People perceive medicine to be more vital when it's low-cost, study finds

(Medical Xpress)—People may think it's more vital to take their medicine, if that medicine is cheap. A new study from the W. P. Carey School of Business at Arizona State University shows consumers believe prices for lifesaving products are based on need and not profit. Therefore, they often assume their risk of getting a serious illness is higher when the medicine is less expensive, and they're also more likely to plan to get the treatment, including flu shots.

"We find that people have a fundamental belief that everyone should have access to lifesaving care, such as vaccines, doctor's visits, like , and cancer treatments," says Adriana Samper, assistant professor in the W. P. Carey School of Business. "Nobody wants anyone to die because they didn't have the resources to cover the treatment. Therefore, they believe communal pricing (based on need), rather than the normal market pricing for other goods, applies in these situations. They expect medicine for a serious illness to be inexpensive."

Samper's new marketing study, co-authored with Assistant Professor Janet Schwartz of Tulane University, will appear in the April edition of the . In a series of experiments, the researchers demonstrated several interesting points about medication pricing, and those points held true, even if insurance – not the consumer – was going to pay for the treatments.

In the first experiment, participants in an online study were asked to evaluate 10 products and services based on whether they were priced for "communal" purposes or market value. Vaccines, doctor's visits and drugs used to prevent serious illnesses all ranked as being driven by communal pricing, while items like tax-preparation services, items and home electronics all ranked as market-driven.

In the next experiment, online participants were asked about a fictitious cream described as either preventing or preventing age spots. The cream was also offered at a low price of $25 or a high price of $250. Price had no effect on attitudes toward the cosmetic cream, but when the skin- was only $25, respondents believed they needed it more – that they were at higher risk for the disease.

"We see the same thing for a ," says Samper. "People are more concerned about getting the disease and addressing prevention if the is cheaper. That's an important note for health officials during our especially tough flu season right now."

A third experiment showed participants an ad for the same cream, with the same image, but slightly different versions of text, again reflecting whether the cream was for skin-cancer prevention or cosmetic purposes. The two different price points were offered in each case. Consumers were much more likely to keep reading the ad and planned to pursue the treatment in the case where the cream was for skin cancer and the price was lower. This happened even when insurance was going to pay for the cream at either price.

"This implies a possible problem with the recent push for price transparency," adds Samper. "In some cases, high prices may signal lower self-risk, and people may not think it's important to get needed treatments just because the cost is high."

In the last experiment, the researchers tested the effects of different types of messages meant to encourage people to get flu shots. They used the two prices again and also varied whether the flu's consequences were described as self-focused – such as missing work or paying medical bills if you got the flu – or societally-focused – such as getting other people sick or hurting economic productivity with the flu's spread. Very clearly, individuals again increased their assumption of risk and intentions to get the vaccine in response to lower price, but only when the message focused on personal consequences of the flu.

"Therefore, public health officials should take note: Ads emphasizing the protection of other people do not appear to convince people to get vaccinated," say Samper. "People respond best to messages that emphasize how illness will personally affect them."

More information: The full study can be found at www.jstor.org/stable/info/10.1086/668639

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Government urges universal flu vaccinations

Aug 23, 2010

Flu vaccine will soon be available at local pharmacies and doctor's offices, and government officials are urging everyone over 6 months of age to receive it. This year's vaccine protects against H1N1 and two other strains ...

Recommended for you

Seniors successfully withdraw from meds

Sep 19, 2014

Elderly people have proved receptive to being de-prescribed medications, as part of a trial aimed at assessing the feasibility of withdrawal of medications among older people.

Flu vaccine for expectant moms a top priority

Sep 18, 2014

Only about half of all pregnant women in the U.S. get a flu shot each season, leaving thousands of moms-to-be and their babies at increased risk of serious illness.

Experts want restrictions on testosterone drug use (Update)

Sep 17, 2014

Federal health experts said Wednesday there is little evidence that testosterone-boosting drugs are effective for treating common signs of aging in men and that their use should be narrowed to exclude millions of Americans ...

User comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

gwrede
not rated yet Feb 01, 2013
I think people perceive expensive medicines as a rip-off, while reasonably priced medicine signals an honest source, who is in it for the results, and not for the money.