Dataset Information

New mechanism to identify cost savings in English NHS prescribing: minimising 'price per unit', a cross-sectional study.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Minimising prescription costs while maintaining quality is a core element of delivering high-value healthcare. There are various strategies to achieve savings, but almost no research to date on determining the most effective approach. We describe a new method of identifying potential savings due to large national variations in drug cost, including variation in generic drug cost, and compare these with potential savings from an established method (generic prescribing). METHODS:We used English National Health Service (NHS) Digital prescribing data, from October 2015 to September 2016. Potential cost savings were calculated by determining the price per unit (eg, pill, millilitre) for each drug and dose within each general practice. This was compared against the same cost for the practice at the lowest cost decile to determine achievable savings. We compared these price-per-unit savings to the savings possible from generic switching and determined the chemicals with the highest savings nationally. A senior pharmacist manually assessed whether a random sample of savings were practically achievable. RESULTS:We identified a theoretical maximum of £410 million of savings over 12 months. £273 million of these savings were for individual prescribing changes worth over £50 per practice per month (mean annual saving £33?433 per practice); this compares favourably with generic switching, where only £35 million of achievable savings were identified. The biggest savings nationally were on glucose blood testing reagents (£12 million), fluticasone propionate (£9 million) and venlafaxine (£8 million). Approximately half of all savings were deemed practically achievable. DISCUSSION:We have developed a new method to identify and enable large potential cost savings within NHS community prescribing. Given the current pressures on the NHS, it is vital that these potential savings are realised. Our tool enabling doctors to achieve these savings is now launched in pilot form at OpenPrescribing.net. However, savings could potentially be achieved more simply through national policy change.

SUBMITTER: Croker R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5829890 | biostudies-other | 2018 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

New mechanism to identify cost savings in English NHS prescribing: minimising 'price per unit', a cross-sectional study.

Croker Richard R Walker Alex J AJ Bacon Seb S Curtis Helen J HJ French Lisa L Goldacre Ben B

BMJ open 20180208 2

<h4>Background</h4>Minimising prescription costs while maintaining quality is a core element of delivering high-value healthcare. There are various strategies to achieve savings, but almost no research to date on determining the most effective approach. We describe a new method of identifying potential savings due to large national variations in drug cost, including variation in generic drug cost, and compare these with potential savings from an established method (generic prescribing).<h4>Metho ...[more]

PMID: 29439078

Similar Datasets

Project description:Objectives NHS England recently announced a consultation seeking to discourage the use of treatments it considers to be low-value. We set out to produce an interactive data resource to show savings in each NHS general practice and to assess the current use of these treatments, their change in use over time, and the extent and reasons for variation in such prescribing. Design Cross-sectional analysis. Setting English primary care. Participants English general practices. Main outcome measures We determined the cost per 1000 patients for prescribing of each of 18 treatments identified by NHS England for each month from July 2012 to June 2017, and also aggregated over the most recent year to assess total cost and variation among practices. We used mixed effects linear regression to determine factors associated with cost of prescribing. Results Spend on low-value treatments was £153.5 m in the last year, across 5.8 m prescriptions (mean, £26 per prescription). Among individual treatments, liothyronine had the highest prescribing cost at £29.6 m, followed by trimipramine (£20.2 m). Over time, the overall total number of low-value prescriptions decreased, but the cost increased, although this varied greatly between treatments. Three treatment areas increased in cost and two increased in volume, all others reduced in cost and volume. Annual practice level spending varied widely (median, £2262 per thousand patients; interquartile range £1439 to £3298). Proportion of patients over 65 was strongly associated with low-value prescribing, as was Clinical Commissioning Group. Our interactive data tool was deployed to OpenPrescribing.net where monthly updated figures and graphs can be viewed. Conclusions Prescribing of low-value treatments is extensive but varies widely by treatment, geographic area and individual practice. Despite a fall in prescription numbers, the overall cost of prescribing for low-value items has risen. Prescribing behaviour is clustered by Clinical Commissioning Group, which may represent variation in the optimisation efficiency of medicines, or in some cases access inequality.

