Pay-for-Performance incentives for specialised services in England: a mixed methods evaluation
-
Published:2023-10-13
Issue:
Volume:
Page:
-
ISSN:1618-7598
-
Container-title:The European Journal of Health Economics
-
language:en
-
Short-container-title:Eur J Health Econ
Author:
Feng Yan,Kristensen Søren Rud,Lorgelly Paula,Meacock Rachel,Núñez-Elvira Alberto,Rodés-Sánchez Marina,Siciliani Luigi,Sutton Matt
Abstract
Abstract
Background
A Pay-for-Performance (P4P) programme, known as Prescribed Specialised Services Commissioning for Quality and Innovation (PSS CQUIN), was introduced for specialised services in the English NHS in 2013/2014. These services treat patients with rare and complex conditions. We evaluate the implementation of PSS CQUIN contracts between 2016/2017 and 2018/2019.
Methods
We used a mixed methods evaluative approach. In the quantitative analysis, we used a difference-in-differences design to evaluate the effectiveness of ten PSS CQUIN schemes across a range of targeted outcomes. Potential selection bias was addressed using propensity score matching. We also estimated impacts on costs by scheme and financial year. In the qualitative analysis, we conducted semi-structured interviews and focus group discussions to gain insights into the complexities of contract design and programme implementation. Qualitative data analysis was based on the constant comparative method, inductively generating themes.
Results
The ten PSS CQUIN schemes had limited impact on the targeted outcomes. A statistically significant improvement was found for only one scheme: in the clinical area of trauma, the incentive scheme increased the probability of being discharged from Adult Critical Care within four hours of being clinically ready by 7%. The limited impact may be due to the size of the incentive payments, the complexity of the schemes’ design, and issues around ownership, contracting and flexibility.
Conclusion
The PSS CQUIN schemes had little or no impact on quality improvements in specialised services. Future P4P programmes in healthcare could benefit from lessons learnt from this study on incentive design and programme implementation.
Funder
National Institute for Health and Care Research
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Health Policy,Economics, Econometrics and Finance (miscellaneous)
Reference20 articles.
1. Eijkenaar, F., Emmert, M., Scheppach, M., Schöffski, O.: Effects of pay for performance in health care: a systematic review of systematic reviews. Health Policy 110(2–3), 115–130 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol.2013.01.008 2. Diaconu, K., Falconer, J., Verbel, A., Fretheim, A., Witter, S.: Paying for performance to improve the delivery of health interventions. in low- and middle-income countries. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 5, CD007899 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD007899.pub3 3. Mathes, T., Pieper, D., Morche, J., Polus, S., Jaschinski, T., Eikermann, M.: Pay for performance for hospitals. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 7, CD011156 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD011156.pub2 4. Jia, L., Meng, Q., Scott, A., Yuan, B., Zhang, L.: Payment methods for healthcare providers working in outpatient healthcare settings. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 1, C011865 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD011865.pub2 5. Scott, A., Sivey, P., Ait Ouakrim, D., Willenberg, L., Naccarella, L., Furler, J., Young, D.: The effect of financial incentives on the quality of health care provided by primary care physicians. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 9, CD008451 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD008451.pub2
|
|