IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/chy/respap/3cherp.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Do the incentive payments in the new NHS contract for primary care reflect likely population health gains?

Author

Listed:
  • Robert Fleetcroft

    (School of Medicine, Health Policy and Practice, University of East Anglia)

  • Richard Cookson

    (Centre for Health Economics, University of York)

Abstract

The new contract for primary care in the UK offers fee-for-service payments for a wide range of activities in a quality outcomes framework, with payments designed to reflect likely workload. This study aims to explore the link between these financial incentives and the likely population health gains. The study examines a subset of eight preventive interventions covering 38 of the 81 clinical indicators in the quality framework. The maximum payment for each service was calculated and compared with the likely population health gain in terms of lives saved per 100,000 population based on evidence from McColl et al. (1998). Maximum payments for the eight interventions examined make up 57% of the sum total maximum payment for all clinical interventions in the quality outcomes framework. There appears to be no relationship between pay and health gain across these eight interventions. Two of the eight interventions (warfarin in atrial fibrillation and statins in primary prevention) receive no incentive. Payments in the new contract do not reflect likely population health gain. There is a danger that clinical activity may be skewed towards high-workload activities that are only marginally effective, to the detriment of more cost effective activities. If improving population health is the primary goal of the NHS, then fee-for-service incentives should be designed to reflect likely health gain rather than likely workload.

Suggested Citation

  • Robert Fleetcroft & Richard Cookson, 2005. "Do the incentive payments in the new NHS contract for primary care reflect likely population health gains?," Working Papers 003cherp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
    • Handle: RePEc:chy:respap:3cherp
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.york.ac.uk/media/che/documents/papers/researchpapers/rp3_Incentive_payments_in_the_new_NHS_contract_for_primary_care.pdf
    File Function: First version, 2005
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Tony Scott & Alan Maynard, 1991. "Will the new GP contract lead to cost effective medical practice?," Working Papers 082chedp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Scott, Anthony & Hall, Jane, 1995. "Evaluating the effects of GP remuneration: problems and prospects," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 183-195, March.
    2. Natasha Palmer & Anne Mills, 2003. "Classical versus relational approaches to understanding controls on a contract with independent GPs in South Africa," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(12), pages 1005-1020, December.
    3. Karen Bloor & Alan Maynard, 1993. "Expenditure on the NHS during and after the Thatcher years: its growth and utilisation," Working Papers 113chedp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
    4. Karen Bloor & Alam Maynard & Andrew Street, 1992. "How much is a doctor worth?," Working Papers 098chedp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
    5. Alan Maynard & Arthur Walker, 1993. "Planning the medical workforce: struggling out of the time warp," Working Papers 105chedp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
    6. Darrin L. Baines & David K. Whynes, 1996. "Selection bias in GP fundholding," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 5(2), pages 129-140, March.
    7. Karen Bloor & Alan Maynard, 1995. "Equity in primary care," Working Papers 141chedp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
    8. Brenda Leese & Mike Drummond & Roger Hawkes, 1994. "Medical technology in general practice in the UK: will fundholding make a difference?," Working Papers 122chedp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:chy:respap:3cherp. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Gill Forder (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/chyoruk.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.