The effects of fundholding in general practice on prescribing habits three years after introduction of the scheme.

OBJECTIVES--To observe changes in prescribing practice that occurred after the introduction of fundholding in first wave practices and to contrast these with changes occurring in similar non-fundholding practices. DESIGN--Prospective observational study. SETTING--Oxford region fundholding study. SUBJECTS--Eight first wave fundholding practices and five practices that were not interested in fundholding in 1990-1, which were similar in terms of practice size, training status, locality, and urban rural mix. Three of the fundholding and none of the non-fundholding practices were dispensing practices. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES--Changes in prescribing practice as measured by net cost per prescribing unit, cost per item, number of items prescribed, and substitution rates for generic drugs three years after the introduction of fundholding. Data for fundholding practices were analysed separately according to whether they were dispensing or non-dispensing practices. RESULTS--Prescribing costs rose by a third or more in all types of practice. The patterns of change observed in this cohort after one year of fundholding were reversed. No evidence existed that fundholding had controlled prescribing costs among non-dispensing fundholders; costs among dispensing fundholders rose least, but the differences were small compared with the overall increase in costs. CONCLUSIONS--Early reports of the effectiveness of fundholding in curbing prescribing costs have not been confirmed in this longer term study.     

Effect of NHS reforms on general practitioners' referral patterns.

OBJECTIVE--To compare outpatient referral patterns in fundholding and non-fundholding practices before and after the implementation of the NHS reforms in April 1991. DESIGN--Prospective collection of data on general practitioners'' referrals to specialist outpatient clinics between June 1990 and March 1992 and detailed comparison of two time periods: October 1990 to March 1991 (phase 1) and October 1991 to March 1992 (phase 2). SETTING--10 fundholding practices and six non-fundholding practices in the Oxford region. SUBJECTS--Patients referred to consultant outpatient clinics. RESULTS--After implementation of the NHS reforms there was no change in the proportion of referrals from the two groups of practices which crossed district boundaries. Both groups of practices increased their referral rates in phase 2 of the study, the fundholders from 107.3 per 1000 patients per annum (95% confidence interval 106 to 109) to 111.4 (110 to 113) and the non-fundholders from 95.0 (93 to 97) to 112.0 (110 to 114). In phase 2 there was no difference in overall standardised referral rates between fundholders and non-fundholders. Just over 20% of referrals went to private clinics in phase 1. By phase 2 this proportion had reduced by 2.2% (1.0% to 3.4%) among the fundholders and by 2.7% (1.2% to 4.2%) among the non-fundholders. CONCLUSIONS--Referral patterns among fundholders and non-fundholders were strikingly similar after the implementation of the NHS reforms. There was no evidence that fundholding was encouraging a shift from specialist to general practice care or that budgetary pressures were affecting general practitioners'' referral behaviour.     

Influences of practice characteristics on prescribing in fundholding and non-fundholding general practices: an observational study.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the variation in prescribing among general practices by examining the contribution to this variation of fundholding, training status, partnership status, and the level of deprivation in the practice population and to investigate the extent to which fundholding has been responsible for any changes in prescribing. DESIGN: Analysis of prescribing data (PACT) for the years 1990-1 (before fundholding) and 1993-4 (after fundholding), Use of multiple linear regressions to investigate the variation among practices in total prescribing costs (net ingredient cost per prescribing units), and mean cost per item in each of the two years and also the change in these variables between years. SETTING: Former Mersey region. SUBJECTS: 384 practices. RESULTS: The models developed explained the variation in cost per item (43% of variation explained for 1990-1, 38% for 1993-4) and prescribing volume (34% for 1990-1, 38% for 1993-4) better than the variation in total prescribing costs (3% for 1990-1, 7% for 1993-4). The models developed to explain the change in these variables between years did not explain more than 10% of the variation. Most of the explained variation in the change in total prescribing costs was accounted for by fundholding. Of the pounds 3.71 saved by first wave fundholders compared with non-fundholders pounds 3.57 was attributable to fundholding alone. CONCLUSION: In neither year did fundholding make a major contribution to the variation in prescribing behaviour among practices, which was better explained by deprivation, training status, and partnership status, but it did seem largely responsible for differences in the rise of total prescribing costs between fundholders and non fundholders.     

