Value for money and the Quality and Outcomes Framework in primary care in the UK NHS

被引:43
|
作者
Walker, Simon [1 ]
Mason, Anne R. [1 ]
Claxton, Karl [1 ,2 ]
Cookson, Richard [3 ]
Fenwick, Elisabeth [4 ]
Fleetcroft, Robert [5 ]
Sculpher, Mark [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ York, Ctr Hlth Econ, York YO10 5DD, N Yorkshire, England
[2] Univ York, Dept Econ & Related Studies, York YO10 5DD, N Yorkshire, England
[3] Univ York, Dept Social Policy & Social Work, York YO10 5DD, N Yorkshire, England
[4] Univ Glasgow, Fac Med, Sect Publ Hlth & Policy, Glasgow, Lanark, Scotland
[5] Univ E Anglia, Sch Med Hlth Policy & Practice, Norwich NR4 7TJ, Norfolk, England
来源
BRITISH JOURNAL OF GENERAL PRACTICE | 2010年 / 60卷 / 574期
关键词
cost-effectiveness; family practice; health care; physician incentive plans; quality indicators; PAY; PERFORMANCE; IMPROVE; ENGLAND;
D O I
10.3399/bjgp10X501859
中图分类号
R1 [预防医学、卫生学];
学科分类号
1004 ; 120402 ;
摘要
Background The Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) is a pioneering attempt to improve the quality of primary care in the UK through the use of financial rewards. Despite its achievements, there are concerns that the QOF rimy offer poor value for money. Aim To assess the Cost-effectiveness of QOF payments. Design of study Economic analysis. Setting England, UK. Method Cost-effectiveness evidence was identified for a subset of nine QOF indicators with a direct therapeutic impact. These data were then applied to an analytic framework to determine the conditions under which QOF payments would be cost-effective. This framework was constructed to assess the cost-effectiveness of QOF payments by modelling the incentive structure using cost-effectiveness thresholds of 20 000 and 30 000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained, to represent good value to the NHS. It used 2004/2005 data on the QOF performance of all English primary care practices. Results Average indicator payments ranged from 0.63 to 40.61 per patient, and the percentage of eligible patients treated ranged from 63% to 90%. The proportional changes required for QOF payments to be cost-effective varied widely between the indicators. Although most indicators required only a fraction of a 1% change to be cost-effective, for some indicators improvements in performance of around 20% were needed. Conclusion For most indicators that can be assessed, QOF incentive payments are likely to be a cost-effective use of resources for a high proportion of primary care. practices, even if the QOF achieves only modest improvements.in care. However, only a small subset of the indicators has been considered, and no account has been taken of the costs of administering the QOF scheme.
引用
收藏
页码:e213 / e220
页数:6
相关论文
共 50 条