ArticleBMJ global health2025
Assessing the role of Australia's Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme as a tool for addressing inequality in access to medications and allocation of public funds for pregnant women.
Article in BMJ global health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionMedication use during pregnancy is common, and socioeconomic disparities in access may contribute to maternal and fetal health inequalities. This study examines socioeconomic disparities in access to and expenditure on medications dispensed through Australia's Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS), evaluating its role in promoting equal access to medications for pregnant women.
methodsWe analysed the Maternity1000 linked administrative dataset, which includes data on 57 443 women who gave birth in Queensland, Australia, between 1 July 2017 and 30 June 2018. Socioeconomic quintiles were assigned using the Index of Relative Socioeconomic Disadvantage. Medication prevalence rates, usage proportions and costs (2022/2023 Australian dollar) were calculated, followed by concentration curves and indices to assess inequality.
resultsMedication prevalence was higher among more disadvantaged women (Q1 (most disadvantaged): 67% vs Q5 (least disadvantaged): 60%), who were also dispensed a higher average number of medications per pregnancy (Q1: 2.8 (95% CI 2.7 to 2.9) vs Q5: 2.4 (95% CI 2.3 to 2.5)). However, the total medication cost (patient contribution amount plus public subsidy) was, on average, lower for these women (Q1: $45 (95% CI 43 to 46) vs Q5: $52 (95% CI 50 to 54)), indicating potential disparities in access to newer, higher cost treatments. The unadjusted concentration index suggested mild pro-poor inequality in access (CI=-0.031; p<0.001), which was attenuated and statistically insignificant after adjusting for maternal demographic and clinical characteristics (CI
conclusionThe PBS facilitates equitable access to publicly funded medications for pregnant women. However, the uniform distribution of public funds across socioeconomic groups suggests possible limitations in progressivity, as public subsidies are not disproportionately benefiting the most disadvantaged women overall. This may reflect missed opportunities to distribute public funds more effectively and efficiently, particularly if disadvantaged women are under-represented in access to newer, higher cost therapies, and warrants ongoing evaluation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.