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.
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.
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
17 citing papers in PubMed, 27 citations in OpenAlex.
- Dispensing practices issue shorter prescription lengths compared with non-dispensing practices: a quasi-experimental cross-sectional study.BJGP open · 2026Article
- Medication Logistics in Professional Homecare Organisations: An Assessment of the Practical Implementation of Regulations and Recommendations.Nursing reports (Pavia, Italy) · 2025Article
- 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 · 2025Article
- Demonstration of autonomous fixed-wing drone delivery of prescribed medications in remote islands in Japan.Journal of general and family medicine · 2025Article
- General practitioners' risk literacy and real-world prescribing of potentially hazardous drugs: a cross-sectional study.BMJ quality & safety · 2024Article
- Explaining the concepts and examples of conflict of interest and its management in the medical laboratory system of Iran: A scoping review.Journal of education and health promotion · 2024Article
- Trends in the Cost of Medicines, Consultation Fees and Clinic Visits in Malaysia's Private Primary Healthcare System: Employer Health Insurance Coverage.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2023Article
- Finding Primary Care-Repurposing Physician Registration Data to Generate a Regionally Accurate List of Primary Care Clinics: Development and Validation of an Open-Source Algorithm.JMIR formative research · 2022Article
- Choice of oral anticoagulant prescribed by general practices in Wales: Application of Dirichlet regression and linked data.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2022Article
- Price versus clinical guidelines in primary care statin prescribing: a retrospective cohort study and cost simulation model.Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine · 2022Article
- The relationship between patients' income and education and their access to pharmacological chronic pain management: A scoping review.Canadian journal of pain = Revue canadienne de la douleur · 2022Article
- Article
- Paths towards Universal Health Coverage: beyond political commitments.Journal of global health · 2021Article
- 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 · 2021Article
- GP prescribing in Northern Ireland by deprivation index: retrospective analysis.Family medicine and community health · 2020Article
- Trends in anticoagulant prescribing: a review of local policies in English primary care.BMC health services research · 2020Article
- Factors Influencing Primary Care Physicians' Adjustment of Oral Anti-Diabetic Drugs in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Qualitative Research Study.Journal of primary care & community healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
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
Identifiers
What 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.