Wide variation in price paid for basic supplies means NHS wastes millions
BMJ 2015; 350 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.h3104 (Published 05 June 2015) Cite this as: BMJ 2015;350:h3104
All rapid responses
Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed. Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles. The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not including references and author details. We will no longer post responses that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
Perhaps making the cost of resources more widely known would help us all to play our part in saving money in the NHS. At medical school we receive very little teaching on the cost of resources and when we start work we often have no idea of the prices of the tests we are requesting or the equipment we are using. Of course patients' needs must always be considered before cost, and price should not be a barrier to patients receiving the best care possible. However, if prices were displayed on hospital IT systems used to order investigations or on boxes of equipment in utility rooms, it might prompt us to think more carefully about how we use resources. My FY1 colleagues and I used to request an INR as part of the set of routine bloods which were carried out for our surgical patients every few days, until our registrar informed us that each INR cost the trust £40 to measure. Once we knew this we ensured that we only included an INR in the request if the patient truly needed it. There must be many similar situations happening on the wards every day which would be helped by increasing awareness among healthcare staff.
Competing interests: No competing interests
Re: Wide variation in price paid for basic supplies means NHS wastes millions
It’s a well written article by Caroline White.
We won’t be able to comment on the variation in prices in the era of PCTs, but one would guess that with CCG teams on the scene with closer scrutiny of lot of outgoings, price variations in the NHS might have only improved.
But, one would accept with AQP (any qualified provider), applying to tenders, this will only create fertile ground in some instances for having more teams doing the same task, which would have been done by fewer providers, which could make room to more variation.
I am not sure how helpful it would be from the government side to make statement that there is variation in costing for doing the same job. The hourly rate for any manpower work varies from region to region, area to area. Instead, government could make room OR come up with rough guideline for some (if not most) of the high cost tasks / tests / investigations, which would only help with commissioners in the locality to try to get a better price of the task and narrow the variation in prices.
Thanks
Competing interests: No competing interests