A prescribing incentive scheme for non-fundholding general practices: an observational study.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the effects of a financial incentive scheme on prescribing in non-fundholding general practices. DESIGN: Observational study. SETTING: Non-fundholding general practices in former Northern region in 1993-4. INTERVENTION: Target savings were set for each group of practices; those that achieved them were paid a portion of the savings. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Financial performance; prescribing patterns in major therapeutic groups and some specific therapeutic areas; rates of generic prescribing; and performance against a measure of prescribing quality. SUBJECTS: 459 non-fundholding general practices, grouped into three bands according to the ratio of their indicative prescribing amount to the local average (band A > or = 10% above average, B between average and 10% above, C below average). RESULTS: 102 (23%) of 442 practices achieved their target savings (18%, 19%, and 27% of bands A, B, and C respectively). Band C practices that achieved their target had a lower per capita prescribing frequency for gastrointestinal drugs, inhaled steroids, antidepressants, and hormone replacement therapy. There were no other significant differences in prescribing frequency, and no reduction in the quality of prescribing in achieving practices. Total savings of pounds 1.54 m on indicative prescribing amounts were achieved. Payments from the incentive scheme and discretionary quality awards resulted in pounds 463,000 being returned to practices for investment in primary care. CONCLUSIONS: The prescribing behaviour of non-fundholding general practitioners responded to financial incentives in a similar way to that of fundholding practitioners. The incentive scheme did not seem to reduce the quality of prescribing.     

Distribution of NHS funds between fundholding and non-fundholding practices.

OBJECTIVES--To estimate the amount spent on specific hospital care by health agencies in 1993-4 and compare it with the resources allocated to patients registered with fundholding practices for the same type of care. To investigate whether fundholding practices and health agencies pay different amounts for inpatient care. DESIGN--Examination of hospital episode statistics, 1991 census data, and family health services authority and health agency records. SETTING--Health agencies and fundholding practices in the former North West Thames Regional Health Authority. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES--Amount per capita allocated to inpatient and outpatient care for patients registered with fundholding and non-fundholding practices. Average specialty cost per finished consultant episode for health agencies and fundholding practices. RESULTS--The ratio of per capita funding for patients in non-fundholding practices to those in fundholding practices ranged from 59% to 87% for inpatient and day case care and from 36% to 106% for outpatient care. Average specialty costs per episode were similar for fundholding practices and health agencies. CONCLUSIONS--Fundholding practices seem to have been funded more generously than non-fundholding practices in North West Thames.     

Can there be fair funding for fundholding practices?

Most regional health authorities set budgets for fundholding practices according to the amount of care used by the practice population. This article explains why this funding method can only lead to an inequitable allocation of resources between fundholding and non-fundholding practices. Using the experience of North West Thames region, the efforts made to make funding fairer are discussed. The steps that health authorities could take to investigate and reduce the problem are also outlined. In the absence of a capitation formula for funding fundholding practices, the paper suggests that health authorities should do much more to investigate the amount of money they spend on non-fundholding practices. Regions could develop and use other methods to set budgets rather than rely on activity recorded by practices. Regions and the Department of Health should resolve urgently if and how far the budgets for fundholders should be compensated for increases in provider prices.     

Non-fundholding in Nottingham: a vision of the future.

The 1991 health service reforms introduced the internal market and grave individual fundholding practices budgets with which they could attempt to secure preferential access to secondary health care for their patients. In the view of many doctors this undermined the principle of equity on which the NHS was founded. In Nottingham 200 non-fundholding general practitioners have joined together to act in liaison with their purchasing health authority. A committed representative group of general practitioners can collectively offer more time and knowledge to the contracting process while minimising the impact on clinical workload. As a large purchaser with low management costs the group has secured access to quality secondary care which is equitably available to all patients, preventing the development of a local two tier service. Nottingham''s non-fundholding model of commissioning is equitable and efficient.     

The extent of the two tier service for fundholders.

