Social Decision-Making Analysis: A General Approach to Inform Decisions on Resources in the Public Sector.

OBJECTIVES: Public expenditure aims to achieve social objectives by improving a range of socially valuable attributes of benefit (arguments in a social welfare function). Public expenditure is typically allocated to public sector budgets, where budget holders are tasked with meeting a subset of social objectives. METHODS: Decision makers require an evidence-based assessment of whether a proposed investment is likely to be worthwhile given existing levels of public expenditure. However, others also require some assessment of whether the overall level and allocation of public expenditure are appropriate. This article proposes a more general theoretical framework for economic evaluation that addresses both these questions. RESULTS: Using a stylized example of the economic evaluation of a new intervention in a simplified UK context, we show that this more general framework can support decisions beyond the approval or rejection of single projects. It shows that broader considerations about the level and allocation of public expenditure are possible and necessary when evaluating specific investments, which requires evidence of the range of benefits offered by marginal changes in different types of public expenditure and normative choices of how the attributes of benefit gained and forgone are valued. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed framework shows how to assess the value of a proposed investment and whether and how the overall level of public expenditure and its allocation across public sector budgets might be changed. It highlights that cost-benefit analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis can be viewed as special cases of this framework, identifying the weakness with each.

Need, demand, supply in health care: working definitions, and their implications for defining access.

Effective policymaking in health care systems begins with a clear typology of the terminology - need, demand, supply and access to care - and their interrelationships. However, the terms are contested and their meaning is rarely stated explicitly. This paper offers working definitions of need, demand and supply. We draw on the international literature and use a Venn diagram to explain the terms. We then define access to care, reviewing alternative and competing definitions from the literature. We conclude by discussing potential applications of our conceptual framework to help to understand the interrelationships and trade-offs between need, demand, supply and access in health care.

Geographic Disparities in the Availability of Mental Health Services in U.S. Public Schools.

INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study was to examine geographic variation in the availability of and barriers to school-based mental health services. METHODS: A weighted, nationally representative sample of U.S. public schools from the 2017-2018 School Survey on Crime and Safety was used. Schools reported the provision of diagnostic mental health assessments and/or treatment as well as factors that limited the provision of mental health services. Availability of mental health services and factors limiting service provision were examined across rurality, adjusting for school enrollment and grade level. The analysis was conducted in December 2021. RESULTS: Half (51.2%) of schools reported providing mental health assessments, and 38.3% reported providing treatment. After adjusting for enrollment and grade level, rural schools were 19% less likely, town schools were 21% less likely, and suburban schools were 11% less likely to report providing mental health assessments than city schools. Only suburban schools were less likely than city schools to provide mental health treatment (incidence rate ratio=0.85; 95% CI=0.72, 1.00). Factors limiting the provision of services included inadequate access to professionals (70.9%) and inadequate funding (77.0%), which were most common among rural schools. CONCLUSIONS: Significant inequities in school-based mental health services exist outside of urban areas.

Impact of prevention in primary care on costs in primary and secondary care for people with serious mental illness.

A largely unexplored part of the financial incentive for physicians to participate in preventive care is the degree to which they are the residual claimant from any resulting cost savings. We examine the impact of two preventive activities for people with serious mental illness (care plans and annual reviews of physical health) by English primary care practices on costs in these practices and in secondary care. Using panel two-part models to analyze patient-level data linked across primary and secondary care, we find that these preventive activities in the previous year are associated with cost reductions in the current quarter both in primary and secondary care. We estimate that there are large beneficial externalities for which the primary care physician is not the residual claimant: the cost savings in secondary care are 4.7 times larger than the cost savings in primary care. These activities are incentivized in the English National Health Service but the total financial incentives for primary care physicians to participate were considerably smaller than the total cost savings produced. This suggests that changes to the design of incentives to increase the marginal reward for conducting these preventive activities among patients with serious mental illness could have further increased welfare.

Evaluating integrated care for people with complex needs.

