Holloway K A, Gautam B R, Reeves B C
Britain Nepal Medical Trust, Biratnagar, Nepal.
Health Policy Plan. 2001 Dec;16(4):421-7. doi: 10.1093/heapol/16.4.421.
(1) To estimate the cost of irrational prescribing, and (2) to compare the effect of three different kinds of user fee on prescribing costs, in rural Nepal.
A controlled before-after study was conducted in 33 government primary health care facilities in rural eastern Nepal during 1992-95. A fee per prescription (covering all drugs in whatever amounts) was regarded as the control against which two types of fee per drug item (covering a full course of treatment for each item) were compared. The average total cost to the patient for two drug items was the same in all fee systems. Total cost, expected cost (according to standard treatment guidelines) and wastage costs (total minus expected cost) per prescription were calculated from an average of 400 prescribing episodes per facility per year. The proportion of prescriptions conforming to standard treatment guidelines was calculated from 30 prescriptions per facility per year.
20-52% of total drug costs were due to inappropriate drug prescription. A fee per drug item, as compared with a fee per prescription, was associated with (1) significantly fewer drug items prescribed per patient, (2) significantly lower drug costs per prescription, (3) significantly lower wastage due to inappropriate drug prescription, and (4) a significantly greater proportion of prescriptions conforming to standard treatment guidelines. Average drug cost per prescription (which was 24-33 Nepali rupees [NRs] across districts and time) was 5.7 NRs (95% confidence interval 1.0 to 10.4) and 9.3 NRs (95% confidence interval 4.8 to 13.8) less with the two different item fees, respectively, than with the fee per prescription.
The economic consequences of irrational prescribing are severe, particularly in association with charging a fee per prescription. Item fees in the public sector reduce irrational prescribing and associated costs.
(1)估算尼泊尔农村地区不合理处方的费用,以及(2)比较三种不同类型的用户费用对处方费用的影响。
1992 - 1995年期间,在尼泊尔东部农村地区的33个政府基层医疗保健机构开展了一项前后对照研究。每张处方收取的费用(涵盖所有药品,不论数量)被视为对照,与两种按药品项目收取的费用(涵盖每个项目的整个疗程)进行比较。在所有收费系统中,两种药品项目的患者平均总费用相同。根据每个机构每年平均400次处方事件计算每张处方的总成本、预期成本(根据标准治疗指南)和浪费成本(总成本减去预期成本)。根据每个机构每年30张处方计算符合标准治疗指南的处方比例。
药品总费用的20% - 52%归因于不适当的药物处方。与每张处方收费相比,按药品项目收费与以下情况相关:(1)每位患者开具的药品数量显著减少,(2)每张处方的药品成本显著降低,(3)因不适当药物处方导致的浪费显著减少,以及(4)符合标准治疗指南的处方比例显著更高。与每张处方收费相比,两种不同的药品项目收费下,每张处方的平均药品成本(各地区和各时间段为24 - 33尼泊尔卢比[NRs])分别低5.7 NRs(95%置信区间为1.0至10.4)和9.3 NRs(95%置信区间为4.8至13.8)。
不合理处方的经济后果严重,尤其是在按处方收费的情况下。公共部门的项目收费可减少不合理处方及相关成本。