Homeopathy 2003; 92(02): 71-76
DOI: 10.1016/s1475-4916-03-00004-3
Original Paper
Copyright © The Faculty of Homeopathy 2003

Does homeopathy reduce the cost of conventional drug prescribing?

A study of comparative prescribing costs in General Practice
Asha Jain

Subject Editor:
Further Information

Publication History

Received16 September 2002
revised12 November 2002

accepted16 December 2002

Publication Date:
20 December 2017 (online)


There is little research on cost–effectiveness of homeopathy in General Practice. This study aimed to compare the costs of homeopathic prescribing with conventional drugs prescribing. Data were collected for 4 years on all patients who were treated homeopathically. Costs of homeopathic remedies and costs of conventional drugs which otherwise would be prescribed for these patients was calculated for the total duration of treatment. Savings were calculated. One hundred patients were included in the study. Average cost savings per patient was £60.40. The majority of patients had improved and most did not report any side-effects. The limitations of this study are that it is based on one GP's work, with a small number of patients so definite and generalisable conclusions cannot be drawn. Moreover, calculated costs in this study are based on drugs only, it does not take into account doctor's time, special investigations and time off sick. Future work needs to be carried out to include all of these points for a comprehensive economic analysis.

  • References

  • 1 Opportunities of Homeopathy in the New NHS—Edition 3, The Faculty of Homeopathy, September 2000.
  • 2 Kurt Geckeler et al. Is This the Trick That Proves Homeopathy Isn’t Hokum? New Sci Mag 2001; 172 (2316).
  • 3 Kleijnen J, Knipschild P, ter Riet G. Clinical trials of homeopathy. Br Med J 1991; 302: 316–323.
  • 4 Berman BM et al. Homeopathy and the U.S primary care physicians: growing interest in a forgotten field. Br Hom J 1997; 86: 131–138.
  • 5 Reilly D. The Evidence of Homeopathy. (Produced for Grampian Health Board.) Glasgow: Academic Department of Homeopathy, 1995.
  • 6 Reilly D, Taylor M, McSharry C, Aitchison T. Is homeopathy a placebo response? Lancet 1986; 2: 881–886.
  • 7 Vincent C, Furnham A. Why do patient turn to complementary medicine? An empirical study. Brit J Clin Psych 1996; 35: 37–48.
  • 8 Riley D, et al. Homeopathy and conventional medicine: an outcome study comparing effectiveness in a Primary Care setting. J Alternative Compl Med 2001; 7: 149–159.
  • 9 Visser GJ, Peters L. Alternative medicine and general practitioner in the Netherlands: towards acceptance and integration. Fam Pract 1990; 7: 227–232.
  • 10 van Haselen R. The economic evaluation of complimentary medicine: a staged approach at the Royal London Homeopathic Hospital. Br Hom J 2000; 89(Suppl 1): S23–S26.
  • 11 Chaufferin G. Improving the evaluation of homeopathy: economic considerations and impact on health. Br Hom. J 2000; 89(Suppl 1): S27–S30.
  • 12 Report on NHS practice-based homeopathy project. Analysis of Effectiveness and Cost of Homeopathic Treatment within a GP Practice at St. Margarets Surgery, Bradford on Avon, Wilts. Northampton: The Society of Homeopaths, September 1996.
  • 13 Swayne J. The cost and effectiveness of homeopathy, Br Hom J 1992; 81: 148–150.
  • 14 Leckridge B. Homeopathy in Primary Care. Edinburgh UK: Churchill Livingstone, 1997, 22.
  • 15 Royal London Homeopathic Hospital Audit Report 1994/5. London: RLHH.
  • 16 Spence D. Clinical Outcome Audit—Bristol Homeopathic Hospital Conference. Proceedings: Improving the Success of Homeopathy, Vol 2. London: RLHH, 1999, p 75. (Updated data from personal correspondence with the author.)
  • 17 Clover A. Conference Proceedings: Improving Success of Homeopathy, Vol 2. London: RLHH, 1999, p 76.