Abstract
ObjectivesRestrictions on retail purchases of pseudoephedrine are one regulatory approach to reduce the social costs of methamphetamine production and use, but may impose costs on legitimate users of nasal decongestants. This is the first study to evaluate the costs of restricting access to medications on consumer welfare. Our objective was to measure the inconvenience cost consumers place on restrictions for cold medication purchases including identification requirements, purchase limits, over-the-counter availability, prescription requirements, and the active ingredient.MethodsWe conducted a contingent choice experiment with Amazon Mechanical Turk workers that presented participants with randomized, hypothetical product prices and combinations of restrictions that reflect the range of public policies. We used a conditional logit model to calculate willingness-to-accept each restriction.ResultsRespondents’ willingness-to-accept prescription requirements was $14.17 ($9.76–$18.58) and behind-the-counter restrictions was $9.68 ($7.03–$12.33) per box of pseudoephedrine product. Participants were willing to pay $4.09 ($1.66–$6.52) per box to purchase pseudoephedrine-based products over phenylephrine-based products.ConclusionsRestricting access to medicines as a means of reducing the social costs of non-medical use can imply large inconvenience costs for legitimate consumers. These results are relevant to discussions of retail access restrictions on other medications.
Highlights
Restricting access to medicines as a means of reducing the social costs of non-medical use can imply large inconvenience costs for legitimate consumers. These results are relevant to discussions of retail access restrictions on other medications
Methamphetamine use is a significant social ill that has been linked to personal consequences ranging from dropping out of school [1] to heart attacks [2], and social consequences from violent behavior [3] to increased infectious disease transmission [4]
Due to these social costs, policies have been enacted since the early 1990s to curtail domestic access to pseudo in an effort to reduce domestic meth synthesis and, consumption via the policy’s effect on meth availability and prices
Summary
Restrictions on retail purchases of pseudoephedrine are one regulatory approach to reduce the social costs of methamphetamine production and use, but may impose costs on legitimate users of nasal decongestants. This is the first study to evaluate the costs of restricting access to medications on consumer welfare. Data Availability Statement: All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files. Gov, KF SC) and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (Public Health Law Research award 70509, http://publichealthlawresearch.org/, KF SC). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
