HC Deb 04 February 1983 vol 36 cc219-20W
Mr. Prentice

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he is now able to publish the report of the informal working group on effective prescribing; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Fowler

The report of the informal working group on effective prescribing is being published today. I have placed copies in the Library of the House. I should like to thank the members of the group for their valuable work.

As the report says, effective prescribing needs to be considered in the context of the effective use of resources. The Government are already taking action in several important areas. For example, the report says that GPs should always have analyses of their own prescribing made available to them for self-audit. I agree, and my Department is collaborating with the Prescription Pricing Authority on the research into the method and presentation of this information that the group recommends. DHSS regional medical officers are available to help individual GPs review their prescribing habits in the way suggested.

I also agree with the recommendation that the Government should continue to fund the distribution to doctors of essential prescribing information such as the British national formulary and our own cost comparison charts. This helps to ensure that GPs are fully aware of the cost consequences of their prescribing, which in turn helps to keep the drugs bill down.

The informal working group suggests that general practitioners should collaborate more closely with their hospital colleagues in achieving agreed local prescribing policies and recommends the wider issue of individual drug treatment cards to patients. These recommendations are also in line with Government policy.

Other recommendations are designed to improve undergraduate and postgraduate medical training in pharmacology and prescribing practice, and to encourage responsible public attitudes to the use of prescribed drugs. Not all of these are my direct responsibility, but I shall see to it that they are drawn to the attention of the appropriate professional and educational bodies.

In a further recommendation the report says that pharmacists should, wherever possible, substitute generic equivalents for branded drugs unless the prescribing doctor specifically indicates that substitution is unacceptable. The working group refers to various advantages of this course including possible financial savings. But the group also said that there were other factors—including a possible adverse effect on the innovative sector of the pharmaceutical industry—which were outside its terms of reference. The recommendation on generic substitution is also relevant to the review of the working of the pharmaceutical price regulation scheme which I have set up. I am therefore seeking the views of interested organisations, including those representing the medical, dental and pharmaceutical professions and the pharmaceutical industry, on the group's recommendations.

While I want to see widespread consultation on the report, I am anxious to avoid uncertainty over the group's recommendations. I have therefore asked for comments by 15 April and will make a further statement as soon as I have had time to consider them.