Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • COVID-19 Articles
  • Authors & Reviewers
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
    • Open access
    • Patient engagement
  • Members & Subscribers
    • Benefits for CMA Members
    • CPD Credits for Members
    • Subscribe to CMAJ Print
    • Subscription Prices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
    • Trousse média 2023
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
CMAJ
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN
CMAJ

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • COVID-19 Articles
  • Authors & Reviewers
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
    • Open access
    • Patient engagement
  • Members & Subscribers
    • Benefits for CMA Members
    • CPD Credits for Members
    • Subscribe to CMAJ Print
    • Subscription Prices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
    • Trousse média 2023
  • Visit CMAJ on Facebook
  • Follow CMAJ on Twitter
  • Follow CMAJ on Pinterest
  • Follow CMAJ on Youtube
  • Follow CMAJ on Instagram
Commentary

Statistics and drug utilization: Are prescribing rates really that high?

Steve Morgan
CMAJ November 27, 2001 165 (11) 1507-1508;
Steve Morgan
Dr. Morgan is with the Centre for Health Services and Policy Research, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Tables
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Canadians will spend more than $12 billion on prescription drugs this year, more than 5 times the annual amount spent in the mid-1980s and as much as is now spent for physicians' services.1 Pharmaceutical price indexes reported by Statistics Canada and the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board indicate that inflation has been relatively slow in the pharmaceutical sector, which has led some to conclude that drug utilization has driven most of the expenditure growth in recent years.1,2 Students of physician behaviour and the pharmaceutical industry may read these data as evidence of a dramatic increase in prescribing rates. However, such inferences are based on economic statistics that do not necessarily relate to the actual number of drug courses prescribed.3 Trends in the use and cost of prescription drugs by community-dwelling senior citizens in British Columbia illustrate the problem.

Records for the more than 64 million prescriptions dispensed to beneficiaries of British Columbia's Pharmacare plan A over the period 1987 to 1999 were used to explore trends in the use and costs of drugs. Pharmacare plan A covers the cost of prescription drugs, excluding dispensing fees, purchased by residents 65 years of age and older, except those in hospitals and long-term care facilities. From 1987 to 1999, prescription drug costs per beneficiary of plan A grew from $192 to $479, a 150% increase. Over the same period, price inflation was virtually zero. A standard economic price index for Pharmacare plan A would track a sales-weighted average of price movements for individual drugs (by strength and dosage form) purchased over the period. Such an index rose by 21% between 1987 and 1993 and fell back to the 1987 level by 1999, largely because increased use of generic drugs incited by a 1994 generic substitution policy reduced the price of drug products available in generic form.4 Given the lack of overall price change, standard economic inference leads to the conclusion that “utilization” per beneficiary grew by 150%, which would explain all of the expenditure growth between 1987 and 1999. However, the number of prescriptions per beneficiary grew by only 15% over this period. The difference between the economic inference and the actual rate of prescribing is due to changes in the types of drugs prescribed over time and, most importantly, in how the economic utilization measure responds to such changes when there are differences in the cost of new and old products.

Table 1 presents the annual number of prescriptions per plan A beneficiary. Prescriptions are grouped by product vintage, as determined by the year in which each drug was first available through Pharmacare. In 1999 the cost per prescription, excluding dispensing fees, varied by almost 700% across the vintages of product prescribed, in part because of differences in the availability of generic equivalents. Perhaps surprisingly, the oldest drugs — those available before 1986 — were used with significant frequency over the entire period. In 1999, at least 15 years after they first became available, these products continued to account for more than 60% of prescriptions.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint

Table 1.

The gradual reduction in the prescribing rate for older products was offset by increased use of newer products. While the overall number of prescriptions per beneficiary increased by only 15%, the cost impact of changes in the vintage of products prescribed was significant (Table 2). In terms of cost, older products accounted for only 22% of the 1999 totals, although they accounted for a substantial proportion of the number of prescriptions.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint

Table 2.

Because newer drugs tend to be more costly than older ones, they are weighted more heavily in standard economic measures of utilization. Thus, the substitution of newer for older drugs gives the impression that physicians are prescribing more frequently. Economists rationalize such inferences on the assumption that newer medicines are “better” because they are more expensive. “Better” medicines, so defined, deliver “more” therapy (or consumer utility, as economists are wont to describe it), which is why economic measures of utilization increase when higher-cost drugs are used in place of lower-cost ones.

