pdf-icon.jpg

print-icon.png

email-icon.png

 

 

Data Brief | | October 2024

New Hampshire Survey Respondents Worry about High Drug Costs; Support a Range of Government Solutions

According to a survey of more than 1,400 New Hampshire adults, conducted from March 26 to May 14,
2024, respondents across the state are concerned about prescription drug costs and express a strong
desire for policymakers to enact solutions.

More than half (53%) of survey respondents reported being somewhat or very worried about affording
the cost of prescription drugs. Worry varied by income group, with respondents in households making
between $75,000 - $100,000 and less than $50,000 per year experiencing the most worry (see Figure
1).1 However, it is important to note that almost half (47%) of those making more than $100,000 per year
also reported worrying about the cost of prescription drugs.


NewHampshire_Rx_Figure1.png


In addition to the concerns about affording prescription drugs in the future, the survey reveals that a
quarter of respondents (25%) have had to ration medication due to cost concerns in the last year, which
for the purpose of this brief is defined as not filling a prescription, cutting pills in half or skipping a dose
(see Figure 2).

Respondents of Color and those who are a member of the LGBTQIA2S+ community reported the highest
rates of rationing medications due to cost, followed by those with lower-incomes and those living in
households with a person with a disability. However, these hardships are also prevalent in households of all demographics (see Table 1).


NewHampshire_Rx_Figure2.png


NewHampshire_Rx_Table1.png


Considering the challenges respondents reported concerning prescription drug affordability, as well as
concerns about high health care costs generally,2 it is not surprising that New Hampshire respondents are
generally dissatisfied with the health care system. In fact, just 25% of respondents agreed or strongly
agreed that the United States health care system is "great," while 78% agreed or strongly agreed that the
United States health care system needs to change.

New Hampshire respondents also frequently reported that they believe that pricing decisions made by
drug companies are a major reason for high health care costs. In fact, out of fifteen options, the most
frequently cited reasons for high health care costs were:

  • 80%—Drug companies charging too much money
  • 76%—Insurance companies charging too much money
  • 69%—Hospitals charging too much money

When it comes to tackling high drug costs, New Hampshire respondents endorsed a number of
prescription drug-related strategies, including:

  • 92%—Cap out-of-pocket costs for life-saving medications, such as insulin;
  • 90%—Authorize the Attorney General to take legal action to prevent price gouging;
  • 89%-Establish a Prescription Drug Affordability Board to examine evidence and establish acceptable costs for prescription drugs;
  • 88%-Set standard prices for drugs to make them affordable; and
  • 88%—Prohibit drug companies from charging more in the U.S. than abroad.

Moreover, there is strong bipartisan support for a variety of policies designed to address unaffordable
prescription drug costs. For example, nearly all (92% of) respondents agreed that drug companies should
be required to provide advance notice of price increases and to provide information to justify those
increases, including 90% of respondents identifying as a Republican, 96% of respondents identifying as a
Democrat and 92% of unaffiliated respondents (see Table 2).


NewHampshire_Rx_Table2.png


While New Hampshire respondents overwhelmingly support government action to address high drug
costs, they also see a role for themselves. Eighty-one percent (81%) would switch from a brand-name to
an equivalent generic drug if given the chance, and 54% have sought or attempted to find the cost of a
prescription drug beforehand.

Conclusion

The high burden of health care and prescription drug affordability, along with high levels of support for
change, suggests that elected leaders and other stakeholders need to make addressing this consumer
burden a top priority. Recent legislative action at both the federal and state levels may positively impact
consumer affordability, specifically for prescription drugs used to treat chronic conditions such as insulin,
epinephrine autoinjectors and asthma inhalers. Annual surveys can help assess whether progress is being made.

Notes

  1. Median household income in New Hampshire was $90,845 (2018-2022). U.S. Census, Quick Facts. Retrieved from: U.S.Census Bureau QuickFacts: New Hampshire
  2. For more detailed information about health care affordability burdens facing New Hampshire respondents, please see Healthcare Value Hub, New Hampshire Residents Struggle to Afford High Health Care Costs; Worry About Affording Health Care in the Future; Support Government Action across Party Lines, Data Brief (July 2024).

Methodology

Altarum's Consumer Healthcare Experience State Survey (CHESS) is designed to elicit respondents' views on a wide range of health system issues, including confidence using the health system, financial burden and possible policy solutions. This survey, conducted from March 26 to May 14, 2024, used a web panel from Dynata with a demographically balanced sample of approximately 1,500 respondents who live in New Hampshire. Information about Dynata's recruitment and compensation methods can be found here. The survey was conducted in English or Spanish and restricted to adults ages 18 and older. Respondents who finished the survey in less than half the median time were excluded from the final sample, leaving 1,328 cases for analysis. After those exclusions, the demographic composition of respondents was as follows, although not all demographic information has complete response rates:

NewHampshire_Rx_Methodology.png

Percentages in the body of the brief are based on weighted values, while the data presented in the demographic table is unweighted. An explanation of weighted versus unweighted variables is available here. Altarum does not conduct statistical calculations on the significance of differences between groups in findings. Therefore, determinations that one group experienced a significantly different affordability burden than another should not be inferred. Rather, comparisons are for conversational purposes. The groups selected for this brief were selected by advocate partners in each state based on organizational/advocacy priorities. We do not report any estimates under N=100 and a co-efficient of variance more than 0.30.