Advertisement

PharmacoEconomics

, Volume 10, Issue 5, pp 467–474 | Cite as

Approaches to Rationing Drugs in Hospitals

An Australian Perspective
  • Felix Bochner
  • Naomi G. Burgess
  • E. Dean Martin
Review Article

Summary

The increasing need to consider rationing strategies within the healthcare environment is being driven by pressures such as the development of new medical technologies, the aging population, patient awareness and expectations, healthcare professionals’ appetite for new treatments, and government restrictions on healthcare costs. Solutions to these pressures will need to be sought urgently to avoid a situation in which quality of healthcare is affordable only for the wealthy. The fundamental principles of equity and fairness will need to be applied universally if the solutions are to be accepted by the community, patients and practitioners.

There are several measures that a hospital must have in place before the concept of drug rationing can be contemplated. The approach essentially involves ensuring rational drug approval processes based on critical review of the available data, coupled with ongoing education and audit. Thus, accurate information and clinical budgeting systems, processes which encourage and ensure structural and technical efficiencies within the drug use sequence and an effective Drug and Therapeutics committee are required to facilitate this approach.

To assist with its overriding goals of the quality use of medicines and optimal patient care, the Drug and Therapeutics committee needs to implement an effective formulary system, obtain detailed guidelines governing drug use within the institution, conduct an ongoing drug utilisation review programme, and provide education and training.

The move to consider allocative decision making (rationing) will become increasingly necessary as limits on structural and technical efficiency measures are reached. An institution will then need to decide whether to treat a particular group of patients, or provide a certain form of treatment. Improved methods for community consultation need to be explored and there must be a partnership between the health provider and the consumer in enunciating the existence of scarcity, determining priorities and ensuring that ethics and equity are not abandoned through this process.

Keywords

Priority Setting Drug Rationing Allocative Efficiency Optimal Patient Care Royal Adelaide Hospital 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Callahan D. Allocating health resources. Hastings Cent Rep 1988; 18: 14–20PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hunter DJ. Desperately seeking solutions: rationing dilemmas in health care. Aust Health Rev 1993; 16: 130–47PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Leeder SR. Cost cutting without blood spilling. Hosp Health Care Aust 1989; 20: 16, 18, 30Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Klein R. Dimensions of rationing: who should do what? BMJ 1993; 307: 309–11PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Larkins R. Patient care when medical resources are scarce. Aust Med 1989; 1: 377–9Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Smith R. Rationing: the search for sunlight. BMJ 1991; 303: 1561–2PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bates EM, Lindner-Pelz S. The ethics of rationing health care. In: Health care issues. Sydney (NSW): Allen and Unwin, 1987: 131–42Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Eddy DM. Rationing resources while improving quality. JAMA 1994; 272: 817–24PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Charlesworth M. Distributing health-care resources. In: Bioethics in a liberal society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993: 107–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cohen D. Marginal analysis in practice: an alternative to needs assessment for contracting health care. BMJ 1994; 309: 781–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ham C. Priority setting in the NHS: reports from six districts. BMJ 1993; 307: 435–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kitzhaber JA. Prioritising health services in an era of limits: the Oregon experience. BMJ 1993; 307: 373–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bochner F, Martin ED, Burgess N, et al. Drug rationing in a teaching hospital: a method to assign priorities. BMJ 1994; 308: 901–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Komesaroff P. Hard times for hospital administrators. Med J Aust 1994; 160: 468–71PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Leeder SR. Marginal reallocation in pursuit of more efficient health care. Med J Aust 1994; 160: 472–5PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Pearce MJ, Begg EJ. Hospital drug therapy cost containment through a preferred medicines list and drug utilisation review system. NZ Med J 1994; 107 (974): 101–4Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Chadwick R. Fairness is at issue. BMJ 1994; 308: 907–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Donaldson C. Formulate, don’t formularise. BMJ 1994; 308: 905PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Petrie JC. First consider the overall process of care. BMJ 1994; 308: 906PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hochla PKO, Tuason VB. Pharmacy and Therapeutics Committee: cost-containment considerations. Arch Intern Med 1992; 152: 1773–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hogerzeil HV. Promoting rational prescribing: an international perspective. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1995; 39: 1–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hazlet TK, Teh-Wei H. Association between formulary strategies and hospital drug expenditures. Am J Hosp Pharm 1992; 49: 2207–10PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Maguire TM, Petrie G. A hitchhiker’s guide to establishing a drug utilisation evaluation program. Aust J Hosp Pharm 1995; 25: 315–24Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Carpenter CE, Nash DB, Johnson NE. Evaluating the cost containment potential of clinical guidelines. Qual Rev Bull 1993: 119–23Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Fins JJ. Praxis makes perfect? Hastings Cent Rep 1993; 23 (5): 16–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ioannides-Demos L, Eckert GM, McLean AJ. Pharmacoeconomic consequences of measurement and modification of hospital drug use. Pharmacoeconomics 1992; 2: 15–33PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Misan GMH, Martin ED, Smith ER, et al. Drug utilisation review in a teaching hospital: experience with vancomycin. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 1990; 39: 457–61PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Sanchez LA. Conducting pharmacoeconomic evaluations in a hospital setting. Hosp Pharm 1995; 30 (5): 415–6, 428Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ham C. Health care rationing. BMJ 1995; 310: 1483–4PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Sulmasy DP. Physicians, cost control, and ethics. Ann Intern Med 1992; 116: 920–6PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Pillans PI. Control of high cost medicines. NZ Med J 1994; 107 (974): 5–6Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Freund DA, Dittus RS. Principles of pharmacoeconomic analysis of drug therapy. Pharmacoeconomics 1992; (1): 20–32PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Eddy DM. Rationing by patient choice. JAMA 1991; 265: 105–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Mooney G, Jan S, Seymour J. The NSW health outcomes initiative and economic analysis. Aust J Public Health 1994; 18: 244–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Mechanic D. Dilemmas in rationing health care services: the case for implicit rationing. BMJ 1995; 310: 1655–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis Data Information BV 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Felix Bochner
    • 1
    • 2
  • Naomi G. Burgess
    • 1
    • 2
  • E. Dean Martin
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Clinical and Experimental PharmacologyUniversity of AdelaideAdelaideAustralia
  2. 2.Departments of Clinical Pharmacology and PharmacyRoyal Adelaide HospitalAdelaideAustralia

Personalised recommendations