OBJECTIVES: As part of the Vanguard programme, two integrated care models were introduced in South Somerset for people with complex care needs: the Complex Care Team and Enhanced Primary Care. We assessed their impact on a range of utilization measures and mortality. METHODS: We used monthly individual-level linked primary and secondary care data from April 2014 to March 2018 to assess outcomes before and after the introduction of the care models. The analysis sample included 564 Complex Care Team and 841 Enhanced Primary Care cases that met specific criteria. We employed propensity score methods to identify out-of-area control patients and difference-in-differences analysis to isolate the care models' impact. RESULTS: We found no evidence of significantly reduced utilization in any of the Complex Care Team or Enhanced Primary Care cohorts. The death rate was significantly lower only for those in the first Enhanced Primary Care cohort. CONCLUSIONS: The integrated care models did not significantly reduce utilization nor consistently reduce mortality. Future research should test longer-term outcomes associated with the new models of care and quantify their contribution in the context of broader initiatives.

Investigating the relationship between social care supply and healthcare utilization by older people in England.

Since 2010, adult social care spending in England has fallen significantly in real terms whilst demand has risen. Reductions in social care supply may also have impacted demand for NHS services, particularly for those whose care is provided at the interface of the health and care systems. We analyzed a panel dataset of 150 local authorities (councils) to test potential impacts on hospital utilization by people aged 65 and over: emergency admission rates for falls and hip fractures ("front-door" measures); and extended stays of 7 days or longer; and 21 days or longer ("back-door" measures). Changes in social care supply were assessed in two ways: gross current expenditure (per capita 65 and over) adjusted by local labor costs and social care workforce (per capita 18 and over). We ran negative binomial models, controlling for deprivation, ethnicity, age, unpaid care, council class, and year effects. To account for potential endogeneity, we ran instrumental variable regressions and dynamic panel models. Sensitivity analysis explored potential effects of funding for integrated care (the Better Care Fund). There was no consistent evidence that councils with higher per capita spend or higher social care staffing rates had lower hospital admission rates or shorter hospital stays.

Plan, recruit, retain: a framework for local healthcare organizations to achieve a stable remote rural workforce.

BACKGROUND: Recruiting and retaining a skilled health workforce is a common challenge for remote and rural communities worldwide, negatively impacting access to services, and in turn peoples' health. The research literature highlights different factors facilitating or hindering recruitment and retention of healthcare workers to remote and rural areas; however, there are few practical tools to guide local healthcare organizations in their recruitment and retention struggles. The purpose of this paper is to describe the development process, the contents, and the suggested use of The Framework for Remote Rural Workforce Stability. The Framework is a strategy designed for rural and remote healthcare organizations to ensure the recruitment and retention of vital healthcare personnel. METHOD: The Framework is the result of a 7-year, five-country (Sweden, Norway, Canada, Iceland, and Scotland) international collaboration combining literature reviews, practical experience, and national case studies in two different projects. RESULT: The Framework consists of nine key strategic elements, grouped into three main tasks (plan, recruit, retain). Plan: activities to ensure that the population's needs are periodically assessed, that the right service model is in place, and that the right recruits are targeted. Recruit: activities to ensure that the right recruits and their families have the information and support needed to relocate and integrate in the local community. Retain: activities to support team cohesion, train current and future professionals for rural and remote health careers, and assure the attractiveness of these careers. Five conditions for success are recognition of unique issues; targeted investment; a regular cycle of activities involving key agencies; monitoring, evaluating, and adjusting; and active community participation. CONCLUSION: The Framework can be implemented in any local context as a holistic, integrated set of interventions. It is also possible to implement selected components among the nine strategic elements in order to gain recruitment and/or retention improvements.

Trends in and drivers of healthcare expenditure in the English NHS: a retrospective analysis.

