AIM: To investigate opinions on and experiences of the new Pharmaceutical Benefits Reform (PBR) among physicians working in the Swedish county council of Region Västra Götaland. METHODS: Questionnaires were sent to all private practitioners who had contracts with the county council of Region Västra Götaland (n = 320) and a random sample of 25% of the doctors employed by the same county council (n = 1,068). The questionnaire comprised questions on how the physicians had received information on the PBR and sought opinions on the introduction of generic substitution in pharmacies, workplace codes, individual prescriber codes, and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Board. Analyses were performed with logistic regression. RESULTS: The response rate was 65%. The majority of doctors had received sufficient information about the reform, most often from their employer, followed by the Drug and Therapeutics Committees. More than half of the respondents were positive about the introduction of generic substitution, which was associated with the respondent's age, experiences, and employer. Most of the doctors thought that generic substitution could reduce the health system's pharmaceutical expenditure, which was associated with the employer. One-third reported that generic substitution had caused problems for their patients in the past month. The probability of being mainly positive towards the newly created Pharmaceutical Benefits Board, which decides on reimbursement, increased with increasing age. CONCLUSIONS: Most participating doctors had received sufficient information about the reform and thought that generic substitution could save money for society. Age, employer, and experiences appeared to influence opinions on several issues.
AIM: To investigate opinions on and experiences of the new Pharmaceutical Benefits Reform (PBR) among physicians working in the Swedish county council of Region Västra Götaland. METHODS: Questionnaires were sent to all private practitioners who had contracts with the county council of Region Västra Götaland (n = 320) and a random sample of 25% of the doctors employed by the same county council (n = 1,068). The questionnaire comprised questions on how the physicians had received information on the PBR and sought opinions on the introduction of generic substitution in pharmacies, workplace codes, individual prescriber codes, and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Board. Analyses were performed with logistic regression. RESULTS: The response rate was 65%. The majority of doctors had received sufficient information about the reform, most often from their employer, followed by the Drug and Therapeutics Committees. More than half of the respondents were positive about the introduction of generic substitution, which was associated with the respondent's age, experiences, and employer. Most of the doctors thought that generic substitution could reduce the health system's pharmaceutical expenditure, which was associated with the employer. One-third reported that generic substitution had caused problems for their patients in the past month. The probability of being mainly positive towards the newly created Pharmaceutical Benefits Board, which decides on reimbursement, increased with increasing age. CONCLUSIONS: Most participating doctors had received sufficient information about the reform and thought that generic substitution could save money for society. Age, employer, and experiences appeared to influence opinions on several issues.
Authors: Sarah Colgan; Kate Faasse; Leslie R Martin; Melika H Stephens; Andrew Grey; Keith J Petrie Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2015-12-15 Impact factor: 2.692