1 COHERE, Department of Business and Economics, Faculty of Business and Social Sciences, SDU2 Department of Business and Economics, Faculty of Business and Social Sciences, SDU3 unknown4 Health Economics, Faculty of Business and Social Sciences, SDU5 Health Economics, Faculty of Business and Social Sciences, SDU
Despite growing adoption of pay-for-performance (P4P) programmes in health care, there is remarkably little evidence on the cost-effectiveness of such schemes. We review the limited number of previous studies and critique the frameworks adopted and the narrow range of costs and outcomes considered, before proposing a new more comprehensive framework, which we apply to the first P4P scheme introduced for hospitals in England. We emphasise that evaluations of cost-effectiveness need to consider who the residual claimant is on any cost savings, the possibility of positive and negative spillovers, and whether performance improvement is a transitory or investment activity. Our application to the Advancing Quality initiative demonstrates that the incentive payments represented less than half of the 13m pound total programme costs. By generating approximately 5200 quality-adjusted life years and 4.4m pound of savings in reduced length of stay, we find that the programme was a cost-effective use of resources in its first 18months. Copyright (c) 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Health Economics, 2014, Vol 23, Issue 1, p. 1-13
Pay-for-performance Cost-effectiveness PAY-FOR-PERFORMANCE HOSPITAL PAY HEALTH-CARE MORTALITY MEDICARE PROGRAM IMPACT STATE