Effect of fundholding and indicative prescribing schemes on general practitioners' prescribing costs.

OBJECTIVE--To compare general practitioners'' prescribing costs in fundholding and non-fundholding practices before and after implementation of the NHS reforms in April 1991. DESIGN--Analysis of prescribing and cost information (PACT data; levels 2 and 3) over two six month periods in 1991 and 1992. SETTING--Oxford region. PARTICIPANTS--Three dispensing fundholding practices; five non-dispensing fundholding practices; and seven non-dispensing, non-fundholding practices. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES--Percentage change in net cost of ingredients, number of items prescribed, average cost per item, and proportion of generic drugs prescribed after NHS reforms. RESULTS--Prescribing costs increased in all practices in the six months after the reforms. The net costs of ingredients increased among dispensing fundholders by 10.2%, among non-dispensing fundholders by 13.2%, and among non-fundholders by 18.7%. The number of items prescribed also increased in all three groups (by 5.2%, 7.5%, and 6.1% respectively). The increase in average cost per item was 4.8% for dispensing fundholders, 5.3% for non-dispensing fundholders, and 11.9% for non-fundholders. Dispensing fundholders increased the proportion of generic drugs prescribed from 26.9% to 34.5% and non-dispensing fundholders from 44.5% to 48.7%; non-fundholders showed no change (47%). Five of the eight fundholding practices made savings in their drugs budgets at the end of the first year of fundholding (range 2.9-10.7%; the three other practices overspent by up to 3.6%). All non-fundholding practices exceeded their indicative prescribing amounts (range 3.2-20.0%). CONCLUSIONS--Fundholding has helped to curb increases in prescribing costs, even among dispensing general practitioners, for whom the incentives are different. Indicative prescribing amounts for non-fundholding practices do not seem to have had the same effect.     

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.     

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.     

Fundholding in general practice and financial risk.

OBJECTIVE--To estimate the financial effect of random yearly variations in need for services on fundholding practices with various list sizes. DESIGN--A simulation model was derived using historical data on general practitioner referrals for the 113 surgical procedures covered by the general practitioner fund, combined with data on the hospital prices for those procedures. PATIENTS--Resident population of Central Birmingham Health Authority. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES--Expected expenditure on the relevant surgical procedures for the whole district and for practices with list sizes of 9000, 12,000, 15,000, 18,000, 21,000, or 24,000 for each of 100 simulated years. RESULTS--By using average hospital prices for the West Midlands region the mean (SD) annual expenditure for the 179,400 residents was 4,832,471 pounds (87,149 pounds); the random variation between the 5th and 95th most expensive years was 5.7% of the mean cost. For a practice with a list size of 9000 the values were 244,891 pounds (18,349 pounds), with a variation of 27.5%. With a list size of 24,000 the values were 652,762 pounds (32,512 pounds), with a variation of 15.3%. CONCLUSIONS--Random variations in need for inpatient services will have a significant financial impact on the practice fund. The problem will be particularly great for smaller practices. Additional measures are required to ensure that the scheme is not undermined and that the potential benefits are secured.     

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.     

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.     

Hospital admissions for asthma in east London: associations with characteristics of local general practices,prescribing, and population.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the relative importance of appropriate prescribing for asthma in explaining high rates of hospital admission for asthma among east London general practices. DESIGN: Poisson regression analysis describing relation of each general practice''s admission rates for asthma with prescribing for asthma and characteristics of general practitioners, practices, and practice populations. SETTING: East London, a deprived inner city area with high admission rates for asthma. SUBJECTS: All 163 general practices in East London and the City Health Authority (complete data available for 124 practices). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Admission rates for asthma, excluding readmissions, for ages 5-64 years; ratio of asthma prophylaxis to bronchodilator prescribing; selected characteristics of general practitioners, practices, and practice populations. RESULTS: Median admission rate for asthma was 0.9 (range 0-3.6) per 1000 patients per year. Higher admission rates were most strongly associated with small size of practice partnership: admission rates of singlehanded and two partner practices were higher than those of practices with three or more principals by 1.7 times (95% confidence interval 1.4 to 2.0, P < 0.001) and 1.3 times (1.1 to 1.6, P = 0.001) respectively. Practices with higher rates of night visits also had significantly higher admission rates: an increase in night visiting rate by 10 visits per 1000 patients over two years was associated with an increase in admission rates for asthma by 4% (1% to 7%). These associations were independent of asthma prescribing ratios, measures of practice resources, and characteristics of practice populations. CONCLUSIONS: Higher asthma admission rates in east London practices were most strongly associated with smaller partnership size and higher rates of night visiting. Evaluating ways of helping smaller partnerships develop structured proactive care for asthma patients at high risk of admission is a priority.     

Cost effectiveness of treating primary care patients in accident and emergency: a comparison between general practitioners,senior house officers,and registrars.