The standard economic methods of inferring utilization trends ignore the value (and savings) created by physicians who appropriately prescribe older, low-cost medicines. Despite their low price, appropriately prescribed older medicines can sometimes generate unparalleled therapeutic value (e.g., hydrochlorothiazide for uncomplicated hypertension5). Analysts must therefore be sure that “better” (as inferred by cost) really means “more” (in terms of appropriate and cost-effective drug utilization) when reporting and interpreting economic trends in the pharmaceutical sector. Failure to do so will result in policy misguided by inappropriate measures of prescribing trends and associated costs.

Acknowledgments

This research was supported in part by a postdoctoral fellowship from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Data were extracted at the Centre for Health Services and Policy Research, University of British Columbia, with permission of the British Columbia Ministry of Health and Ministry Responsible for Seniors.

Footnotes

  • This article has been peer reviewed.

    Competing interests: None declared.

References

  1. 1.↵
    Canadian Institute for Health Information. Drug expenditures in Canada 1985–2000. Ottawa: The Institute; 2001.
  2. 2.↵
    Patented Medicine Prices Review Board. Patented Medicine Prices Review Board: annual report 1999. Ottawa: Health Canada; 2000.
  3. 3.↵
    Anderson GM, Kerluke KJ, Pulcins IR, Hertzman C, Barer ML. Trends and determinants of prescription drug expenditures in the elderly: data from the British Columbia Pharmacare Program. Inquiry 1993;30(2):199-207.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  4. 4.↵
    Grootendorst PL, Goldsmith L, Hurley J, O'Brian B, Dolovich L. Financial incentives to dispense low cost drugs: a case study of British Columbia Pharmacare [report for Health System and Policy Division, Health Canada]. Hamilton: McMaster University; 1996.
  5. 5.↵
    Wright JM. Choosing a first-line drug in the management of elevated blood pressure: What is the evidence? 1: Thiazide diuretics. CMAJ 2000;163(1):57-60. Available: www.cma.ca/cmaj/vol-163/issue-1/0057.htm
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

CMAJ
Vol. 165, Issue 11
27 Nov 2001
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author

Article tools

Respond to this article
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
To sign up for email alerts or to access your current email alerts, enter your email address below:
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on CMAJ.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Statistics and drug utilization: Are prescribing rates really that high?
(Your Name) has sent you a message from CMAJ
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the CMAJ web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Statistics and drug utilization: Are prescribing rates really that high?
Steve Morgan
CMAJ Nov 2001, 165 (11) 1507-1508;

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
‍ Request Permissions
Share
Statistics and drug utilization: Are prescribing rates really that high?
Steve Morgan
CMAJ Nov 2001, 165 (11) 1507-1508;
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Acknowledgments
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Tables
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • Whither Seniors' Pharmacare: Lessons From (And For) Canada
  • Pharmaceutical cost containment with reference-based pricing: time for refinements
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Antiracism as a foundational competency: reimagining CanMEDS through an antiracist lens
  • Keeping the front door open: ensuring access to primary care for all in Canada
  • Improving post-tuberculosis care in Canada
Show more Commentary

Similar Articles

 

View Latest Classified Ads

Content

  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Collections
  • Sections
  • Blog
  • Podcasts
  • Alerts
  • RSS
  • Early releases

Information for

  • Advertisers
  • Authors
  • Reviewers
  • CMA Members
  • CPD credits
  • Media
  • Reprint requests
  • Subscribers

About

  • General Information
  • Journal staff
  • Editorial Board
  • Advisory Panels
  • Governance Council
  • Journal Oversight
  • Careers
  • Contact
  • Copyright and Permissions
  • Accessibiity
  • CMA Civility Standards
CMAJ Group

Copyright 2023, CMA Impact Inc. or its licensors. All rights reserved. ISSN 1488-2329 (e) 0820-3946 (p)

All editorial matter in CMAJ represents the opinions of the authors and not necessarily those of the Canadian Medical Association or its subsidiaries.

To receive any of these resources in an accessible format, please contact us at CMAJ Group, 500-1410 Blair Towers Place, Ottawa ON, K1J 9B9; p: 1-888-855-2555; e: cmajgroup@cmaj.ca

Powered by HighWire