BACKGROUND: In England, rises in healthcare expenditure consistently outpace growth in both GDP and total public expenditure. To ensure the National Health Service (NHS) remains financially sustainable, relevant data on healthcare expenditure are needed to inform decisions about which services should be delivered, by whom and in which settings. METHODS: We analyse routine data on NHS expenditure in England over 9 years (2008/09 to 2016/17). To quantify the relative contribution of the different care settings to overall healthcare expenditure, we analyse trends in 14 healthcare settings under three broad categories: Hospital Based Care (HBC), Diagnostics and Therapeutics (D&T) and Community Care (CC). We exclude primary care and community mental health services settings due to a lack of consistent data. We employ a set of indices to aggregate diverse outputs and to disentangle growth in healthcare expenditure that is driven by activity from that due to cost pressures. We identify potential drivers of the observed trends from published studies. RESULTS: Over the 9-year study period, combined NHS expenditure on HBC, D&T and CC rose by 50.2%. Expenditure on HBC rose by 54.1%, corresponding to increases in both activity (29.2%) and cost (15.7%). Rises in expenditure in inpatient (38.5%), outpatient (57.2%), and A&E (59.5%) settings were driven predominately by higher activity. Emergency admissions rose for both short-stay (45.6%) and long-stay cases (26.2%). There was a switch away from inpatient elective care (which fell by 5.1%) and towards day case care (34.8% rise), likely reflecting financial incentives for same-day discharges. Growth in expenditure on D&T (155.2%) was driven by rises in the volume of high cost drugs (270.5%) and chemotherapy (110.2%). Community prescribing grew by 45.2%, with costs falling by 24.4%. Evidence on the relationship between new technologies and healthcare expenditure is mixed, but the fall in drug costs could reflect low generic prices, and the use of health technology assessment or commercial arrangements to inform pricing of new medicines. CONCLUSIONS: Aggregate trends in HCE mask enormous variation across healthcare settings. Understanding variation in activity and cost across settings is an important initial step towards ensuring the long-term sustainability of the NHS.

Why are there long waits at English emergency departments?

A core performance target for the English National Health Service (NHS) concerns waiting times at Emergency Departments (EDs), with the aim of minimising long waits. We investigate the drivers of long waits. We analyse weekly data for all major EDs in England from April 2011 to March 2016. A Poisson model with ED fixed effects is used to explore the impact on long (> 4 h) waits of variations in demand (population need and patient case-mix) and supply (emergency physicians, introduction of a Minor Injury Unit (MIU), inpatient bed occupancy, delayed discharges and long-term care). We assess overall ED waits and waits on a trolley (gurney) before admission. We also investigate variation in performance among EDs. The rate of long overall waits is higher in EDs serving older patients (4.2%), where a higher proportion of attendees leave without being treated (15.1%), in EDs with a higher death rate (3.3%) and in those located in hospitals with greater bed occupancy (1.5%). These factors are also significantly associated with higher rates of long trolley waits. The introduction of a co-located MIU is significantly and positively associated with long overall waits, but not with trolley waits. There is substantial variation in waits among EDs that cannot be explained by observed demand and supply characteristics. The drivers of long waits are only partially understood but addressing them is likely to require a multi-faceted approach. EDs with high rates of unexplained long waits would repay further investigation to ascertain how they might improve.

Incentive schemes to increase dementia diagnoses in primary care in England: a retrospective cohort study of unintended consequences.

