Association between a national primary care pay-for-performance scheme and suicide rates in England: spatial cohort study

A Randomized Controlled Trial of a Pay-for-Performance Initiative to Reduce Costs of Care for High-Need Psychiatric Patients

OBJECTIVE

Pay-for-performance (P4P) initiatives hold promise for improving health care delivery but are rarely applied to behavioral health or tested in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). This RCT examined the effectiveness of a P4P initiative to reduce total cost of 24-hour care among patients with high needs for psychiatric care in a large county in California.

METHODS

From August 2016 to March 2022, a total of 652 adult residents of Santa Clara County, California, were enrolled in a P4P initiative (mean±SD age=46.7±13.3 years, 61% male, 51% White, and 60% diagnosed as having a bipolar or psychotic disorder). Participants were randomly assigned to usual full-service partnerships from the county (N=327) or a comparable level of care from a contractor who agreed to a schedule of financial penalties and rewards based on whether enrollees (N=325) used more or less care than a historical cohort of similar county patients. The primary outcome was total cost of 24-hour psychiatric services. Secondary outcomes were costs of each of the 24-hour care services.

RESULTS

The proportion of the total sample that used 24-hour psychiatric services decreased over the 36-month study period. Intent-to-treat analyses revealed no differences between the two study conditions in total care costs during the follow-up period. No significant care utilization differences were observed between the two conditions in most of the individual 24-hour services.

CONCLUSIONS

A P4P initiative for high-need patients was no more effective than usual care for reducing costs of 24-hour psychiatric care.

A Systematic Review of the Effects of Urban Living on Suicidality and Self-Harm in the UK and Ireland

We conducted a systematic review to answer the following: (a) Is there any evidence to support increased prevalence of suicidality and self-harm (i.e. self-harm or suicidality) in urban versus rural environments? (b) What aspects of the urban environment pose risk for suicidality and self-harm? Thirty-five studies met our criteria. Our findings reflect a mixed picture, but with a tendency for urban living to be associated with an increased risk of suicidality and self-harm over rural living, particularly for those living in deprived areas. Further research should focus on the clustering and additive effects of risk and protective factors for suicidality and self-harm in urban environments.

Evaluating the Effectiveness of a Local Primary Care Incentive Scheme: A Difference-in-Differences Study

National financial incentive schemes for improving the quality of primary care have come under criticism in the United Kingdom, leading to calls for localized alternatives. This study investigated whether a local general practice incentive-based quality improvement scheme launched in 2011 in a city in the North West of England was associated with a reduction in all-cause emergency hospital admissions. Difference-in-differences analysis was used to compare the change in emergency admission rates in the intervention city, to the change in a matched comparison population. Emergency admissions rates fell by 19 per 1,000 people in the years following the intervention (95% confidence interval [17, 21]) in the intervention city, relative to the comparison population. This effect was greater among more disadvantaged populations, narrowing socioeconomic inequalities in emergency admissions. The findings suggest that similar approaches could be an effective component of strategies to reduce unplanned hospital admissions elsewhere.

Pay for Performance: A Reflection on How a Global Perspective Could Enhance Policy and Research

Pay-for-performance (P4P) is the provision of financial incentives to healthcare providers based on pre-specified performance targets. P4P has been used as a policy tool to improve healthcare provision globally. However, researchers tend to cluster into those working on high or low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), with still limited knowledge exchange, potentially constraining opportunities for learning from across income settings. We reflect here on some commonalities and differences in the design of P4P schemes, research questions, methods and data across income settings. We highlight how a global perspective on knowledge synthesis could lead to innovations and further knowledge advancement.