The Report of the Pharmaceutical Inquiry of Ontario documented dramatic increases in the cost of the Ontario Drug Benefit (ODB) program. This article demonstrates that the rise in ODB costs for those 65 and over is due to two factors: more intensive prescribing—physicians prescribing to the elderly more often and writing more prescriptions each time they see an elderly patient—and physicians writing prescriptions for more expensive drugs. Neither of these two changes in prescribing behavior has resulted in any demonstrable improvement in the health of the elderly. Efforts to control costs through some form of copayment or by eliminating some drugs from the ODB formulary should not be undertaken since they probably will result in a reduction in the use of medically necessary drugs. Ultimately, drug costs will only be controlled by improving the appropriateness of physicians' prescribing.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Pharmaceutical Inquiry of Ontario. Prescriptions for Health. Toronto, 1990.
2.
McLarenC.Ontario accused of paying for ineffective, toxic drugs. Globe and Mail, February 10, 1988, p. A12.
3.
McLarenC.Ontarians are overdrugged, under-regulated, doctor says. Globe and Mail, February 11, 1988, p. A3.
4.
SpeirsR.Ontario seeks ways to cure us of world's biggest drug ‘habit’. Toronto Star, February 6, 1988, pp. A1, A4.
5.
Ontario Ministry of Health. ODB Utilization Reports, 1976/77 to 1987/88. Toronto, undated.
6.
GoreckiP. K.Getting It Right: An Evaluation of Alternative Systems of the Organization on the Ontario Prescription Drugs Distribution System. Research report. Pharmaceutical Inquiry of Ontario, Toronto, 1990.
7.
Statistics Canada. The Health of Canadians: Report of the Canada Health Survey. Supply and Services Canada, Ottawa, 1981.
8.
Statistics Canada. Health and Social Support, 1985. Supply and Services Canada, Ottawa, 1987.
9.
Statistics Canada. Census of Canada: Age, Sex and Marital Status. Supply and Services Canada, Ottawa, 1982.
10.
Saskatchewan Health Prescription Drug Plan. Annual Report. Department of Health, Regina, various years.
11.
Statistics Canada. Census of Canada: Age, Sex and Marital Status. Supply and Services Canada, Ottawa, 1987.
12.
HlynkaJ. N.DanforthD. H.KerrS. E.Drug usage review. Part two: Implementing the ambulatory program. Can. Pharm. J.114: 467–470, 1981.
13.
Saskatchewan Health, Joint Committee on Drug Utilization. Report No. 4. Utilization of Mood-modifying Drugs in Saskatchewan—Part II. Regina, 1979.
14.
SchwartzR. K.SoumeraiS. B.AvornJ.Physician motivations for nonscientific drug prescribing. Soc. Sci. Med.28: 577–582, 1989.
15.
ComaroffJ.A bitter pill to swallow: Placebo therapy in general practice. Sociol. Rev.24: 79–96, 1976.
16.
WilliamsA. P.CockerillR.Report on the 1989 Survey of the Prescribing Experiences and Attitudes Toward Prescription Drugs of Ontario Physicians. Research report. Pharmaceutical Inquiry of Ontario, Toronto, 1990.
17.
CowanP. F.Patient satisfaction with an office visit for the common cold. J. Fam. Pract.24: 412–413, 1987.
18.
StimsonG. V.Doctor-patient interaction and some problems for prescribing. J. R. Coll. Gen. Pract.26(Suppl. 1): 88–96, 1976.
19.
Review Committee. Study into the Growth in Use of Health Services. Report to the Saskatchewan Minister of Health. Regina, 1989.
MillerE., Director of Market Planning, Upjohn. Unpublished data.
22.
LexchinJ.Prescribing to the elderly: A review of the English language Canadian literature. Can. Fam. Physician35:1613–1617, 1989.
23.
McKimW. A.MisharaB. L.Drugs and Aging. Butterworths, Toronto, 1987.
24.
American Medical Association. AMA Drug Evaluations, Ed. 4. Wiley, New York, 1980.
25.
Saskatchewan Health, Joint Committee on Drug Utilization. Report No. 8. Use of Mood-modifying Drugs in Saskatchewan—Update. Regina, January 1984.
26.
HardingJ.WolfN.ChanG.A Socio-demographic Profile of People Prescribed Mood-modifiers in Saskatchewan. Saskatchewan Alcoholism Commission, Regina, 1978.
27.
BloomJ. A.Prescribing Practices in the Elderly of a Family Practice Unit—A Pilot Study. Research report. Pharmaceutical Inquiry of Ontario, Toronto, 1990.
28.
Drugs for rheumatoid arthritis. The Medical Letter29: 21–24, 1987.
29.
Nizatidine (Axid). The Medical Letter10: 77–78, 1988.
30.
WingS.The role of medicine in the decline of hypertension-related mortality. Int. J. Health Serv. 14: 649–666, 1984.
31.
BonitaR.BeagleholeR.Does treatment of hypertension explain the decline in mortality from stroke?Br. Med. J.292:191–192, 1986.
32.
British Hypertension Society Working Party. Treating mild hypertension: Agreement from the large trials. Br. Med. J.298: 694–698, 1989.
33.
GordonM.Hypertension in the elderly: What price therapy?Can. Fam. Physician35: 2443–2447, 1989.
34.
MoserM.“Cost containment” in the management of hypertension. Ann. Intern. Med.107: 107–108, 1987.
