Evidence map›Paper›PMID 8978232›Full record

ArticleBMJ (Clinical research ed.)1996

Fundholders' prescribing costs: the first five years.

C M Harris, G Scrivener

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 1996. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pharmaceutical policies: effects of financial incentives for prescribers.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2015
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. The impact of physician-level drug budgets on prescribing behavior.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2018
    Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. A healthy disposition? The use and limitations of the characteristics approach to general practice research.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2001
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Do GPs working in practice with high or low prescribing costs have different views on prescribing cost issues?The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2000
    Article
  15. Review
  16. Therapeutic substitution and therapeutic conservatism as cost-containment strategies in primary care: a study of fundholders and non-fundholders.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 1999
    Article
  17. Primary care groups and the right to prescribe.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 1998
    Article
  18. A comparison of three methods of setting prescribing budgets, using data derived from defined daily dose analyses of historic patterns of use.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 1998
    Article
  19. 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

2 authors.

C M HarrisPrescribing Research Unit, University of Leeds Research School of Medicine.
G Scrivener

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo determine whether the first five waves of English fundholding practices have reduced their prescribing costs relative to non-fundholding practices, and the duration of any reduction achieved.

designAnalysis of item and cost data for all general practices in England in the six years from April 1990 to March 1996. The practices of each of the first five waves were identified at the Prescription Pricing Authority.

settingAll general practices in England.

main outcome measuresChanges and rates of change in net ingredient cost per prescribing unit, and changes in number of items per prescribing unit in fundholding practices, before and after fundholding, relative to continuing non-fundholders.

resultsAbsolute prescribing costs increased over the six years, by 66% in the continuing non-fundholders and by 56-59% for fundholders. Successive waves of fundholders showed a similar pattern of change: a small relative reduction in the pre-fundholding year, maximum relative reduction in the first year, and a declining relative reduction in the second and third years. After this, their increases in costs were largely similar to those of non-fundholders. The number of items dispensed remained stable over the six years in all groups.

conclusionsThe real budgets operated by fundholders were associated with a reduction in costs of about 6% relative to continuing non-fundholders, and this saving seemed to be retained during the study. The relative reduction was small compared with the absolute increase seen in all groups and disappeared after the third year of fundholding. It was brought about by lowering the average cost per item rather than by giving fewer items.

Indexed as

BudgetsDrug CostsDrug PrescriptionsDrug UtilizationEnglandFamily PracticeHumansPractice Patterns, Physicians'State Medicine

Identifiers

PMID8978232
PMCPMC2353056

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.