Evidence map›Paper›PMID 10170459›Full record

ReviewPharmacoEconomics1997

Drug rationing in the UK National Health Service. Current status and future prospects.

T Walley, A Haycox, S Barton

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in PharmacoEconomics, 1997. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

T WalleyDepartment of Pharmacology and Therapeutics, University of Liverpool, England. twalley@liv.ac.uk
A Haycox
S Barton

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There are major problems in attempting to ration drug use in the UK. These include the large indigenous pharmaceutical industry, the nature of funding of drugs within the National Health Service (NHS) and the political sensitivities of rationing. Rationing of services within the NHS has therefore usually been implicit rather than explicit, and there is little public debate about rationing of health services. In relation to drug therapy, prescribing in primary care technically can only be rationed by encouraging the general practitioner (GP) to contain his or her own costs-effectively moving the difficult decision to the GP. Direct incentives to the GP, in the form of incentive payments or by fundholding seem to have some success in containing costs, largely by simple generic substitution. There are established systems in hospitals to control the costs of drugs, including formularies and drug management committees. Hospitals commonly try to transfer drug costs to the GP budget. While in part this is clinically appropriate, it can lead to tensions. Health authorities and GP fundholders now include prescribing, particularly at this interface, in their contracts with hospitals. Economic evaluations currently play little part in aiding decisions about choice of drug. These decisions tend to be dominated by the need for short term cost containment in the UK. Recent reforms of the NHS have moved responsibility for the rationing of services to the local authorities or purchasers; this might in time create an additional, local hurdle for pharmaceutical companies trying to market new drugs. A proposal to introduce a national limited formulary in which drugs will be selected partly on the basis of an economic evaluation seems impractical, although similar ideas might be further developed.

Indexed as

Health Care RationingHumansState Medicine

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 OpenQuestion graph.