Skip to main content
PMC home page
The British Journal of General Practice logoLink to The British Journal of General Practice
. 1998 Aug;48(433):1467–1472.

A comparison of three methods of setting prescribing budgets, using data derived from defined daily dose analyses of historic patterns of use.

M Maxwell 1, J G Howie 1, C J Pryde 1
PMCID: PMC1313192  PMID: 10024703

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Prescribing matters (particularly budget setting and research into prescribing variation between doctors) have been handicapped by the absence of credible measures of the volume of drugs prescribed. AIM: To use the defined daily dose (DDD) method to study variation in the volume and cost of drugs prescribed across the seven main British National Formulary (BNF) chapters with a view to comparing different methods of setting prescribing budgets. METHOD: Study of one year of prescribing statistics from all 129 general practices in Lothian, covering 808,059 patients: analyses of prescribing statistics for 1995 to define volume and cost/volume of prescribing for one year for 10 groups of practices defined by the age and deprivation status of their patients, for seven BNF chapters; creation of prescribing budgets for 1996 for each individual practice based on the use of target volume and cost statistics; comparison of 1996 DDD-based budgets with those set using the conventional historical approach; and comparison of DDD-based budgets with budgets set using a capitation-based formula derived from local cost/patient information. RESULTS: The volume of drugs prescribed was affected by the age structure of the practices in BNF Chapters 1 (gastrointestinal), 2 (cardiovascular), and 6 (endocrine), and by deprivation structure for BNF Chapters 3 (respiratory) and 4 (central nervous system). Costs per DDD in the major BNF chapters were largely independent of age, deprivation structure, or fundholding status. Capitation and DDD-based budgets were similar to each other, but both differed substantially from historic budgets. One practice in seven gained or lost more than 100,000 Pounds per annum using DDD or capitation budgets compared with historic budgets. The DDD-based budget, but not the capitation-based budget, can be used to set volume-specific prescribing targets. CONCLUSIONS: DDD-based and capitation-based prescribing budgets can be set using a simple explanatory model and generalizable methods. In this study, both differed substantially from historic budgets. DDD budgets could be created to accommodate new prescribing strategies and raised or lowered to reflect local intentions to alter overall prescribing volume or cost targets. We recommend that future work on setting budgets and researching prescribing variations should be based on DDD statistics.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (36.2 KB).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Bogle S. M., Harris C. M. Measuring prescribing: the shortcomings of the item. BMJ. 1994 Mar 5;308(6929):637–640. doi: 10.1136/bmj.308.6929.637. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Bradlow J., Coulter A. Effect of fundholding and indicative prescribing schemes on general practitioners' prescribing costs. BMJ. 1993 Nov 6;307(6913):1186–1189. doi: 10.1136/bmj.307.6913.1186. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Britten N., Bartley M., Blane D. Proposed new deprivation index. Has major flaws in its derivation and validation. BMJ. 1995 Apr 22;310(6986):1067–1068. doi: 10.1136/bmj.310.6986.1067c. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Dixon J., Harrison A., New B. Funding the NHS. Is the NHS underfunded? BMJ. 1997 Jan 4;314(7073):58–61. doi: 10.1136/bmj.314.7073.58. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Forster D. P., Frost C. E. Use of regression analysis to explain the variation in prescribing rates and costs between family practitioner committees. Br J Gen Pract. 1991 Feb;41(343):67–71. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Harris C. M., Scrivener G. Fundholders' prescribing costs: the first five years. BMJ. 1996 Dec 14;313(7071):1531–1534. doi: 10.1136/bmj.313.7071.1531. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Howie J. G. Addressing the credibility gap in general practice research: better theory; more feeling; less strategy. Br J Gen Pract. 1996 Aug;46(409):479–481. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Howie J. G., Porter A. M., Forbes J. F. Quality and the use of time in general practice: widening the discussion. BMJ. 1989 Apr 15;298(6679):1008–1010. doi: 10.1136/bmj.298.6679.1008. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Lloyd D. C., Harris C. M., Clucas D. W. Low income scheme index: a new deprivation scale based on prescribing in general practice. BMJ. 1995 Jan 21;310(6973):165–169. doi: 10.1136/bmj.310.6973.165. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Lloyd D. C., Harris C. M., Roberts D. J. Specific therapeutic group age-sex related prescribing units (STAR-PUs): weightings for analysing general practices' prescribing in England. BMJ. 1995 Oct 14;311(7011):991–994. doi: 10.1136/bmj.311.7011.991. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Maxwell M., Heaney D., Howie J. G., Noble S. General practice fundholding: observations on prescribing patterns and costs using the defined daily dose method. BMJ. 1993 Nov 6;307(6913):1190–1194. doi: 10.1136/bmj.307.6913.1190. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Morton-Jones T., Pringle M. Explaining variations in prescribing costs across England. BMJ. 1993 Jun 26;306(6894):1731–1734. doi: 10.1136/bmj.306.6894.1731. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Pringle M., Morton-Jones A. Using unemployment rates to predict prescribing trends in England. Br J Gen Pract. 1994 Feb;44(379):53–56. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Purves I. N., Edwards C. Comparison of prescribing unit with index including both age and sex in assessing general practice prescribing costs. BMJ. 1993 Feb 20;306(6876):496–498. doi: 10.1136/bmj.306.6876.496. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Roberts S. J., Harris C. M. Age, sex, and temporary resident originated prescribing units (ASTRO-PUs): new weightings for analysing prescribing of general practices in England. BMJ. 1993 Aug 21;307(6902):485–488. doi: 10.1136/bmj.307.6902.485. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Stewart-Brown S., Surender R., Bradlow J., Coulter A., Doll H. The effects of fundholding in general practice on prescribing habits three years after introduction of the scheme. BMJ. 1995 Dec 9;311(7019):1543–1547. doi: 10.1136/bmj.311.7019.1543. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Wilson R. P., Buchan I., Walley T. Alterations in prescribing by general practitioner fundholders: an observational study. BMJ. 1995 Nov 18;311(7016):1347–1350. doi: 10.1136/bmj.311.7016.1347. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Worrall A., Rea J. N., Ben-Shlomo Y. Counting the cost of social disadvantage in primary care: retrospective analysis of patient data. BMJ. 1997 Jan 4;314(7073):38–42. doi: 10.1136/bmj.314.7073.38. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from The British Journal of General Practice are provided here courtesy of Royal College of General Practitioners

RESOURCES