Effect of a national primary care pay for performance scheme on emergency hospital admissions for ambulatory care sensitive conditions: controlled longitudinal study.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the impact of a national primary care pay for performance scheme, the Quality and Outcomes Framework in England, on emergency hospital admissions for ambulatory care sensitive conditions (ACSCs). DESIGN: Controlled longitudinal study. SETTING: English National Health Service between 1998/99 and 2010/11. PARTICIPANTS: Populations registered with each of 6975 family practices in England. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Year specific differences between trend adjusted emergency hospital admission rates for incentivised ACSCs before and after the introduction of the Quality and Outcomes Framework scheme and two comparators: non-incentivised ACSCs and non-ACSCs. RESULTS: Incentivised ACSC admissions showed a relative reduction of 2.7% (95% confidence interval 1.6% to 3.8%) in the first year of the Quality and Outcomes Framework compared with ACSCs that were not incentivised. This increased to a relative reduction of 8.0% (6.9% to 9.1%) in 2010/11. Compared with conditions that are not regarded as being influenced by the quality of ambulatory care (non-ACSCs), incentivised ACSCs also showed a relative reduction in rates of emergency admissions of 2.8% (2.0% to 3.6%) in the first year increasing to 10.9% (10.1% to 11.7%) by 2010/11. CONCLUSIONS: The introduction of a major national pay for performance scheme for primary care in England was associated with a decrease in emergency admissions for incentivised conditions compared with conditions that were not incentivised. Contemporaneous health service changes seem unlikely to have caused the sharp change in the trajectory of incentivised ACSC admissions immediately after the introduction of the Quality and Outcomes Framework. The decrease seems larger than would be expected from the changes in the process measures that were incentivised, suggesting that the pay for performance scheme may have had impacts on quality of care beyond the directly incentivised activities

Measuring the overall performance of mental healthcare providers

To date there have been no attempts to construct composite measures of healthcare provider performance which reflect preferences for health and non-health benefits, as well as costs. Health and non-health benefits matter to patients, healthcare providers and the general public. We develop a novel provider performance measurement framework that combines health gain, non-health benefit, and cost and illustrate it with an application to 54 English mental health providers. We apply estimates from a discrete choice experiment eliciting the UK general population's valuation of non-health benefits relative to health gains, to administrative and patient survey data for years 2013-2015 to calculate equivalent health benefit (eHB) for providers. We measure costs as forgone health and quantify the relative performance of providers in terms of equivalent net health benefit (eNHB): the value of the health and non-health benefits minus the forgone benefit equivalent of cost. We compare rankings of providers by eHB, eNHB, and by the rankings produced by the hospital sector regulator. We find that taking account of the non-health benefits in the eNHB measure makes a substantial difference to the evaluation of provider performance. Our study demonstrates that the provider performance evaluation space can be extended beyond measures of health gain and cost, and that this matters for comparison of providers