35.
StasonW. B.Economics in hypertension management: Cost and quality trade-offs. J. Hypertens.5(Suppl. 1): S55–S59, 1987.
36.
LarochelleR.Recommendations from the Consensus Conference on Hypertension in the Elderly. Can. Med. Assoc. J.135: 741–745, 1986.
37.
ChalmersT. C.The impact of controlled trials on the practice of medicine. Mount Sinai J. Med.41: 753–759, 1974.
38.
StrossJ. K.HarlanW. R.The dissemination of new medical information. JAMA TAX: 2622–2624, 1979.
39.
BoisselJ. P.Impact of randomized clinical trials on medical practices. Controlled Clin. Trials10: 120S–134S, 1989.
40.
LexchinJ.Doctors and detailers: Therapeutic education or pharmaceutical promotion?Int. J. Health Serv. 19: 663–679, 1989.
41.
ManningP. R.DensonT. A.How internists learned about Cimetidine. Ann. Intern. Med.92: 690–692, 1980.
42.
PeayM. Y.PeayE. R.Patterns of preference for information sources in the adoption of new drugs by specialists. Soc. Sci. Med.31: 467–476, 1990.
43.
MackowiakJ. I.GagnonJ. P.Effects of promotion on pharmaceutical demand. Soc. Sci. Med.20: 1191–1197, 1985.
DajdaR.Drug advertising and prescribing. J. R. Coll. Gen. Pract.28: 538–541, 1978.
46.
WaltonH.Ad recognition and prescribing by physicians. J. Advertising Res. 20: 39–8, June 1980.
47.
ParsonsL. J.AbeeleP. V.Analysis of sales call effectiveness. J. Market. Res.18: 107–113, 1981.
48.
KrupkaL. R.VenerA. M.Prescription drug advertising: Trends and implications. Soc. Sci. Med.20: 191–197, 1985.
49.
LexchinJ.The portrayal of the elderly in drug advertisements: A factor in inappropriate prescribing?Can. J. Aging9: 296–302, 1990.
50.
Rx monitor. Drug Merchandising69(3): 59, 1988.
51.
JangR.Medicaid formularies: A critical review of the literature. J. Pharm. Market. Manage.2(3): 39–61, 1988.
52.
HurleyJ.An Examination of Access to Prescription Drugs in Ontario and an Evaluation of Selected Cost-sharing Policies. Research report. Pharmaceutical Inquiry of Ontario, Toronto, 1989.
53.
ReederC. E.NelsonA. A.The differential impact of copayment on drug use in a Medicaid population. Inquiry22: 396–403, 1985.
54.
SoumeraiS. B.Payment restrictions for prescription drugs under Medicaid. N. Engl. J. Med.317: 550–556, 1987.
55.
SoumeraiS. B.Effects of medicaid drug-payment limits on admission to hospitals and nursing homes. N. Engl. J. Med.325:1072–1077, 1991.
56.
FoxmanB.The effect of cost sharing on the use of antibiotics in ambulatory care: Results from a population-based randomized controlled trial. J. Chron. Dis.40: 429–437, 1987.
57.
HarrisB. L.StergachisA.RiedL. D.The effect of drug co-payments on utilization and cost of pharmaceuticals in a health maintenance organization. Med. Care28: 907–917, 1990.
58.
SoumeraiS. B.Ross-DegnanD.Experience of state drug benefit programs. Health Aff. 9(3): 36–54, 1990.
59.
SmithM. C.MacLaytonD. W.The effect of closing a Medicaid formulary on the prescription of analgesic drugs. Hosp. Formulary12: 36–41, 1977.
60.
SmithD. M.McKercherP. L.The elimination of selected drug products from the Michigan Medicaid formulary: A case study. Hosp. Formulary19: 366–372, 1984.
61.
FerrandoC.HenmanM. C.CorriganO. I.Impact of a nationwide limited prescribing list: Preliminary findings. Drug. Intell. Clin. Pharm.21: 653–658, 1987.
62.
KrelingD. H.KnockeD. J.HammelR. W.The effects of an internal analgesic formulary restriction on Medicaid drug expenditures in Wisconsin. Med. Care27: 34–44, 1989.
63.
KeelerM. H.McCurdyR. L.Medical practice without antianxiety drugs. Am. J. Psychiatry132:654–655, 1975.
64.
SoumeraiS. B.Withdrawing payment for nonscientific drug therapy: Intended and unexpected effects of a large-scale natural experiment. JAMA263: 831–839, 1990.
65.
HurleyJ.JohnsonN. A.The Effects of Co-payments in the Prescription Drug Market. CHEPA Working Paper Series #91-1. McMaster University, 1991.
66.
RenaudM.Practice settings and prescribing profiles: The simulation of tension headaches to general practitioners working in different practice settings in the Montreal area. Am. J. Public Health70:1068–1073, 1980.
67.
SoumeraiS. B.McLaughlinT. J.AvornJ.Improving drug prescribing in primary care: A critical analysis of the experimental literature. Milbank Q. 67: 268–317, 1989.
68.
SoumeraiS. B.AvornJ.Economic and policy analysis of university-based drug ‘detailing.’. Med. Care24: 313–331, 1986.
69.
RayW. A.SchaffnerW.FederspielC. F.Persistence of improvement in antibiotic prescribing in office practice. JAMA253:1774–1776, 1985.
