May perpetuate variation in prescribing unrelated to patients' need

doi:10.1136/bmj.310.6986.1068a

From trainee to consultant, BMJ Group offers doctors around the world tailored information, special events, learning resources and recruitment services at every step along their career path.

... by doctors, for doctors, for patients
We are open for entries!

Online learning

BMJ Learning

High-quality CME / CPD for doctors and other healthcare professionals. BMJ Learning features hundreds of accredited, peer-reviewed learning modules in text, video, and audio formats. Find out more

Courses and Qualifications

BMJ Masterclasses

BMJ Masterclasses, led by experts, help clinicians to use the latest evidence and recent guidelines in practice and meet their CPD/CME requirements. Find out more

Exam Preparation

The leading provider of online exam preparation, helping over 167,000 healthcare professionals to pass their exams. Find out more

onExamination

Search all BMJ comment articles:

From

Limit by

This article has a correction

Please see: Retraction of letter

Access to the full text of this article requires a subscription or payment. Please log in or subscribe below.

Sarah J Roberts

Lecturer in medical statistics Wolfson Unit of Clinical Pharmacology, University of Newcastle, Newcastle upon Tyne NE2 4HH

EDITOR,—Measures based on entitlement to free prescriptions because of low income are attractive as indices of deprivation, but there are inherent drawbacks to an index based on the number of prescriptions rather than of people receiving (or entitled to) them.

Firstly, as David C E F Lloyd and colleagues comment about their proposed low income scheme index, the “deprivation score is calculable but is affected by the individual habits of prescribers.”1 The effect is simply illustrated if different relative prescribing rates (1–3) are used for a population …