(Much of this has already been addressed in the other answers and in other threads on the site, including your own previous question linked here. I will just address the remaining parts.)
There is no estimate of log(numberofdrugs)
because that coefficient is forced to be $1$. That's what an offset is. On the other hand, you can estimate a coefficient for log(numberofdrugs)
instead of forcing it to be $1$. (It may help to read my answer here: In a Poisson model, what is the difference between using time as a covariate or an offset?)
Moreover, you can test a fitted coefficient against any null value, not just $0$. Thus, you could estimate a coefficient for log(numberofdrugs)
and test it against $1$, if that were the hypothesis of interest for a study. This should be fairly trivial with any statistical software. The Wald test for a coefficient from a GLiM is:
$$
z = \frac{(\hat\beta - {\rm null})}{SE}
$$
The resulting $z$-statistic can be checked against a standard normal distribution. Here is a simple example, coded in R
using your data:
set.seed(3917) # this makes the example exactly reproducible
numberofdrugs <- rpois(84, 10)
healthvalue <- rpois(84,75)
age <- rnorm(84,50,5)
test.coef <- glm(healthvalue~age+log(numberofdrugs), family=poisson)
summary(test.coef)
# ...
# Coefficients:
# Estimate Std. Error z value Pr(>|z|)
# (Intercept) 4.2275043 0.1482237 28.521 <2e-16 ***
# ...
# log(numberofdrugs) 0.0346964 0.0403885 0.859 0.390
# ...
abs(0.0346964-1)/0.0403885
# [1] 23.90046 # <- the z-value
2*pnorm(23.90046, lower.tail=FALSE)
# [1] 3.029191e-126 # <- the p-value
This example shows that, on the one hand log(numberofdrugs)
is not significantly related to healthvalue
(which makes sense, given there is no relationship in how the data are generated). On the other hand, the fitted coefficient does significantly differ from $1$. That means that using log(numberofdrugs)
as an offset is not sensible; there is not a consistent rate of healthvalue
per unit of numberofdrugs
.