BACKGROUND: The UK government introduced two financial incentive schemes for primary care to tackle underdiagnosis in dementia: the 3-year Directed Enhanced Service 18 (DES18) and the 6-month Dementia Identification Scheme (DIS). The schemes appear to have been effective in boosting dementia diagnosis rates, but their unintended effects are unknown. AIM: To identify and quantify unintended consequences associated with the DES18 and DIS schemes. DESIGN AND SETTING: A retrospective cohort quantitative study of 7079 English primary care practices. METHOD: Potential unintended effects of financial incentive schemes, both positive and negative, were identified from a literature review. A practice-level dataset covering the period 2006/2007 to 2015/2016 was constructed. Difference-in-differences analysis was employed to test the effects of the incentive schemes on quality measures from the Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF); and four measures of patient experience from the GP Patient Survey (GPPS): patient-centred care, access to care, continuity of care, and the doctor-patient relationship. The researchers controlled for effects of the contemporaneous hospital incentive scheme for dementia and for practice characteristics. RESULTS: National practice participation rates in DES18 and DIS were 98.5% and 76% respectively. Both schemes were associated not only with a positive impact on QOF quality outcomes, but also with negative impacts on some patient experience indicators. CONCLUSION: The primary care incentive schemes for dementia appear to have enhanced QOF performance for the dementia review, and have had beneficial spillover effects on QOF performance in other clinical areas. However, the schemes may have had negative impacts on several aspects of patient experience.

Effects of local authority expenditure on childhood obesity.

BACKGROUND: Under the 2013 reforms introduced by the Health and Social Care Act (2012), public health responsibilities in England were transferred from the National Health Service to local authorities (LAs). Ring-fenced grants were introduced to support the new responsibilities. The aim of our study was to test whether the level of expenditure in 2013/14 affected the prevalence of childhood obesity in 2016/17. METHODS: We used National Child Measurement Programme definitions of childhood obesity and datasets. We used LA revenue returns data to derive three measures of per capita expenditure: childhood obesity (<19); physical activity (<19) and the Children's 5-19 Public Health Programme. We ran separate negative binomial models for two age groups of children (4-5 year olds; 10-11 year olds) and conducted sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: With few exceptions, the level of spend in 2013/14 was not significantly associated with the level of childhood obesity in 2016/17. We identified some positive associations between spend on physical activity and the Children's Public Health Programme at baseline (2013/14) and the level of childhood obesity in children aged 4-5 in 2016/17, but the effect was not evident in children aged 10-11. In both age groups, LA levels of childhood obesity in 2016/17 were significantly and positively associated with obesity levels in 2013/14. As these four cohorts comprise entirely different pupils, this underlines the importance of local drivers of childhood obesity. CONCLUSIONS: Higher levels of local expenditure are unlikely to be effective in reducing childhood obesity in the short term.

Prospective payment systems and discretionary coding-Evidence from English mental health providers.

Reimbursement of English mental health hospitals is moving away from block contracts and towards activity and outcome-based payments. Under the new model, patients are categorised into 20 groups with similar levels of need, called clusters, to which prices may be assigned prospectively. Clinicians, who make clustering decisions, have substantial discretion and can, in principle, directly influence the level of reimbursement the hospital receives. This may create incentives for upcoding. Clinicians are supported in their allocation decision by a clinical clustering algorithm, the Mental Health Clustering Tool, which provides an external reference against which clustering behaviour can be benchmarked. The aims of this study are to investigate the degree of mismatch between predicted and actual clustering and to test whether there are systematic differences amongst providers in their clustering behaviour. We use administrative data for all mental health patients in England who were clustered for the first time during the financial year 2014/15 and estimate multinomial multilevel models of over, under, or matching clustering. Results suggest that hospitals vary systematically in their probability of mismatch but this variation is not consistently associated with observed hospital characteristics.

Local authority commissioning of NHS Health Checks: A regression analysis of the first three years.

In April 2013, the public health function was transferred from the NHS to local government, making local authorities (LAs) responsible for commissioning the NHS Health Check programme. The programme aims to reduce preventable mortality and morbidity in people aged 40-74. The national five-year ambition is to invite all eligible individuals and to achieve an uptake of 75%. This study evaluates the effects of LA expenditure on the programme's invitation rates (the proportion of the eligible population invited to a health check), coverage rates (the proportion of the eligible population who received a health check) and uptake rates (attendance by those who received a formal invitation letter) in the first three years of the reforms. We ran negative binomial panel models and controlled for a range of confounders. Over 2013/14-2015/16, the invitation rate, coverage rate and uptake rate averaged 57% 28% and 49% respectively. Higher per capita spend on the programme was associated with increases in both the invitation rate and coverage rate, but had no effect on the uptake rate. When we controlled for the LA invitation rate, the association between spend and coverage rate was smaller but remained statistically significant. This suggests that alternatives to formal invitation, such as opportunistic approaches in work places or sports centres, may be effective in influencing attendance.

