Family Practice Advance Access originally published online on April 6, 2005
Family Practice 2005 22(3):225-226; doi:10.1093/fampra/cmi012
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
© The Author (2005). Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oupjournals.org
Editorial |
Costing in Primary Careis the truth out there?
St Thomas Health Centre, Cowick Street, Exeter EX4 1HJ, UK; Email: su1838@eclipse.co.uk
Kernick D. Costing in Primary Careis the truth out there? Family Practice 2005; 22: 225226.
| The first 10% of the full text of this article appears below. |
In this edition of Family Practice, Beale et al.,1 estimate the annual medical, nursing and administration costs in two general practices as a function of patient age, sex and Council Tax valuation band used as a surrogate marker of socio-economic status. They report that these costs increase with age and reducing tax valuation band and conclude that costing exercises are difficult but important for NHS planning and resource allocation. How relevant are these claims?
Deriving and presenting cost data
In market systems what something costs is determined by its market price, a result of the interplay of supply and demand. In non-market systems such as health care,
What do costs tell us?
What does this study tell us?
Where do we go from here?