Setting health care capitations through diagnosis-based risk adjustment: A suitable model for the English NHS?
The English system of health resource allocation has been described as the apotheosis of the area-level approach to setting health care capitations. However, recent policy developments have changed the scale at which commissioning decisions are made (and budgets allocated) with important implications for resource allocation. Doubts concerning the legitimacy of applying area-based formulae used to distribute resources between Primary Care Trusts (PCTs) to the much smaller scale required by Practice Based Commissioning (PBC) led the English Department of Health (DH) to introduce a new approach to setting health care budgets. To this end, practice-level allocations for acute services are now calculated using a diagnosis-based capitation model of the kind used in the United States and several other systems of competitive social health insurance. The new Coalition Government has proposed that these budgets are directly allocated to GP 'consortia', the new commissioning bodies in the NHS. This paper questions whether this is an appropriate development for a health system in which the major objective of resource allocation is to promote equal opportunity of access for equal needs. The chief reservation raised is that of circularity and the perpetuation of resource bias, the concern being that an existing social, demographic and geographical bias in the use of health care resources will be reinforced through the use of historic utilisation data. Demonstrating that there are legitimate reasons to suspect that this will be the case, the paper poses the question whether health systems internationally should more openly address the key limitations of empirical methods that select risk adjusters on the basis of existing patterns of health service utilisation.
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. 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.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
References listed on IDEAS
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.:
- Reid, R. & MacWilliam, L. & Roos, N.P. & Bogdanovich, B. & Black, C., 1999. "Measuring Morbidity in Populations: Performance of the John Hopkins Adjusted Clinical Group (ACG) Case-Mix Adjustment System in Manitoba," Centre for Health Services and Policy Research 99:9, University of British Columbia - Centre for Health Services and Policy Research..
- Erik SCHOKKAERT & Carine VAN DE VOORDE, 2000.
"Risk Selection and the Specification of the Conventional Risk Adjustment Formula,"
Center for Economic Studies - Discussion papers
ces0011, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Centrum voor Economische Studiën.
- Schokkaert, Erik & Van de Voorde, Carine, 2004. "Risk selection and the specification of the conventional risk adjustment formula," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 23(6), pages 1237-1259, November.
- Seshamani, Meena & Gray, Alastair M., 2004. "A longitudinal study of the effects of age and time to death on hospital costs," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 23(2), pages 217-235, March.
- Serden, Lisbeth & Lindqvist, Rikard & Rosen, Mans, 2003. "Have DRG-based prospective payment systems influenced the number of secondary diagnoses in health care administrative data?," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 65(2), pages 101-107, August.
- Steinbusch, Paul J.M. & Oostenbrink, Jan B. & Zuurbier, Joost J. & Schaepkens, Frans J.M., 2007. "The risk of upcoding in casemix systems: A comparative study," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 81(2-3), pages 289-299, May.
- Vallejo-Torres, Laura & Morris, Stephen & Carr-Hill, Roy & Dixon, Paul & Law, Malcom & Rice, Nigel & Sutton, Matthew, 2009. "Can regional resource shares be based only on prevalence data? An empirical investigation of the proportionality assumption," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 69(11), pages 1634-1642, December.
- Silverman, Elaine & Skinner, Jonathan, 2004. "Medicare upcoding and hospital ownership," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 23(2), pages 369-389, March.
- van de Ven, Wynand P.M.M. & Beck, Konstantin & Van de Voorde, Carine & Wasem, Jurgen & Zmora, Irit, 2007. "Risk adjustment and risk selection in Europe: 6 years later," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 83(2-3), pages 162-179, October.
- Mervyn Stone & Jane Galbraith, 2006. "How not to fund hospital and community health services in England," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 169(1), pages 143-164.
- Stam, Pieter J.A. & van Vliet, René C.J.A. & van de Ven, Wynand P.M.M., 2010. "A limited-sample benchmark approach to assess and improve the performance of risk equalization models," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(3), pages 426-437, May.
- Asthana, Sheena & Gibson, Alex & Moon, Graham & Dicker, John & Brigham, Philip, 2004. "The pursuit of equity in NHS resource allocation: should morbidity replace utilisation as the basis for setting health care capitations?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 58(3), pages 539-551, February.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:hepoli:v:101:y:2011:i:2:p:133-139. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Zhang, Lei)or ()
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.