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.     

Evaluating care of patients reporting pain in fundholding practices.

OBJECTIVE--To compare quality of care between 1990 and 1992 in patients with self diagnosed joint pain. DESIGN--Questionnaire and record based study. SUBJECTS--Patients identified at consecutive consultations during two weeks in 1990, 1991, and 1992. SETTING--Six practice groups in pilot fundholding scheme in Scotland. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES--Length of consultation; numbers referred or investigated or prescribed drugs; responses to questions about enablement and satisfaction. RESULTS--About 15% of patients consulted with joint pain each year. 25% (316) of them had social problems in 1990 and 37% (370) in 1992; about a fifth wanted to discuss their social problems. Social problems were associated with a raised general health questionnaire score. The mean length of consultation for patients with pain was 7.6 min in 1990 and 7.7 min in 1992. Patients wishing to discuss social problems received longer consultations (8.5 min 1990; 10.4 min 1992); but other patients with social problems received shorter consultations (7.4 min; 7.2 min). The level of prescribing was stable but the proportion of patients having investigations or attending hospital fell significantly from 1990 to 1992 (31% to 24%; 31% to 13% respectively). Fewer patients responded "much better" to six questions about enablement in 1992 than in 1990. Enablement was better after longer than shorter consultations for patients with social problems. CONCLUSIONS--Quality of care for patients with pain has been broadly maintained in terms of consultation times. The effects of lower rates of investigation and referral need to be investigated further.     

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.     

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.