The cost-effectiveness of using financial incentives to improve provider quality: a framework and application

R. Meacock, Søren Rud Kristensen, M. Sutton

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

Resumé

Despite growing adoption of pay-for-performance (P4P) programmes in health care, there is remarkably little evidence on the cost-effectiveness of such schemes. We review the limited number of previous studies and critique the frameworks adopted and the narrow range of costs and outcomes considered, before proposing a new more comprehensive framework, which we apply to the first P4P scheme introduced for hospitals in England. We emphasise that evaluations of cost-effectiveness need to consider who the residual claimant is on any cost savings, the possibility of positive and negative spillovers, and whether performance improvement is a transitory or investment activity. Our application to the Advancing Quality initiative demonstrates that the incentive payments represented less than half of the 13m pound total programme costs. By generating approximately 5200 quality-adjusted life years and 4.4m pound of savings in reduced length of stay, we find that the programme was a cost-effective use of resources in its first 18months. Copyright (c) 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
OriginalsprogEngelsk
TidsskriftHealth Economics
Vol/bind23
Udgave nummer1
Sider (fra-til)1-13
ISSN1057-9230
DOI
StatusUdgivet - 2014

Citer dette

@article{08f0f56fa69446b1bc498dd8b5fa41f7,
title = "The cost-effectiveness of using financial incentives to improve provider quality: a framework and application",
abstract = "Despite growing adoption of pay-for-performance (P4P) programmes in health care, there is remarkably little evidence on the cost-effectiveness of such schemes. We review the limited number of previous studies and critique the frameworks adopted and the narrow range of costs and outcomes considered, before proposing a new more comprehensive framework, which we apply to the first P4P scheme introduced for hospitals in England. We emphasise that evaluations of cost-effectiveness need to consider who the residual claimant is on any cost savings, the possibility of positive and negative spillovers, and whether performance improvement is a transitory or investment activity. Our application to the Advancing Quality initiative demonstrates that the incentive payments represented less than half of the 13m pound total programme costs. By generating approximately 5200 quality-adjusted life years and 4.4m pound of savings in reduced length of stay, we find that the programme was a cost-effective use of resources in its first 18months. Copyright (c) 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.",
keywords = "Pay-for-performance Cost-effectiveness PAY-FOR-PERFORMANCE HOSPITAL PAY HEALTH-CARE MORTALITY MEDICARE PROGRAM IMPACT STATE",
author = "R. Meacock and Kristensen, {S{\o}ren Rud} and M. Sutton",
note = "ISI Document Delivery No.: 270BT Times Cited: 4 Cited Reference Count: 30 Meacock, Rachel Kristensen, Soren Rud Sutton, Matt National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research (NIHR HSDR) programme [08/1809/250] This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research (NIHR HS&DR) programme (project number 08/1809/250). Visit the HS&DR website for more information. The views and opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the HS&DR programme, NIHR, NHS or the Department of Health. We are grateful to Lesley Kitchen and Jane Harper of the Advancing Quality Alliance (http://www.advancingqualityalliance.nhs.uk/) for providing the data on the costs of the Advancing Quality programme and to participants in the UK Health Economists' Study Group in Oxford in June 2012 and a seminar at the University of York for their comments. 4 WILEY-BLACKWELL HOBOKEN HEALTH ECON",
year = "2014",
doi = "10.1002/hec.2978",
language = "English",
volume = "23",
pages = "1--13",
journal = "Health Economics",
issn = "1057-9230",
publisher = "JohnWiley & Sons Ltd.",
number = "1",

}

The cost-effectiveness of using financial incentives to improve provider quality: a framework and application. / Meacock, R.; Kristensen, Søren Rud; Sutton, M.

I: Health Economics, Bind 23, Nr. 1, 2014, s. 1-13.

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

TY - JOUR

T1 - The cost-effectiveness of using financial incentives to improve provider quality: a framework and application

AU - Meacock, R.

AU - Kristensen, Søren Rud

AU - Sutton, M.

N1 - ISI Document Delivery No.: 270BT Times Cited: 4 Cited Reference Count: 30 Meacock, Rachel Kristensen, Soren Rud Sutton, Matt National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research (NIHR HSDR) programme [08/1809/250] This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research (NIHR HS&DR) programme (project number 08/1809/250). Visit the HS&DR website for more information. The views and opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the HS&DR programme, NIHR, NHS or the Department of Health. We are grateful to Lesley Kitchen and Jane Harper of the Advancing Quality Alliance (http://www.advancingqualityalliance.nhs.uk/) for providing the data on the costs of the Advancing Quality programme and to participants in the UK Health Economists' Study Group in Oxford in June 2012 and a seminar at the University of York for their comments. 4 WILEY-BLACKWELL HOBOKEN HEALTH ECON

PY - 2014

Y1 - 2014

N2 - Despite growing adoption of pay-for-performance (P4P) programmes in health care, there is remarkably little evidence on the cost-effectiveness of such schemes. We review the limited number of previous studies and critique the frameworks adopted and the narrow range of costs and outcomes considered, before proposing a new more comprehensive framework, which we apply to the first P4P scheme introduced for hospitals in England. We emphasise that evaluations of cost-effectiveness need to consider who the residual claimant is on any cost savings, the possibility of positive and negative spillovers, and whether performance improvement is a transitory or investment activity. Our application to the Advancing Quality initiative demonstrates that the incentive payments represented less than half of the 13m pound total programme costs. By generating approximately 5200 quality-adjusted life years and 4.4m pound of savings in reduced length of stay, we find that the programme was a cost-effective use of resources in its first 18months. Copyright (c) 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

AB - Despite growing adoption of pay-for-performance (P4P) programmes in health care, there is remarkably little evidence on the cost-effectiveness of such schemes. We review the limited number of previous studies and critique the frameworks adopted and the narrow range of costs and outcomes considered, before proposing a new more comprehensive framework, which we apply to the first P4P scheme introduced for hospitals in England. We emphasise that evaluations of cost-effectiveness need to consider who the residual claimant is on any cost savings, the possibility of positive and negative spillovers, and whether performance improvement is a transitory or investment activity. Our application to the Advancing Quality initiative demonstrates that the incentive payments represented less than half of the 13m pound total programme costs. By generating approximately 5200 quality-adjusted life years and 4.4m pound of savings in reduced length of stay, we find that the programme was a cost-effective use of resources in its first 18months. Copyright (c) 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

KW - Pay-for-performance Cost-effectiveness PAY-FOR-PERFORMANCE HOSPITAL PAY HEALTH-CARE MORTALITY MEDICARE PROGRAM IMPACT STATE

U2 - 10.1002/hec.2978

DO - 10.1002/hec.2978

M3 - Journal article

VL - 23

SP - 1

EP - 13

JO - Health Economics

JF - Health Economics

SN - 1057-9230

IS - 1

ER -