(1):59.
doi: 10.1186/s40545-021-00345-4.

Eliciting the public preferences for pharmaceutical subsidy in Iran: a discrete choice experiment study

Mansoor Delpasand  1 , Alireza Olyaaeemanesh  2 , Ebrahim Jaafaripooyan  1 , Akbar Abdollahiasl  3 , Majid Davari  3 , Ali Kazemi Karyani  4
Affiliations

Eliciting the public preferences for pharmaceutical subsidy in Iran: a discrete choice experiment study

Mansoor Delpasand et al. J Pharm Policy Pract. .

Erratum in

Abstract

Background: Deciding on pharmaceutical subsidy is regarded as a challenging issue for healthcare policymakers in Iran in most times. Public preferences, rarely attended in Iran, could be invaluable for including a particular drug in the list of subsidized medications.

Objectives: The current study aims to elicit the public preferences to develop an evidence-based decision-making framework for entering a drug into the list of subsidies in Iran.

Methods: Discrete Choice Experiment (DCE) was employed to elicit the public preferences. Around 34 attributes were identified based on the systematic review and interview with 51 experts. By holding an expert panel, 7 attributes were finalized, namely: the survival after treatment, quality of life after treatment (QoL), alternative treatment, age group of the target population, cost burden for the government, disease severity, and drug manufacturer country. Next, 1224 households were selected for the survey in the city of Tehran, using random cluster sampling. Data were analyzed using conditional logit model.

Results: The survival after treatment (β = 1.245; SE = 0.053) and disease severity (β =- 0.143; SE = 0.043) had the highest and lowest priority, respectively, in the preferences for allocating subsidy to a drug. In developed region, unlike the other two regions, the level of domestic drug production (β =- 0.302; SE = 0.073) was inversely associated with preferences toward allocating subsidy to a drug. In contrast to other districts, those living in district number one (β = 2.053; SE = 0.138) gave the highest value to promoting the QoL after treatment.

Conclusions: It is suggested that policymakers pay more attention to attributes such as effectiveness and alternative treatment when developing an evidence-based framework for entering a drug into the list of subsidies. This study highlighted the public belief in the government's subsidy for medicines, provided that, this results in an increased survival and QoL.

Keywords: Discrete Choice Experiment; Iran; Medicine; Preferences; Resource allocation; Subsidy.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

None of the authors (AO, AAA, EJP, MD, AKK, MD) have a conflict of interest in respect to this study.

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Hsu M, Anen C, Quartz SR. The right and the good: distributive justice and neural encoding of equity and efficiency. Science. 2008;320(5879):1092–1095. doi: 10.1126/science.1153651. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Singer PA, Martin DK, Giacomini M, Purdy L. Priority setting for new technologies in medicine: qualitative case study. BMJ (Clin Res Ed) 2000;321(7272):1316–1318. doi: 10.1136/bmj.321.7272.1316. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Kapiriri L, Norheim OF. Criteria for priority-setting in health care in Uganda: exploration of stakeholders' values. Bull World Health Organ. 2004;82(3):172–179. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Gilson L, Russell S, Buse K. The political economy of user fees with targeting: developing equitable health financing policy. J Int Dev. 1995;7(3):369–401. doi: 10.1002/jid.3380070305. - DOI
    1. Douw K, Vondeling H, Oortwijn W. Priority setting for horizon scanning of new health technologies in Denmark: views of health care stakeholders and health economists. Health Policy (Amsterdam, Netherlands) 2006;76(3):334–345. doi: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2005.06.016. - DOI - PubMed