PATIENTS’ VIEWS ON PUBLIC SUPPORT MECHANISMS IN COELIAC DISEASE IN HUNGARY
Author(s)
Mária M. Angyal, MASc, MSc1, Péter László Lakatos, Phd. MD. DSc2, Valentin Brodszky, MSc, PhD3, Fanni Rencz, PhD., MD., D.Sc.3;
1Semmelweis University, Student, Budapest, Hungary, 2Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary, 3Corvinus University of Budapest, Department of Health Policy, Budapest, Hungary
1Semmelweis University, Student, Budapest, Hungary, 2Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary, 3Corvinus University of Budapest, Department of Health Policy, Budapest, Hungary
OBJECTIVES: In Hungary, public support for patients with diagnosed coeliac disease (CD) is primarily provided through a monthly tax allowance. This study aimed to explore patients’ views on alternative public support mechanisms and the factors influencing them.
METHODS: An online cross-sectional survey was conducted among 312 adult CD patients on gluten-free diet in Hungary (18-80 years). Respondents ranked six public support mechanisms: subsidisation of gluten-free foods, free provision of gluten-free foods, tax allowance, cash benefits, reimbursement of medicines and dietary supplements, and other support options. The relative frequency of each support mechanism chosen as first, second, and subsequent options were computed for each category. Associations between first-choice selections (among the 6 ranked options) and socio-demographic characteristics, gluten-free food expenditure, tax allowance, and comorbidities were explored using chi-square tests.
RESULTS: Subsidisation of gluten-free foods was the most commonly preferred option (first choice: 45.5%), followed by free provision of gluten-free foods (21.5%) and tax allowance (18.9%), while cash benefits and reimbursement of medicines or dietary supplements were consistently ranked lowest. Patients reporting excellent general health status were more likely to select cash-based or other non-food supports, whereas among patients with non-excellent health, food-based options remained the most common first choice (p=0.035). A higher proportion of household spending on gluten-free foods relative to income was associated with an increased likelihood of selecting food-based support options (p=0.044). The first-choice support mechanism was not associated with patients’ sociodemographic characteristics (e.g. age, gender, education), clinical characteristics (e.g. symptoms, comorbidities), or the receipt of tax allowance.
CONCLUSIONS: Hungarian patients with CD most frequently selected support mechanisms that directly reduce the personal cost of gluten-free foods, with subsidisation and free provision as the first-choice options. These findings highlight important patterns in patient priorities and can assist in shaping more patient-oriented public support policies for CD.
METHODS: An online cross-sectional survey was conducted among 312 adult CD patients on gluten-free diet in Hungary (18-80 years). Respondents ranked six public support mechanisms: subsidisation of gluten-free foods, free provision of gluten-free foods, tax allowance, cash benefits, reimbursement of medicines and dietary supplements, and other support options. The relative frequency of each support mechanism chosen as first, second, and subsequent options were computed for each category. Associations between first-choice selections (among the 6 ranked options) and socio-demographic characteristics, gluten-free food expenditure, tax allowance, and comorbidities were explored using chi-square tests.
RESULTS: Subsidisation of gluten-free foods was the most commonly preferred option (first choice: 45.5%), followed by free provision of gluten-free foods (21.5%) and tax allowance (18.9%), while cash benefits and reimbursement of medicines or dietary supplements were consistently ranked lowest. Patients reporting excellent general health status were more likely to select cash-based or other non-food supports, whereas among patients with non-excellent health, food-based options remained the most common first choice (p=0.035). A higher proportion of household spending on gluten-free foods relative to income was associated with an increased likelihood of selecting food-based support options (p=0.044). The first-choice support mechanism was not associated with patients’ sociodemographic characteristics (e.g. age, gender, education), clinical characteristics (e.g. symptoms, comorbidities), or the receipt of tax allowance.
CONCLUSIONS: Hungarian patients with CD most frequently selected support mechanisms that directly reduce the personal cost of gluten-free foods, with subsidisation and free provision as the first-choice options. These findings highlight important patterns in patient priorities and can assist in shaping more patient-oriented public support policies for CD.
Conference/Value in Health Info
2026-05, ISPOR 2026, Philadelphia, PA, USA
Value in Health, Volume 29, Issue S6
Code
PCR125
Topic
Patient-Centered Research
Topic Subcategory
Patient Engagement
Disease
SDC: Gastrointestinal Disorders, SDC: Rare & Orphan Diseases