Marginal cost per QALY estimates: What are they good for?

Estimates of the marginal cost per quality-adjusted life year (MCPQ) are available for health care systems worldwide. Researchers routinely make claims about these estimates and how they should inform policymaking. This commentary considers these claims by taking a recent article from Health Policy as a case study. Claims are made about the past performance of the health service and about future decisions and relate to such considerations as productivity, the impact of technology approvals, cost-effectiveness thresholds, and budget allocation. We argue that the evidence does not justify these claims and MCPQ estimates should instead inform questions about the consequences of changes in expenditure.

Approaches to Measure Efficiency in Primary Care: A Systematic Literature Review.

BACKGROUND: Primary care in England is facing increasing pressure due to the increasing number and complexity of consultations and the declining number of doctors per head of population. The improvement of primary care efficiency and productivity should be a priority, to ensure that future investments in the medical workforce can cope with the increasingly large and complex demand for care. OBJECTIVES: This paper presents a systematic literature review of studies that define or measure efficiency in primary care in high-income settings. The review of the existing definitions of primary care efficiency and their limitations will inform future research on the measurement of efficiency in primary care in England and its determinants. METHODS: Literature searches were performed on Embase, Medline, and EconLit in January 2020. The records that passed the screening were reviewed in full text, and data on the study settings, the efficiency definition, and the efficiency analysis were extracted. RESULTS: Of the 2590 non-duplicate records retrieved from the searches, 38 papers were included in the analysis. The volume of the literature on primary care efficiency has evolved significantly from the 1980s, with the majority of the published studies focussing on European health systems. The setting most often analysed was primary care centres. Output was usually expressed using measures of primary care utilisation, with or without quality adjustments. Reference to the health outcomes achieved was, however, limited. Inputs were more commonly expressed in labour terms, while the exogenous variables related either to the characteristics of the patient population or the organisation of primary care. While all studies included an analysis of technical efficiency, consideration of allocative or cost efficiency or the determinants of productivity (e.g. technological change, skill mix) was rare. CONCLUSIONS: The main limitations that future research on primary care efficiency should address relate to the definition of output. Current approaches to measure the impact on health and the multiple dimensions of output are not sufficient to represent the valued output of primary care. In light of the recent changes in the model of primary care delivery in England, future research should also investigate the impact of technological change on productivity and the scope for substitution across staff roles.

Incentives and gender in a multi-task setting: An experimental study with real-effort tasks.

This paper investigates the behavioural effects of competitive, social-value and social-image incentives on men's and women's allocation of effort in a multi-task environment. Specifically, using two real-effort laboratory tasks, we investigate how competitive prizes, social-value generation and public awards affect effort allocation decisions between the tasks. We find that all three types of incentives significantly focus effort allocation towards the task they are applied in, but the effect varies significantly between men and women. The highest effort distortion lies with competitive incentives, which is due to the effort allocation decision of men. Women exert similar amount of effort across the three incentive conditions, with slightly lower effort levels in the social-image incentivized tasks. Our results inform how and why genders differences may persist in competitive workplaces.

Promoting normal birth and reducing caesarean section rates: An evaluation of the Rapid Improvement Programme.

This paper evaluates the impact of the 2008 Rapid Improvement Programme that aimed at promoting normal birth and reducing caesarean section rates in the English National Health Service. Using Hospital Episode Statistics maternity records for the period 2001-2013, a panel data analysis was performed to determine whether the implementation of the programme reduced caesarean sections rates in participating hospitals. The results obtained using either the unadjusted sample of hospitals or a trimmed sample determined by a propensity score matching approach indicate that the impact of the programme was small. More specifically there were 2.3 to 3.4 fewer caesarean deliveries in participating hospitals, on average, during the postprogramme period offering a limited scope for cost reduction. This result mainly comes from the reduction in the number of emergency caesareans as no significant effect was uncovered for planned caesarean deliveries.

Cancelled Procedures in the English NHS: Evidence from the 2010 Tariff Reform.