OBJECTIVES--To compare outcome and costs of general practitioners, senior house officers, and registrars treating patients who attended accident and emergency department with problems assessed at triage as being of primary care type. DESIGN--Prospective intervention study which was later costed. SETTING--Inner city accident and emergency department in south east London. SUBJECTS--4641 patients presenting with primary care problems: 1702 were seen by general practitioners, 2382 by senior house officers, and 557 by registrars. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES--Satisfaction and outcome assessed in subsample of 565 patients 7-10 days after hospital attendance and aggregate costs of hospital care provided. RESULTS--Most patients expressed high levels of satisfaction with clinical assessment (430/562 (77%)), treatment (418/557 (75%)), and consulting doctor''s manner (434/492 (88%)). Patients'' reported outcome and use of general practice in 7-10 days after attendance were similar: 206/241 (85%), 224/263 (85%), and 52/59 (88%) of those seen by general practitioners, senior house officers, and registrars respectively were fully recovered or improving (chi2 = 0.35, P = 0.840), while 48/240 (20%), 48/268 (18%), and 12/57 (21%) respectively consulted a general practitioner or practice nurse (chi2 = 0.51, P = 0.774). Excluding costs of admissions, the average costs per case were 19.30 pounds, 17.97 pounds, and 11.70 pounds for senior house officers, registrars, and general practitioners respectively. With cost of admissions included, these costs were 58.25 pounds, 44.68 pounds, and 32.30 pounds respectively. CONCLUSION--Management of patients with primary care needs in accident and emergency department by general practitioners reduced costs with no apparent detrimental effect on outcome. These results support new role for general practitioners.     

Is the ratio of inhaled corticosteroid to bronchodilator a good indicator of the quality of asthma prescribing? Cross sectional study linking prescribing data to data on admissions.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the ratio of inhaled corticosteroid to bronchodilator as a measure of the quality of asthma prescribing by general practitioners. DESIGN: Ecological cross sectional study linking general practitioner asthma prescribing with hospital admission data and a measure of deprivation. SUBJECTS: 11 family health services authorities in the West Midlands region and 99 general practices in North Staffordshire. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Hospital admission rates for asthma; the ratio of inhaled corticosteroid to bronchodilator; and Townsend deprivation scores. RESULTS: No overall significant correlation was found between admission rates for asthma and corticosteroid:bronchodilator ratios for family health services authorities (Spearman''s rs = -0.109, P = 0.750) or general practices (rs = -0.084, P = 0.407). In deprived family health services authority areas and general practices an inverse non-significant correlation existed between admission rates for asthma and corticosteroid:bronchodilator ratios (rs = -0.300, P = 0.624; rs = -0.218, P = 0.136). In contrast, in more affluent areas and general practices a positive non-significant correlation existed between admission rates and corticosteroid:bronchodilator ratios (rs = 0.371, P = 0.468; rs = 0.038, P = 0.792). CONCLUSION: Although the corticosteroid:bronchodilator ratio may be a valid indicator of the quality of prescribing for individual patients with asthma, caution should be applied in interpreting aggregated ratios. Differences in the severity of asthma or the prevalence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease may explain inconsistent associations between admission rates for asthma and corticosteroid:bronchodilator ratios in family health services authorities and general practices with different deprivation scores.     

Costs and cost effectiveness of cardiovascular screening and intervention: the British family heart study.

OBJECTIVE--To measure costs and cost effectiveness of the British family heart study cardiovascular screening and intervention programme. DESIGN--Cost effectiveness analysis of randomised controlled trial. Clinical and resource use data taken from trial and unit cost data from external estimates. SETTING--13 general practices across Britain. SUBJECTS--4185 men aged 40-59 and their 2827 partners. INTERVENTION--Nurse led programme using a family centered approach, with follow up according to degree of risk. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES--Cost of the programme it self; overall short term cost to NHS; cost per 1% reduction in coronary risk at one year. RESULTS--Estimated cost of putting the programme into practice for one year was 63 pounds per person (95% confidence interval 60 pounds to 65 pounds). The overall short term cost to the health service was 77 pounds per man (29 pounds to 124 pounds) but only 13 pounds per woman (-48 pounds to 74 pounds), owing to differences in utilisation of other health service resources. The cost per 1% reduction in risk was 5.08 pounds per man (5.92 pounds including broader health service costs) and 5.78 pounds per woman (1.28 pounds taking into account wider health service savings). CONCLUSIONS--The direct cost of the programme to a four partner practice of 7500 patients would be approximately 58,000 pounds. Annually, 8300 pounds would currently be paid to a practice of this size working to the maximum target on the health promotion bands, plus any additional reimbursement of practice staff salaries for which the practice qualified. The broader short term costs to the NHS may augment these costs for men but offset them considerably for women.     

Responses by general practitioners in Avon to proposals for general practice in the white paper Working for Patients.

OBJECTIVE--To determine the views of Avon''s general practitioners about the general practice proposals within the government''s white paper Working for Patients. DESIGN--Postal questionnaire survey. SETTING--A county in south west England. SUBJECTS--All general practitioner principals (n = 537) under contract with Avon Family Practitioner Committee. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS--492 doctors (92%) responded to the survey. More than three quarters of the respondents were opposed to the government''s proposals on budgets for specific surgical procedures, prescribing, and diagnostic tests; and between 63% and 93% felt negative about advantages that might accrue from the proposals. Over three quarters of general practitioners were in favour of family practitioner committees monitoring work load, prescribing, and referrals. General practitioners in large, potentially budget holding practices held similar views to doctors in smaller practices. CONCLUSIONS--Avon''s general practitioners substantially reject most of the government''s proposals about general practice in the white paper Working for Patients.