Pay for Quality

More documents

Recommendations

Info

90 Pay for Quality KCE Reports 118 This means that only 6 of the 27 studies have a study design that is appropriate to describe the effects of the implementation of the initiative. None of these 6 studies report on the effects more than two year after the implementation of the initiative. The 148, 169 most recent data analyzed in the 32 reported studies are from 2007 An important number of studies use the practice outcomes and/or use area level scores of deprivation as a proxy for the socioeconomic status of the patient. These studies assume that the eventually associations observed at the practice or area level reflect the same association at the individual level. This may not be true, a problem known as the ecological fallacy 133 , 160 , 164 . Notwithstanding these limitations this study comes to some interesting findings that can certainly contribute to the knowledge base of the equity debate. As discussed in section 5.2.1 the quality of care in the UK generally improved with the introduction of QOF and for the majority of the observed indicators all citizens benefit from this improvement. However, the extent to which different patient groups benefit tends to vary and to be highly dependent on the type and complexity of the indicator(s) under study, the observed patient groups (age groups, males versus females, socioeconomic groups or ethnic groups), the characteristics of the study (design, level of analysis, covariates, …) and the level of detail of the studied indicators. Before the implementation of the QOF a clear gap in health care for older patients was documented for stroke care, for CHD care and for diabetes care. After the introduction of the QOF, for all observed diseases the net gap d becomes smaller. For the existing inequities in health care for women, deprived patients and patients from other than white ethnic backgrounds, the results are not as clear as for the elderly patients. Pre-contract, for women a net gap in health care was documented for stroke, for CHD and for diabetes care. For health care related to stroke the net gender gap got smaller after the implementation of the QOF. For CHD and diabetes care the net gender gap increased. Considering socioeconomic groups, the relatively small gap for stroke care and CHD care increased after the implementation of the QOF, whether for diabetes care the gap got smaller. Finally, the small existing gap in CHD care for ethnic minorities disappeared after the introduction of the QOF. When looking at inequity at a more detailed level, the level of individual indicators, the findings become even more complex, scattered and sometimes contradictory. Hereby we summarize the most marked results: • Post-contract improvements in blood pressure control and statin prescribing increased for both white CHD patients and black CHD patients but to a larger extent for blacks, completely attenuating the disparities evident precontract. The same results were found for the measurement of blood pressure in the South Asian patients. • Regarding stroke related QOF indicators, for the recording of a magnetic resonance imaging/computed tomography scan, smoking, cholesterol, antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapy, and influenza vaccination, a significant difference between the most and least deprived patients was found. • Recording of HbA1c and the achievement of BP goals increased more in white diabetes patients than in black diabetic patients and in South Asian diabetic patients resulting in a widening of the existing ethnic disparities in care for blacks and Asians. • Similar increases in HbA1c measuring and BP measuring were found across all ethnic groups except for the Black Caribbean group who had lower achievement in BP goals and in HbA1c targets. d Net result or net gap: If the total number of indicators in which inequity appears pre-contract > the total number of indicators in which inequity appears post-contract, the net result is a decrease of the gap. If the total number of indicators in which inequity appears pre-contract < the total number of indicators in which inequity appears post-contract, the net result is an increase of the gap.
KCE Reports 118 Pay for Quality 91 In general we see that all citizens benefit from the improvements in quality of care and the extent to which they benefit determine whether the existing gap narrows (when the least off have a larger growth than the best off) or increases (if the least off have a smaller growth than the best off). However, for some indicators a new gap arises there where there was no gap pre-contract. For example a significant difference between the most and least deprived patients emerged after the contract for the recording of blood pressure, the recording of smoking status and giving smoking advice. Also pre-contract diabetic women were as likely as men to have their HbA1c, blood pressure, serum creatinine and cholesterol recorded where post-contract inequities in these indicators appeared. For some indicators, the increase in quality of care for the initially deprived groups was even larger than for the other patients, resulting in an inversion of the gap or a ‘positive discrimination’: for the measurement of BMI, the measurement of cholesterol and the control of BP a positive discrimination of South Asian patients with CHD compared to white British patients with CHD was described. 