Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30813120›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2019

Do doctors in dispensing practices with a financial conflict of interest prescribe more expensive drugs? A cross-sectional analysis of English primary care prescribing data.

Ben Goldacre, Carl Reynolds, Anna Powell-Smith, Alex J Walker, Tom A Yates, Richard Croker, Liam Smeeth

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 27 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Variation in duration of repeat prescriptions: a primary care cohort study in England.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Medication adherence and clinical outcomes in dispensing and non-dispensing practices: a cross-sectional analysis.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2021
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. 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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Ben GoldacreThe DataLab, Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Primary Care Health Sciences, Oxford, UK.
Carl ReynoldsNational Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Anna Powell-SmithThe DataLab, Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Primary Care Health Sciences, Oxford, UK.
Alex J WalkerThe DataLab, Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Primary Care Health Sciences, Oxford, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-4932-6135
Tom A YatesInstitute for Global Health, London, UK.
Richard CrokerThe DataLab, Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Primary Care Health Sciences, Oxford, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-8114-9186
Liam SmeethEpidemiology and Population Health, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
University of Oxford · GBImperial College London · GBLondon School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine · GB

Funding

Wellcome Trust 201291/Z/16/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesApproximately one in eight practices in primary care in England are 'dispensing practices' with an in-house dispensary providing medication directly to patients. These practices can generate additional income by negotiating lower prices on higher cost drugs, while being reimbursed at a standard rate. They, therefore, have a potential financial conflict of interest around prescribing choices. We aimed to determine whether dispensing practices are more likely to prescribe high-cost options for four commonly prescribed classes of drug where there is no evidence of superiority for high-cost options.

designA list was generated of drugs with high acquisition costs that were no more clinically effective than those with the lowest acquisition costs, for all four classes of drug examined. Data were obtained prescribing of statins, proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) and ACE inhibitors (ACEis). Logistic regression was used to calculate ORs for prescribing high-cost options in dispensing practices, adjusting for Index of Multiple Deprivation score, practice list size and the number of doctors at each practice.

settingEnglish primary care.

participantsAll general practices in England.

main outcome measuresMean cost per dose was calculated separately for dispensing and non-dispensing practices. Dispensing practices can vary in the number of patients they dispense to; we, therefore, additionally compared practices with no dispensing patients, low, medium and high proportions of dispensing patients. Total cost savings were modelled by applying the mean cost per dose from non-dispensing practices to the number of doses prescribed in dispensing practices.

resultsDispensing practices were more likely to prescribe high-cost drugs across all classes: statins adjusted OR 1.51 (95% CI 1.49 to 1.53, p<0.0001), PPIs OR 1.11 (95% CI 1.09 to 1.13, p<0.0001), ACEi OR 2.58 (95% CI 2.46 to 2.70, p<0.0001), ARB OR 5.11 (95% CI 5.02 to 5.20, p<0.0001). Mean cost per dose in pence was higher in dispensing practices (statins 7.44 vs 6.27, PPIs 5.57 vs 5.46, ACEi 4.30 vs 4.24, ARB 11.09 vs 8.19). For all drug classes, the more dispensing patients a practice had, the more likely it was to issue a prescription for a high-cost option. Total cost savings in England available from all four classes are £628 875 per month or £7 546 502 per year.

conclusionsDoctors in dispensing practices are more likely to prescribe higher cost drugs. This is the largest study ever conducted on dispensing practices, and the first contemporary research suggesting some UK doctors respond to a financial conflict of interest in treatment decisions. The reimbursement system for dispensing practices may generate unintended consequences. Robust routine audit of practices prescribing higher volumes of unnecessarily expensive drugs may help reduce costs.

Indexed as

Conflict of InterestPractice Patterns, Physicians'Cost SavingsCross-Sectional StudiesDrug CostsDrug PrescriptionsDrugs, GenericEnglandHumansLogistic ModelsPharmaceutical PreparationsPrimary Health CareDrugs, GenericPharmaceutical Preparationsconflict of interestdispensing practicesprescribing

Identifiers

PMID30813120
PMCPMC6377511
OpenAlexW2912839518

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.