This paper explores the role of incentives in the English National Health Service. Until financial year 2009/2010, elective procedures that were cancelled after admission received a fixed reimbursement associated with a specific healthcare resource group code. We investigate whether this induced trusts to admit and then cancel, rather than cancel before admission and/or to cancel low fee over high fee work. As the tariff was ended in April 2010, we conduct an interrupted time series analysis to examine if their behaviour was affected after the tariff removal. The results indicate a small, yet statistically significant, decline in the probability of a last minute cancellation in the post-tariff period, especially for certain types of patients and diagnoses. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Governing patient safety: lessons learned from a mixed methods evaluation of implementing a ward-level medication safety scorecard in two English NHS hospitals.

BACKGROUND: Relatively little is known about how scorecards presenting performance indicators influence medication safety. We evaluated the effects of implementing a ward-level medication safety scorecard piloted in two English NHS hospitals and factors influencing these. METHODS: We used a mixed methods, controlled before and after design. At baseline, wards were audited on medication safety indicators; during the 'feedback' phase scorecard results were presented to intervention wards on a weekly basis over 7 weeks. We interviewed 49 staff, including clinicians and managers, about scorecard implementation. RESULTS: At baseline, 18.7% of patients (total n=630) had incomplete allergy documentation; 53.4% of patients (n=574) experienced a drug omission in the preceding 24 h; 22.5% of omitted doses were classified as 'critical'; 22.1% of patients (n=482) either had ID wristbands not reflecting their allergy status or no ID wristband; and 45.3% of patients (n=237) had drugs that were either unlabelled or labelled for another patient in their drug lockers. The quantitative analysis found no significant improvement in intervention wards following scorecard feedback. Interviews suggested staff were interested in scorecard feedback and described process and culture changes. Factors influencing scorecard implementation included 'normalisation' of errors, study duration, ward leadership, capacity to engage and learning preferences. DISCUSSION: Presenting evidence-based performance indicators may potentially influence staff behaviour. Several practical and cultural factors may limit feedback effectiveness and should be considered when developing improvement interventions. Quality scorecards should be designed with care, attending to evidence of indicators' effectiveness and how indicators and overall scorecard composition fit the intended audience.

Cancelled procedures: inequality, inequity and the National Health Service reforms.

Using data for every elective procedure in 2007 in the English National Health Service, we found evidence of socioeconomic inequality in the probability of having a procedure cancelled after admission while controlling for a range of patient and provider characteristics. Whether this disparity is inequitable is inconclusive.

Cancelled surgeries and payment by results in the English National Health Service.

OBJECTIVES: To model the frequency of 'last minute' cancellations of planned elective procedures in the English NHS with respect to the patient and provider factors that led to these cancellations. METHODS: A dataset of 5,288,604 elective patients spell in the English NHS from January 1st, 2007 to December 31st, 2007 was extracted from the Hospital Episode Statistics. A binary dependent variable indicating whether or not a patient had a Health Resource Group coded as S22--'Planned elective procedure not carried out'--was modeled using a probit regression estimated via maximum likelihood including patient, case and hospital level covariates. RESULTS: Longer waiting times and being admitted on a Monday were associated with a greater rate of cancelled procedures. Male patients, patients from lower socio-economic groups and older patients had higher rates of cancelled procedures. There was significant variation in cancellation rates between hospitals; Foundation Trusts and private facilities had the lowest cancellation rates. CONCLUSIONS: Further research is needed on why Foundation Trusts exhibit lower cancellation rates. Hospitals with relatively high cancellation rates should be encouraged to tackle this problem. Further evidence is needed on whether hospitals are more likely to cancel operations where the procedure tariff is lower than the S22 tariff as this creates a perverse incentive to cancel. Understanding the underlying causes of why male, older and patients from lower socio-economic groups are more likely to have their operations cancelled is important to inform the appropriate policy response. This research suggests that interventions designed to reduce cancellation rates should be targeted to high-cancellation groups.