157 . Also for one indicator in diabetes care (serum creatinine recorded) the inequity inversed towards a pro-elderly distribution of the indicator 128 . In 2000, Victoria et al formulated the inverse equity hypothesis. This hypothesis proposes that affluent groups in society preferentially benefit from new interventions, leading to an initial increase in inequalities. Deprived groups only begin to benefit once affluent groups have extracted maximum benefit. Health inequalities ultimately diminish because deprived groups start with a lower baseline level of health and health care uptake and have higher potential gains 148 , 235 . The above results do not unanimously confirm the first part of the hypothesis (i.e. just after the introduction of a new intervention the more affluent areas or groups in society benefit most). With regard to the persistency of these changes over time only two studies were found 84 , 142 . In the first year after the introduction a clear socioeconomic gradient was recorded, with progressively lower achievement and greater variation in achievement, with increasing area deprivation. However this gradient was not steep. Both Doran et al. (2008) and Ashworth et al (2007) showed that after 3 years this existing (but small) gradient between deprived areas had almost disappeared. 84 , 142 Moreover, using regression models including area, practice, patient and GP characteristics, Doran was able to prove that the increase in achievement over time was not significantly associated with area deprivation but was very strongly associated with previous practice performance: “the lower the achievement in the previous year, the greater the increase in achievement.” 84 This is a very important finding because it might indicate that the QOF indeed is a truly equitable public-health intervention since the improvements in quality achievement by practices are inversely related to previous performance and not to the level of deprivation of the area where the practice is located. However, alternative explanations for the described phenomenon could also exist: it is possible that the increase in quality already started before the introduction of the QOF (there are some indications for this) and that the better off groups already nearly reached their full growing potential by the time the QOF was introduced. 84 This might explain the reduction of some of the precontract health care gaps as described in the previous paragraph 84 . With regard to exception reporting there is some concern that this might be used as an excuse for substandard care of patients or to exclude patients for whom the targets had been missed, mostly socially deprived patients or patients with a different ethnic background, rather than because of a genuine clinical reason (also known as ‘gaming’). The most recent and most comprehensive study that addresses this topic is the study of Doran et al (2008); they report that the characteristics of the patients (e.g. gender, socioeconomic position) explain only 2.7% of the variance in exception reporting. This does not confirm earlier studies with more limited study designs reporting that practices in financially deprived areas are more likely to exclude patients (McLean 2006). Doran et al (2008) conclude that “Exception reporting brings substantial benefits to pay-for-performance programmes, providing that the process has been used appropriately.
Page 1 and 2:
Voordelen, nadelen en haalbaarheid
Page 3 and 4:
Voordelen, nadelen en haalbaarheid
Page 5 and 6:
Externe validatoren : Simpson (Univ
Page 7 and 8:
KCE Reports 118A Pay for Quality ii
Page 9 and 10:
KCE Reports 118A Pay for Quality iv
Page 11 and 12:
KCE Reports 118A Pay for Quality vi
Page 13 and 14:
KCE Reports 118A Pay for Quality vi
Page 15 and 16:
KCE Reports 118 Pay for Quality 1 S
Page 17 and 18:
KCE Reports 118 Pay for Quality 3 9
Page 19 and 20:
KCE Reports 118 Pay for Quality 5 W
Page 21 and 22:
KCE Reports 118 Pay for Quality 7 S
Page 23 and 24:
KCE Reports 118 Pay for Quality 9 2
Page 25 and 26:
KCE Reports 118 Pay for Quality 11
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54: KCE Reports 118 Pay for Quality 39
Page 77 and 78: Clinical domain (disease) KCE Repor
Page 103: KCE Reports 118 Pay for Quality 89
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
Page 187 and 188:
Page 189 and 190:
Page 191:
Page 194 and 195:
Wettelijk depot : D/2008/10.273/50
Page 196 and 197:
37. HTA Magnetische Resonantie Beel
Page 198:
108. Tiotropium in de behandeling v
show all

Pay for Quality

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?