Investigating the impact of primary care payments on underdiagnosis in dementia: A difference-in-differences analysis.

OBJECTIVE: In England, two primary care incentive schemes were introduced to increase dementia diagnosis rates to two-thirds of expected levels. This study assesses the effectiveness of these schemes. METHODS: We used a difference-in-differences framework to analyse the individual and collective impacts of the incentive schemes: (1) Directed Enhanced Service 18 (DES18: facilitating timely diagnosis of and support for dementia) and (2) the Dementia Identification Scheme (DIS). The dataset included 7529 English general practices, of which 7142 were active throughout the 10-year study period (April 2006 to March 2016). We controlled for a range of factors, including a contemporaneous hospital incentive scheme for dementia. Our dependent variable was the percentage of expected cases that was recorded on practice dementia registers (the "rate"). RESULTS: From March 2013 to March 2016, the mean rate rose from 51.8% to 68.6%. Both DES18 and DIS had positive and significant effects. In practices participating in the DES18 scheme, the rate increased by 1.44 percentage points more than the rate for non-participants; DIS had a larger effect, with an increase of 3.59 percentage points. These combined effects increased dementia registers nationally by an estimated 40 767 individuals. Had all practices fully participated in both schemes, the corresponding number would have been 48 685. CONCLUSION: The primary care incentive schemes appear to have been effective in closing the gap between recorded and expected prevalence of dementia, but the hospital scheme had no additional discernible effect. This study contributes additional evidence that financial incentives can motivate improved performance in primary care.

Directors of public health as 'a protected species': qualitative study of the changing role of public health professionals in England following the 2013 reforms.

Background: The Health and Social Care Act 2012 gave councils in England responsibility for improving the health of their populations. Public health teams were transferred from the National Health Service (NHS), accompanied by a ring-fenced public health grant. This study examines the changing role of these teams within local government. Methods: In-depth case study research was conducted within 10 heterogeneous councils. Initial interviews (n = 90) were carried out between October 2015 and March 2016, with follow-up interviews (n = 21) 12 months later. Interviewees included elected members, directors of public health (DsPH) and other local authority officers, plus representatives from NHS commissioners, the voluntary sector and Healthwatch. Results: Councils welcomed the contribution of public health professionals, but this was balanced against competing demands for financial resources and democratic leverage. DsPH-seen by some as a 'protected species'-were relying increasingly on negotiating and networking skills to fulfil their role. Both the development of the existing specialist public health workforce and recruitment to, and development of, the future workforce were uncertain. This poses both threats and opportunities. Conclusions: Currently the need for staff to retain specialist skills and maintain UKPH registration is respected. However, action is needed to address how future public health professionals operating within local government will be recruited and developed.

Risk of Care Home Placement following Acute Hospital Admission: Effects of a Pay-for-Performance Scheme for Dementia.

INTRODUCTION: The Quality and Outcomes Framework, or QOF, rewards primary care doctors (GPs) in the UK for providing certain types of care. Since 2006, GPs have been paid to identify patients with dementia and to conduct an annual review of their mental and physical health. During the review, the GP also assesses the carer's support needs, including impact of caring, and ensures that services are co-ordinated across care settings. In principle, this type of care should reduce the risk of admission to long-term residential care directly from an acute hospital ward, a phenomenon considered to be indicative of poor quality care. However, this potential effect has not previously been tested. METHODS: Using English data from 2006/07 to 2010/11, we ran multilevel logit models to assess the impact of the QOF review on the risk of care home placement following emergency admission to acute hospital. Emergency admissions were defined for (a) people with a primary diagnosis of dementia and (b) people with dementia admitted for treatment of an ambulatory care sensitive condition. We adjusted for a wide range of potential confounding factors. RESULTS: Over the study period, 19% of individuals admitted to hospital with a primary diagnosis of dementia (N = 31,120) were discharged to a care home; of those admitted for an ambulatory care sensitive condition (N = 139,267), the corresponding figure was 14%. Risk factors for subsequent care home placement included older age, female gender, vascular dementia, incontinence, fall, hip fracture, and number of comorbidities. Better performance on the QOF review was associated with a lower risk of care home placement but only when the admission was for an ambulatory care sensitive condition. CONCLUSIONS: The QOF dementia review may help to reduce the risk of long-term care home placement following acute hospital admission.