OBJECTIVE--To examine possible differential changes in outpatient referrals to orthopaedic clinics, attendances, and waiting times between fundholding and non-fundholding general practitioners. DESIGN--Observational controlled study of referrals by general practitioners to orthopaedic outpatients between April 1991 and March 1995. SETTING--District health authority in south-west England. SUBJECTS--10 fundholding practices with 108,300 registered patients; 22 control practices with 159,900 registered patients. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES--Changes in age standardised referral and outpatient attendance ratios for the year before and the two years after achieving fundholder status; changes in outpatient waiting times. RESULTS--In the year before achieving fundholding status both groups were referring more patients than were being seen. Two years later, referral and attendance ratios had increased by 13% and 36% respectively for fundholders and 32% and 59% for controls, and both groups were referring fewer patients than were being seen. Attendances represented 112% of referrals for fundholders and 104% for controls. In 1991-2, a similar proportion of patients in the two groups was seen within three months of referral. The two hospitals that set up specific clinics exclusively for fundholders showed faster access for patients of fundholders by 1993-4, as did a third hospital without such clinics by 1994-5. CONCLUSIONS--Fundholders increased their orthopaedic referrals less than did controls and achieved a better balance between outpatient appointments and referrals. Their patients were likely to be seen more quickly, particularly if the hospital provided special clinics exclusively for fundholders. Lack of case mix information makes it impossible to judge whether these differences benefit or disadvantage patients.     

Fundholding: a two tier system?

The Calverton practice is one of 30 fundholding practices in Nottinghamshire. Three years after the inception of fundholding, it has achieved a lower outpatient waiting time for its specialist clinics than non-fundholding practices in the region. Its district nursing and health visiting services have been strengthened. Prescribing costs remain below the national average, and making further cost reductions has not been easy. The business plan has allowed the practice to work within a defined budget and develop expertise in the purchasing of services. Through the provision of specialist clinics and increased patient demand the workload of general practitioners has risen by 15% in the past year. But fundholding is still a minority activity in Nottinghamshire--a non-fundholders'' group has been set up to ensure that purchasing of good quality secondary care is equitably distributed among all patients, and this group is extremely active.     

Transferring the costs of expensive treatments from secondary to primary care.

General practitioners, especially fundholders, are becoming increasingly concerned about being asked to prescribe treatments for their patients that are outside their therapeutic experience. They are concerned about the clinical responsibility for such prescribing and the effects on their budgets. In some specialties transferring the costs of expensive treatments from secondary to primary care (cost shifting) has become partly institutionalised because of the separate sources of funding for drugs prescribed in the two sectors. With increased efforts to control the rising costs of the drugs budget and the emergence of new expensive treatments, cost shifting will be a challenge to clinicians and purchasers as they strive for rational, cost effective prescribing. A review of the funding mechanisms for drugs prescribing and of the relation between the licensing process and the decision to support the use of a treatment in primary or secondary care is needed.     

Age,sex, and temporary resident originated prescribing units (ASTRO-PUs): new weightings for analysing prescribing of general practices in England.

OBJECTIVE--To derive demographic weightings to replace the existing system of prescribing units used in analysing prescribing by general practitioners in England. DESIGN--The prescribing data for one year from a sample of 90 practices in 80 family health service authority areas were used to calculate the relative frequency with which items were prescribed, for each sex, in nine age bands and for temporary residents. Data on the variation in cost per item by age and sex then allowed estimates to be made of the relative costs for these groups. Integer values for both the item based and cost based weightings were obtained by conversion to optimal integer scales. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES--Item based and cost based weightings for each of the 18 age-sex groups and for temporary residents. The cost based weightings were considered more appropriate to the context in which the new system was to be used. RESULTS--Prescribing costs increased noticeably, for both sexes, in the middle years (ages 35-64). Compared with the existing system, the cost based weightings (ASTRO-PUs) gave greater weight to patients aged 45 and over, especially those in the 55-64 age band, at the expense of younger patients. Children under 5 received twice as many items as those aged 5-14, but the inexpensiveness of their drugs made the cost based weightings of the two groups equal. Similarly, women were generally given more items than men, but at a lower average cost per item, which reduced differences between the sexes in the cost based weightings. Costs for patients aged 75 and over, compared with those aged 65-74, were higher only for women. CONCLUSIONS--The cost based weightings proposed are believed to reflect the present distribution of prescribing costs, in relation to age and sex, in English general practice. They are intended for use in analyses at practice level.     

General practitioner fundholding: experience in Grampian.

Proposals for fundholding were greeted with scepticism by many general practitioners, and in Scotland the BMA persuaded the government to allow a scheme to test the arrangements as a demonstration project operating "shadow" practice funds. This allowed the six selected practices to set up administrative and computer systems without the worry of dealing with real money. The shadow fundholding scheme has since been extended to small practices and to a trial of fundholding for all services except accident and emergency. The six practices in the original pilot have all become fundholders and are beginning to effect improvements in the service to their patients. However, with more practices becoming fundholders negotiating contracts with providers is becoming increasingly complicated and more time and money needs to be put into this aspect.