ReviewPharmacoEconomics1997
Drug rationing in the UK National Health Service. Current status and future prospects.
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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The impact of health economics on healthcare delivery. A primary care perspective.PharmacoEconomics · 2000Article
- The influence of hospital-based prescribers on prescribing in general practice.PharmacoEconomics · 1999Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
10170459What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.