The Pharmaceutical Journal
Vol 278 No 7457 p727
23 June 2007

This article
Reprint   Photocopy

  Acrobat Reader

News summary

MPs question role of prescribing advisers and benefits of MURs during inquiry

Both the role of prescribing advisers and the benefits of medicines use reviews have been questioned by the Parliamentary Public Accounts Committee during an oral evidence session as part of its inquiry into prescribing costs in primary care. A National Audit Office report published earlier this year (PJ, 19 May, p576) identified potential savings of over £300m a year on the primary care prescribing bill that would not adversely affect patient care.

John Pugh, Liberal Democrat spokesman for health and member of the committee, asked whether there is research that suggests prescribing advisers are effective.

Felicity Harvey, head of the Department of Health’s medicines, pharmacy and industry group, responded that there are many examples of individual primary care trusts that have invested in prescribing advisers and of the sorts of savings that they have made as a result of the work that the prescribing advisers have done. “The advisers can save at least £2 for every £1 of salary,” she said.

Dr Pugh said that the NAO report highlighted research that suggests that many PCTs believe MURs are of limited value, or are unconvinced by their benefits. “There are two methods — the advisers and the reviews — neither of which is guaranteed to work and neither of which is impressing the people it should impress,” he said.

Dr Harvey explained that the number of medicines use reviews is now beginning to increase after a slow start. “It is still fairly early on. The intervention was initially trialled in the medicines management collaborative; Coventry PCT took it forward and found that the medicines use review had huge benefits,” she said.