BMJ 1995;311:1439 (25 November)

Letters

Critique of fundholding study contained errors

EDITOR,--We wish to correct three errors that Jennifer Dixon and Howard Glennerster make in their article on fundholding when they discuss our comparative study of fundholding and non-fundholding practices.1

Firstly, they state incorrectly that in our study in Oxford fundholders' prescribing costs decreased while costs in non-fundholding practices increased. In fact, costs increased in both groups, although the increase was slightly less steep among the fundholders (13.2% compared with 18.7%).2 Further follow up of the practices showed that fundholders were unable to sustain this advantage two years later.

Secondly, the authors repeat Keeley's erroneous claim that most of the non-fundholding practices in our study were preparing for fundholding in 1991-2.3 This is not true. Some of these practices have now joined the scheme, but they had not done so by the time that data collection for phase 2 of our study ended in 1992.

The third mistake is to suggest . . . [Full text of this article]


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to StumbleUpon StumbleUpon   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?

Relevant Article

What do we know about fundholding in general practice?
Jennifer Dixon and Howard Glennerster
BMJ 1995 311: 727-730. [Abstract] [Full Text]

Access jobs at BMJ Careers
Whats new online at Student BMJ