Project description:ImportanceAllowing the US Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to negotiate prescription drug prices for Medicare may improve drug affordability.ObjectiveTo estimate savings from Medicare price negotiation under the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) and examine opportunities to increase savings.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional, population-based study used data from 2020 Medicare prescription drug claims. The study was conducted and data were analyzed in 2022.ExposuresEligibility for Medicare price negotiation under the IRA and alternative criteria.Main outcomes and measuresMinimum savings under the IRA's eligibility criteria were estimated and compared with savings within alternative scenarios, including (1) selecting drugs for negotiation based on net spending after rebates rather than gross spending; (2) extending eligibility to drugs with biosimilar or generic competitors; (3) reducing the minimum years since US Food and Drug Administration approval for eligibility; and (4) changing 2 or 3 of these factors. Estimated savings were calculated at different levels of scale-up of price negotiation under the IRA, from 10 Part D drugs in 2026 to 60 Part B and D drugs in 2029. Gross spending was calculated using the US Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services 2020 Medicare drug spending dashboard. Rebates were estimated using SSR Health data. Information on FDA approvals, generics, and biosimilars was obtained from FDA websites.ResultsUnder IRA rules, estimated minimum savings from price negotiation in 2026 for 10 Part D drugs would be $3.2 billion. For 2029 for 60 Part D and B drugs, estimated savings were $16.0 billion. Selecting drugs for negotiation based on net rather than gross spending would be associated with estimated savings of $4.6 billion (a 45% increase) in 2026 and $18.9 billion (an 18% increase) in 2029. Including drugs with generic competitors or biosimilars would be associated with an estimated savings of $6.6 billion (a 109% increase) in 2026 and $24.9 billion (a 56% increase) in 2029. Making both changes would be associated with savings of $9.5 billion (a 200% increase) in 2026 and $28.3 billion (a 77% increase) in 2029. A sensitivity analysis suggested that reducing the required number of years since marketing approval by 2 years would be associated with increased estimated savings of 4% when 10 Part D drugs are negotiated and 12% when 60 Part D and B drugs are negotiated. Changing all 3 criteria would be associated with the greatest increase in estimated savings in 2029 (119% increase when 10 Part D drugs are negotiated and 93% increase for 60 Part D and B drugs).Conclusions and relevanceThe results of this cross-sectional study suggest that adjusting the eligibility criteria for Medicare prescription drug price negotiation to permit inclusion of drugs with biosimilar or generic competitors and selecting drugs based on net rather than gross spending may be a promising approach to substantially increase estimated savings.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:To explore the causes of the gender gap in antibiotic prescribing, and to determine whether women are more likely than men to receive an antibiotic prescription per consultation. DESIGN:Cross-sectional analysis of routinely collected electronic medical records from The Health Improvement Network (THIN). SETTING:English primary care. PARTICIPANTS:Patients who consulted general practices registered with THIN between 2013 and 2015. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES:Total antibiotic prescribing was measured in children (<19 years), adults (19-64 years) and the elderly (65+ years). For 12 common conditions, the number of adult consultations was measured, and the relative risk (RR) of being prescribed antibiotics when consulting as female or with comorbidity was estimated. RESULTS:Among 4.57?million antibiotic prescriptions observed in the data, female patients received 67% more prescriptions than male patients, and 43% more when excluding antibiotics used to treat urinary tract infection (UTI). These gaps were more pronounced in adult women (99% more prescriptions than men; 69% more when excluding UTI) than in children (9%; 0%) or the elderly (67%; 38%). Among adults, women accounted for 64% of consultations (62% among patients with comorbidity), but were not substantially more likely than men to receive an antibiotic prescription when consulting with common conditions such as cough (RR 1.01; 95% CI 1.00 to 1.02), sore throat (RR 1.01, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.01) and lower respiratory tract infection (RR 1.00, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.01). Exceptions were skin conditions: women were less likely to be prescribed antibiotics when consulting with acne (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.69) or impetigo (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.88). CONCLUSIONS:The gender gap in antibiotic prescribing can largely be explained by consultation behaviour. Although in most cases adult men and women are equally likely to be prescribed an antibiotic when consulting primary care, it is unclear whether or not they are equally indicated for antibiotic therapy.

Dataset Information

New mechanism to identify cost savings in English NHS prescribing: minimising 'price per unit', a cross-sectional study.

Publications

New mechanism to identify cost savings in English NHS prescribing: minimising 'price per unit', a cross-sectional study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets