Jump to: Page Content, Site Navigation, Site Search,
You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.
| The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below. |
EDITOR
Potter et al state that making nutritional supplementation a
routine part of hospital prescribing has cost
implications.1 Although we agree with this statement, we
believe that the issue is far wider than that of hospital prescribing.
Prescribing of enteral feed products in primary care is one of the most
rapidly increasing areas of drug expenditure.
As part of a study for the NHS Executive,2 we analysed prescribing analysis and cost (PACT) data for the West Midlands region for enteral feed products from January-March 1994 to March-June 1997. All health authorities showed an increase in the cost and volume of products prescribed, with cost increases varying from 39% to 142% and volume increases from 26% to 135% (table). Price increases and changes in product mix accounted for only a small part of the rise in expenditure, suggesting that the main cause was an increase in prescribing volume.
The assertion of Potter