↓ Skip to main content

Pharmaceutical Pricing Policy in Greece: Toward a Different Path

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Public Health, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
30 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Pharmaceutical Pricing Policy in Greece: Toward a Different Path
Published in
Frontiers in Public Health, August 2016
DOI 10.3389/fpubh.2016.00185
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kyriakos Souliotis, Manto Papageorgiou, Anastasia Politi, Athanasios Athanasiadis

Abstract

Affordable, accessible, and innovation-promoting pharmaceutical care is essential to the operation of a sustainable health system. External reference pricing (ERP), a common pharmaceutical policy in Europe, suffers today from indigenous weaknesses that may cause market distortions and barriers to care, burdening mostly the weak economies, and hence, raising ethical and political worrying. A non-randomized experiment was conducted, in order to examine the influence of flexible and adaptable to health systems' affordability ERP structures. Outcomes were assessed by measuring deviations from Greek prices' level ex ante, as well as effects on pharmaceutical markets affiliated to the European ERP system. Pharmaceutical pricing models that fit prices to income and affordability are better in all aspects, as they produce fairer results, while resulting in low external costs for the European ERP network as a whole. Small sets of reference countries are preferred to large baskets, as they produce similar results, while presenting better qualities by increasing the flexibility of the reimbursement system and the transparency of the market.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 30 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 30 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 23%
Researcher 5 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 17%
Student > Bachelor 1 3%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 3%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 11 37%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 17%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 5 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 7%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 7%
Decision Sciences 1 3%
Other 3 10%
Unknown 12 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 April 2018.
All research outputs
#14,270,031
of 22,884,315 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Public Health
#3,587
of 10,014 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#194,722
of 337,459 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Public Health
#40
of 78 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,884,315 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,014 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 337,459 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 78 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.