Determinants of hospital length of stay for people with serious mental illness in England and implications for payment systems: a regression analysis.

BACKGROUND: Serious mental illness (SMI), which encompasses a set of chronic conditions such as schizophrenia, bipolar disorder and other psychoses, accounts for 3.4 m (7 %) total bed days in the English NHS. The introduction of prospective payment to reimburse hospitals makes an understanding of the key drivers of length of stay (LOS) imperative. Existing evidence, based on mainly small scale and cross-sectional studies, is mixed. Our study is the first to use large-scale national routine data to track English hospitals' LOS for patients with a main diagnosis of SMI over time to examine the patient and local area factors influencing LOS and quantify the provider level effects to draw out the implications for payment systems. METHODS: We analysed variation in LOS for all SMI admissions to English hospitals from 2006 to 2010 using Hospital Episodes Statistics (HES). We considered patients with a LOS of up to 180 days and estimated Poisson regression models with hospital fixed effects, separately for admissions with one of three main diagnoses: schizophrenia; psychotic and schizoaffective disorder; and bipolar affective disorder. We analysed the independent contribution of potential determinants of LOS including clinical and socioeconomic characteristics of the patient, access to and quality of primary care, and local area characteristics. We examined the degree of unexplained variation in provider LOS. RESULTS: Most risk factors did not have a differential effect on LOS for different diagnostic sub-groups, however we did find some heterogeneity in the effects. Shorter LOS in the pooled model was associated with co-morbid substance or alcohol misuse (4 days), and personality disorder (8 days). Longer LOS was associated with older age (up to 19 days), black ethnicity (4 days), and formal detention (16 days). Gender was not a significant predictor. Patients who self-discharged had shorter LOS (20 days). No association was found between higher primary care quality and LOS. We found large differences between providers in unexplained variation in LOS. CONCLUSIONS: By identifying key determinants of LOS our results contribute to a better understanding of the implications of case-mix to ensure prospective payment systems reflect accurately the resource use within sub-groups of patients with SMI.

Does the quality and outcomes framework reduce psychiatric admissions in people with serious mental illness? A regression analysis.

BACKGROUND: The Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) incentivises general practices in England to provide proactive care for people with serious mental illness (SMI) including schizophrenia, bipolar disorder and other psychoses. Better proactive primary care may reduce the risk of psychiatric admissions to hospital, but this has never been tested empirically. METHODS: The QOF data set included 8234 general practices in England from 2006/2007 to 2010/2011. Rates of hospital admissions with primary diagnoses of SMI or bipolar disorder were estimated from national routine hospital data and aggregated to practice level. Poisson regression was used to analyse associations. RESULTS: Practices with higher achievement on the annual review for SMI patients (MH9), or that performed better on either of the two lithium indicators for bipolar patients (MH4 or MH5), had more psychiatric admissions. An additional 1% in achievement rates for MH9 was associated with an average increase in the annual practice admission rate of 0.19% (95% CI 0.10% to 0.28%) or 0.007 patients (95% CI 0.003 to 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The positive association was contrary to expectation, but there are several possible explanations: better quality primary care may identify unmet need for secondary care; higher QOF achievement may not prevent the need for secondary care; individuals may receive their QOF checks postdischarge rather than prior to admission; individuals with more severe SMI may be more likely to be registered with practices with better QOF performance; and QOF may be a poor measure of the quality of care for people with SMI.

