| Literature DB >> 25335968 |
Aisling Conway1, Martin Kenneally, Noel Woods, Andreas Thummel, Marie Ryan.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: As the health services in Ireland have become more resource-constrained, pressure has increased to reduce public spending on community drug schemes such as General Medical Services (GMS) drug prescribing and to understand current and future trends in prescribing. The GMS scheme covers approximately 37% of the Irish population in 2011 and entitles them, inter alia, to free prescription drugs and appliances. This paper projects the effects of future changes in population, coverage, claims rates and average claims cost on GMS costs in Ireland.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2014 PMID: 25335968 PMCID: PMC4283081 DOI: 10.1186/1472-6963-14-477
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Health Serv Res ISSN: 1472-6963 Impact factor: 2.655
Figure 1Percentage GMS coverage rate projections, Ireland 2016–2026.
Mean scenario claims rate (Claims rate = Number of claimants/GMS population) 2007
| Region | 0 – 11 | 12 – 15 | 16 – 24 | 25 – 34 | 35 – 44 | 45 – 54 | 55 – 64 | 65 – 69 | 70 – 74 | >75 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||||||||||
| Males | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
|
| Females | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
|
|
| |||||||||||
| Males | 1.00 | 0.99 | 0.99 | 0.99 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
|
| Females | 1.00 | 0.99 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
|
|
| |||||||||||
| Males | 0.93 | 0.88 | 0.90 | 0.91 | 0.91 | 0.94 | 0.96 | 0.9 | 0.97 | 0.99 |
|
| Females | 0.93 | 0.88 | 0.93 | 0.93 | 0.93 | 0.95 | 0.96 | 0.98 | 0.98 | 0.98 |
|
|
| |||||||||||
| Males | 0.88 | 0.82 | 0.85 | 0.86 | 0.87 | 0.91 | 0.93 | 0.95 | 0.94 | 0.95 |
|
| Females | 0.88 | 0.82 | 0.91 | 0.90 | 0.90 | 0.92 | 0.95 | 0.94 | 0.96 | 0.95 |
|
|
| |||||||||||
| Males | 0.87 | 0.81 | 0.83 | 0.83 | 0.84 | 0.88 | 0.91 | 0.93 | 0.95 | 0.94 |
|
| Females | 0.85 | 0.81 | 0.87 | 0.88 | 0.88 | 0.90 | 0.92 | 0.94 | 0.95 | 0.94 |
|
|
| |||||||||||
| Males | 0.96 | 0.94 | 0.94 | 0.95 | 0.96 | 0.97 | 0.98 | 0.98 | 0.98 | 0.99 |
|
| Females | 0.97 | 0.94 | 0.96 | 0.97 | 0.97 | 0.97 | 0.98 | 0.99 | 0.99 | 0.99 |
|
|
| |||||||||||
| Males | 0.97 | 0.95 | 0.96 | 0.96 | 0.97 | 0.98 | 0.98 | 0.99 | 0.99 | 0.99 |
|
| Females | 0.97 | 0.95 | 0.97 | 0.97 | 0.98 | 0.98 | 0.99 | 0.99 | 0.99 | 0.99 |
|
|
| |||||||||||
| Males | 0.87 | 0.81 | 0.83 | 0.85 | 0.87 | 0.89 | 0.92 | 0.93 | 0.94 | 0.95 |
|
| Females | 0.87 | 0.81 | 0.89 | 0.88 | 0.89 | 0.91 | 0.93 | 0.94 | 0.95 | 0.95 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mean scenario average cost per claim (€) by gender, age & region 2007
| Region | 0 – 11 | 12 – 15 | 16 – 24 | 25 – 34 | 35 – 44 | 45 – 54 | 55 – 64 | 65 – 69 | 70 – 74 | >75 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||||||||||
| Males | 228.09 | 352.31 | 468.36 | 663.13 | 715.28 | 1024.07 | 1225.56 | 1301.78 | 1111.03 | 1261.80 |
|
| Females | 250.13 | 314.96 | 370.39 | 434.52 | 622.62 | 1036.64 | 1182.49 | 1339.82 | 1233.99 | 1565.85 |
|
|
| |||||||||||
| Males | 252.32 | 346.52 | 570.72 | 862.57 | 843.18 | 1053.12 | 1212.19 | 1306.25 | 1374.38 | 1483.05 |
|
| Females | 286.53 | 287.65 | 433.68 | 527.21 | 784.65 | 1039.87 | 1280.93 | 1344.24 | 1510.02 | 1809.51 |
|
|
| |||||||||||
| Males | 312.55 | 518.26 | 632.72 | 780.04 | 943.63 | 946.39 | 1122.24 | 1150.38 | 1145.96 | 1224.23 |
|
| Females | 331.60 | 391.68 | 381.46 | 574.27 | 779.34 | 1001.62 | 1261.18 | 1233.93 | 1298.71 | 1522.60 |
|
|
| |||||||||||
| Males | 287.17 | 387.18 | 546.40 | 807.66 | 811.09 | 919.99 | 1136.46 | 1141.29 | 1192.14 | 1363.01 |
|
| Females | 290.24 | 438.25′ | 324.13 | 502.04 | 671.81 | 970.68 | 1129.80 | 1329.20 | 1337.70 | 1598.56 |
|
|
| |||||||||||
| Males | 224.88 | 313.54 | 411.39 | 607.13 | 721.31 | 792.40 | 909.40 | 976.33 | 958.41 | 1216.81 |
|
| Females | 257.50 | 264.09 | 294.35 | 388.02 | 566.78 | 767.27 | 1016.47 | 1076.26 | 1102.82 | 1398.05 |
|
|
| |||||||||||
| Males | 272.48 | 397.70 | 591.81 | 817.17 | 846.95 | 1009.93 | 1087.12 | 1150.66 | 1200.19 | 1286.47 |
|
| Females | 247.29 | 389.64 | 380.57 | 454.17 | 753.83 | 1114.55 | 1223.04 | 1277.73 | 1314.70 | 1504.99 |
|
|
| |||||||||||
| Males | 310. 32 | 407.65 | 617.11 | 884.82 | 891.47 | 1039.17 | 1228.63 | 1315.09 | 1223.99 | 1265.83 |
|
| Females | 357.49 | 454.20 | 416.13 | 583.39 | 754.74 | 1132.37 | 1240.35 | 1375.76 | 1380.47 | 1489.19 |
|
|
| |||||||||||
| Males | 298.90 | 375.46 | 555.50 | 865.61 | 822.04 | 935.52 | 1069.00 | 1199.25 | 1124.97 | 1307.75 |
|
| Females | 321.00 | 322.29 | 339.24 | 563.25 | 744.94 | 1035.37 | 1123.41 | 1238.10 | 1330.83 | 1535.57 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Figure 2Historical projections and projected pharmacy cost (€’000 m) to 2026.
Descriptive analysis of average cost per claimant (€) 2016 – 2026 (Scenario 2)
| Year | # of Simulations | Mean | SE Mean | St. Dev | Min | Q1 | Median | Q3 | Max |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 100,000 | 272.31 | 0.912 | 149.32 | 69.63 | 106.19 | 167.59 | 286.14 | 1541.72 |
|
| 100,000 | 312.61 | 0.994 | 314.45 | 78.65 | 121.29 | 190.43 | 330.86 | 1579.73 |
|
| 100,000 | 366.81 | 1.18 | 272.28 | 86.68 | 135.56 | 241.10 | 371.60 | 1602.28 |
Figure 3Statistical analysis Scenario 1 – Scenario 3, 2016.
Figure 4Statistical analysis Scenario 1 – Scenario 3, 2026.