Quality target negotiation in health care: evidence from the English NHS

The effects of structure, process and outcome incentives on primary care referrals to a national prevention programme

Despite widespread use, evidence is sparse on whether financial incentives in healthcare should be linked to structure, process or outcome. We examine the impact of different incentive types on the quantity and effectiveness of referrals made by general practices to a new national prevention programme in England. We measured effectiveness by the number of referrals resulting in programme attendance. We surveyed local commissioners about their use of financial incentives and linked this information to numbers of programme referrals and attendances from 5170 general practices between April 2016 and March 2018. We used multivariate probit regressions to identify commissioner characteristics associated with the use of different incentive types and negative binomial regressions to estimate their effect on practice rates of referral and attendance. Financial incentives were offered by commissioners in the majority of areas (89%), with 38% using structure incentives, 69% using process incentives and 22% using outcome incentives. Compared to practices without financial incentives, neither structure nor process incentives were associated with statistically significant increases in referrals or attendances, but outcome incentives were associated with 84% more referrals and 93% more attendances. Outcome incentives were the only form of pay-for-performance to stimulate more participation in this national disease prevention programme.

Pay for performance for specialised care in England: Strengths and weaknesses

Pay-for-Performance (P4P) schemes have become increasingly common internationally, yet evidence of their effectiveness remains ambiguous. P4P has been widely used in England for over a decade both in primary and secondary care. A prominent P4P programme in secondary care is the Commissioning for Quality and Innovation (CQUIN) framework. The most recent addition to this framework is Prescribed Specialised Services (PSS) CQUIN, introduced into the NHS in England in 2013. This study offers a review and critique of the PSS CQUIN scheme for specialised care. A key feature of PSS CQUIN is that whilst it is centrally developed, performance targets are agreed locally. This means that there is variation across providers in the schemes selected from the national menu, the achievement level needed to earn payment, and the proportion of the overall payment attached to each scheme. Specific schemes vary in terms of what is incentivised - structure, process and/or outcome - and how they are incentivised. Centralised versus decentralised decision making, the nature of the performance measures, the tiered payment structure and the dynamic nature of the schemes have created a sophisticated but complex P4P programme which requires evaluation to understand the effect of such incentives on specialised care.

Autonomy to health care professionals as a vehicle for value-based health care? Results of a quasi-experiment in hospital governance

Health care systems increasingly aim to create value for money by simultaneous incentivizing of quality along with classical goals such as activity increase and cost containment. It has recently been suggested that letting health care professionals choose the performance metrics on which they are evaluated may improve value of care by facilitating greater employee initiative, especially in the quality domain. There is a risk that this strategy leads to loss of performance as measured by the classical goals, if these goals are not prioritized by health care professionals. In this study we investigate the performance of eight hospital departments in the second largest region of Denmark that were delegated the authority to choose their own performance focus during a three-year test period from 2013 to 2016. The usual activity-based remuneration was suspended and departments were instructed to keep their global budgets and maintain activity levels, while managing according to their newly chosen performance focuses. Our analysis is based on monthly observations from two years before to three years after delegation. We collected data for 32 new performance indicators chosen by hospital department managements; 11 new performance indicators chosen by a centre management under which 5 of the departments were organised; and 3 classical indicators of priority to the central administration (activity, productivity, and cost containment). Interrupted time series analysis is used to estimate the effect of delegation on these indicators. We find no evidence that this particular proposal for giving health care professionals greater autonomy leads to consistent quality improvements but, on the other hand, also no consistent evidence of harm to the classical goals. Future studies could consider alternative possibilities to create greater autonomy for hospital departments.