Integrating funds for health and social care: an evidence review.

OBJECTIVES: Integrated funds for health and social care are one possible way of improving care for people with complex care requirements. If integrated funds facilitate coordinated care, this could support improvements in patient experience, and health and social care outcomes, reduce avoidable hospital admissions and delayed discharges, and so reduce costs. In this article, we examine whether this potential has been realized in practice. METHODS: We propose a framework based on agency theory for understanding the role that integrated funding can play in promoting coordinated care, and review the evidence to see whether the expected effects are realized in practice. We searched eight electronic databases and relevant websites, and checked reference lists of reviews and empirical studies. We extracted data on the types of funding integration used by schemes, their benefits and costs (including unintended effects), and the barriers to implementation. We interpreted our findings with reference to our framework. RESULTS: The review included 38 schemes from eight countries. Most of the randomized evidence came from Australia, with nonrandomized comparative evidence available from Australia, Canada, England, Sweden and the US. None of the comparative evidence isolated the effect of integrated funding; instead, studies assessed the effects of 'integrated financing plus integrated care' (i.e. 'integration') relative to usual care. Most schemes (24/38) assessed health outcomes, of which over half found no significant impact on health. The impact of integration on secondary care costs or use was assessed in 34 schemes. In 11 schemes, integration had no significant effect on secondary care costs or utilisation. Only three schemes reported significantly lower secondary care use compared with usual care. In the remaining 19 schemes, the evidence was mixed or unclear. Some schemes achieved short-term reductions in delayed discharges, but there was anecdotal evidence of unintended consequences such as premature hospital discharge and heightened risk of readmission. No scheme achieved a sustained reduction in hospital use. The primary barrier was the difficulty of implementing financial integration, despite the existence of statutory and regulatory support. Even where funds were successfully pooled, budget holders' control over access to services remained limited. Barriers in the form of differences in performance frameworks, priorities and governance were prominent amongst the UK schemes, whereas difficulties in linking different information systems were more widespread. Despite these barriers, many schemes - including those that failed to improve health or reduce costs - reported that access to care had improved. Some of these schemes revealed substantial levels of unmet need and so total costs increased. CONCLUSIONS: It is often assumed in policy that integrating funding will promote integrated care, and lead to better health outcomes and lower costs. Both our agency theory-based framework and the evidence indicate that the link is likely to be weak. Integrated care may uncover unmet need. Resolving this can benefit both individuals and society, but total care costs are likely to rise. Provided that integration delivers improvements in quality of life, even with additional costs, it may, nonetheless, offer value for money.

UNDERSTANDING VARIATIONS IN RELATIVE EFFECTIVENESS: A HEALTH PRODUCTION APPROACH.

BACKGROUND: Relative effectiveness has become a key concern of health policy. In Europe, this is because of the need for early information to guide reimbursement and funding decisions about new medical technologies. However, ways that effectiveness (does it work?) and efficacy (can it work?) might differ across health systems are poorly understood. METHODS: This study proposes an analytical framework, drawing on production function theory, to systematically identify and quantify the determinants of relative effectiveness and sources of variation between populations and healthcare systems. We consider how methods such as stochastic frontier analysis and data envelopment analysis using a Malmquist productivity index could in principle be used to generate evidence on, and improve understanding about, the sources of variation in relative effectiveness between countries and over time. RESULTS: Better evidence on factors driving relative effectiveness could: inform decisions on how to best use a new technology to maximum effectiveness; establish the need if any for follow-up post-launch studies, and provide evidence of the impact of new health technologies on outcomes in different healthcare systems. CONCLUSIONS: The health production function approach for assessment of relative effectiveness is complementary to traditional experimental and observational studies, focusing on identifying, collecting, and analyzing data at the national level, enabling comparisons to take place. There is a strong case for exploring the use of this approach to better understand the impact of new medicines and devices for improvements in health outcomes.