This file is part of IDEAS, which uses RePEc data


[ Papers | Articles | Software | Books | Chapters | Authors | Institutions | JEL Classification | NEP reports | Search | New papers by email | Author registration | Rankings | Volunteers | FAQ | Blog | Help! ]

Doctor Behaviour Under a Pay for Performance Contract: Further Evidence from the Quality and Outcomes Framework

Author info | Abstract | Publisher info | Download info | Related research | Statistics
Author Info
Hugh Gravelle (National Primary Care Research & Development Centre, Centre for Health Economics, University of York)
Matt Sutton (Health Economics Research Unit, University of Aberdeen)
Ada Ma (Health Economics Research Unit, University of Aberdeen)

Additional information is available for the following registered author(s):

Abstract

Since 2003, 25% of UK general practitioners’ income has been determined by the quality of their care. The 65 clinical quality indicators in this scheme (the Quality and Outcomes Framework) are in the form of ratios, with financial reward increasing linearly with the ratio between a lower and upper threshold. The numerator is the number of patients for whom an indicator is achieved and the denominator is the number of patients the practices declare are suitable for the indicator. The number declared suitable is the number of patients with the relevant condition less the number exception reported by the practice for a specified range of reasons. Exception reporting is designed to avoid harmful treatment resulting from the application of quality targets to patients for whom they were not intended. However, exception reporting also gives GPs the opportunity to exclude patients who should in fact be treated in order to achieve higher financial rewards. This is inappropriate use of exception reporting or ‘gaming’. Practices can also increase income if they are below the upper threshold by reducing the number of patients declared with a condition (prevalence), or by increasing reported prevalence if they were above the upper threshold. This study examines the factors affecting delivered quality (the proportion of prevalent patients for indicators were achieved) and tests for gaming of exceptions and for prevalence reporting being responsive to financial incentives.

Download Info
To download:

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. Information about this may be contained in the File-Format links below. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL: http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/che/pdf/rp34.pdf
File Format: application/pdf
File Function: First version, 2007
Download Restriction: no

Publisher Info
Paper provided by Centre for Health Economics, University of York in its series Working Papers with number 034cherp.

Download reference. The following formats are available: HTML (with abstract), plain text (with abstract), BibTeX, RIS (EndNote, RefMan, ProCite), ReDIF
Length: 37 pages
Date of creation: Feb 2008
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:chy:respap:34cherp

Contact details of provider:
Postal: York Y010 5DD
Phone: (01904) 321401
Email:
Web page: http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/che
More information through EDIRC

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its listing, contact: (Frances Sharp).

Related research
Keywords: Quality. Incentives. Gaming. Pay for performance.;

This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

Cited by:
(explanations, Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.)
  1. Anthony Scott & Stefanie Schurer & Paul H. Jensen & Peter Sivey, 2009. "The effects of an incentive program on quality of care in diabetes management," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(9), pages 1091-1108. [Downloadable!]
  2. Anthony Scott & Stefanie Schurer & Paul H. Jensen & Peter Sivey, 2008. "The Effect of Financial Incentives on Quality of Care: The Case of Diabetes," Melbourne Institute Working Paper Series wp2008n12, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, The University of Melbourne. [Downloadable!]
    Other versions:
  3. Matt Sutton & Ross Elder & Bruce Guthrie & Graham Watt, 2008. "Record rewards: the effect on risk factor monitoring of new financial incentives for UK general practices," Health, Econometrics and Data Group (HEDG) Working Papers 08/21, HEDG, c/o Department of Economics, University of York. [Downloadable!]
  4. Kaarboe, Oddvar Martin & Siciliani, Luigi, 2008. "Multitasking, Quality and Pay for Performance," CEPR Discussion Papers 6911, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
    Other versions:
Statistics
Access and download statistics

Did you know? You can use convenient plug-ins to search directly IDEAS from your browser.

This page was last updated on 2009-11-25.


This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Department of Economics, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, University of Connecticut using RePEc data on a server sponsored by the Society for Economic Dynamics.