Download PDFPDF

Do doctors in dispensing practices with a financial conflict of interest prescribe more expensive drugs? A cross-sectional analysis of English primary care prescribing data
Compose Response

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g.
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests


  • A rapid response is a moderated but not peer reviewed online response to a published article in a BMJ journal; it will not receive a DOI and will not be indexed unless it is also republished as a Letter, Correspondence or as other content. Find out more about rapid responses.
  • We intend to post all responses which are approved by the Editor, within 14 days (BMJ Journals) or 24 hours (The BMJ), however timeframes cannot be guaranteed. Responses must comply with our requirements and should contribute substantially to the topic, but it is at our absolute discretion whether we publish a response, and we reserve the right to edit or remove responses before and after publication and also republish some or all in other BMJ publications, including third party local editions in other countries and languages
  • Our requirements are stated in our rapid response terms and conditions and must be read. These include ensuring that: i) you do not include any illustrative content including tables and graphs, ii) you do not include any information that includes specifics about any patients,iii) you do not include any original data, unless it has already been published in a peer reviewed journal and you have included a reference, iv) your response is lawful, not defamatory, original and accurate, v) you declare any competing interests, vi) you understand that your name and other personal details set out in our rapid response terms and conditions will be published with any responses we publish and vii) you understand that once a response is published, we may continue to publish your response and/or edit or remove it in the future.
  • By submitting this rapid response you are agreeing to our terms and conditions for rapid responses and understand that your personal data will be processed in accordance with those terms and our privacy notice.
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

Jump to comment:

  • Published on:
    Dispensing doctors
    • Darrin Baines, Professor of Health Economics Bournemouth University

    Prescribing in dispensing practices: A response to Goldacre et. al.

    Goldacre et. al. is a welcome contribution to the ongoing debate about the causes of high cost prescribing by primary care doctors in the NHS.[1] Their paper claims that doctors in “dispensing” practices (that is, rural practices with an dispensary) have a potential financial conflict of interest around their prescribing decisions because they have the opportunity to earn additional revenues by using more expensive medicines. Using the NHS England Primary Care Prescribing dataset for January 2015 only, they examine data on statins, proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), ACE inhibitors (ACEis) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs). These are the four most commonly prescribed classes of drugs where there is clear guidance that higher cost items are no more effective than lower cost products. Within each of these four classes, they identified options with high acquisition costs that are considered to be as effective as those with lower costs. Following statistical analysis, the authors found that dispensing practices are significantly more likely to prescribe drugs from this list of higher cost products across all four categories.

    Following a gap in published research on this topic of over twenty years, Goldacre et. al. have been successful in raising again the issue of whether NHS dispensing doctors are more expensive. Although their results seem conclusive, on methodological grounds,...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.
  • Published on:
    Australian case study
    • David Lim, senior lecturer Flinders University Rural and Remote Health

    Whilst a systematic review of dispensing doctors found increased prescription and less often in generics [Health Policy. 2009 Sep;92(1):1-9] and concurred with findings from this study, the Australian census data on its dispensing doctors reportedly contradict the international trends [Med J Aust. 2011 Aug 15;195(4):172-5]. In Australia, doctors are only allowed to dispense under its National Health Act where there is no convenient and efficiency access to pharmacists. Community pharmacy owners in Australia are largely represented by the Pharmacy Guild of Australia which is a major lobbyist and advocate with the Australian Government, see for instance the successive Community Pharmacy Agreement. There are other factors identified in the mixed methods study which may explain the better quality of prescribing in Australia as compared to the English findings. Is there cross-jurisdictional lesson to be learned?

    Conflict of Interest:
    Author of the two papers referenced in the comments. I have not received any financial contribution or obtained other profit or personal gain from drug companies, Pharmacy Guild of Australia or the dispensing doctors.