[Prescriptions of low therapeutic value imposed on primary care].

OBJECTIVES

1. To quantify the percentage of prescriptions of low therapeutic value, and the associated pharmaceutical expenditure, which the specialist incurs for the general practitioner. 2. To determine which are the therapeutic groups of low therapeutic value most often delegated in this way, and so determine the profile of the specialists who recommend most medication with insufficient benefits.

DESIGN

A descriptive, crossover, prospective study based on all the prescriptions of the month of March (21 days) to 4156 patients from the town of Es Castell (5720 inhabitants), Menorca.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The variables to be evaluated were defined and classified in scales. They included prescription, packages, working age/pensioner, origin (General Practitioner, Specialist, Private, Emergency), cost of the prescription, specialties broken down into anatomical-therapeutic groups, whether it was chronic or acute medication, and whether it was of high or low therapeutic value.

RESULTS

Of the 3599 packages prescribed, 1993 were generated from outside the PC practice (55.3%). Of the 6069411 pesetas of expenditure in the period studied, 38.5% was due to general practitioners, 59.1% specialists, and 2.3% emergency services. 12.7% (456) of the packages prescribed were of low therapeutic value, of which 52.6% corresponded to the general practitioners' prescriptions, 45.6% to the specialists' and 4.5% to private practice. However, of the 523224 pesetas of expenditure, 62% was for specialists' prescriptions and only 36% for the general practitioners'. On comparing the profiles of prescriptions of low therapeutic value coming from specialists and direct from Primary Care, differences were found. The "cardiovascular" group accounted for 40.9% of specialist prescriptions and only 11.3% of G.P. ones; "central nervous system" (psychiatry, neurology) accounted for 24.5% and 12.1%, respectively. "Respiratory", however, was the opposite: 3.8% specialist and 25% G.P. Similarly the "others" category and 18.8% for specialists against 37.1% for G.P.s.

CONCLUSIONS

It can be inferred that there is shared responsibility in the public health system between specialists and G.P.s for prescribing products of low therapeutic value. However, since the medication that specialists prescribe is dearer, they cause more expenditure than the packages of low therapeutic value, which they delegate to G.P.s.