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.

Financial incentives and prescribing behavior in primary care.

Many healthcare systems prohibit primary care physicians from dispensing the drugs they prescribe due to concerns that this encourages excessive, ineffective or unnecessarily costly prescribing. Using data from the English National Health Service for 2011-2018, we estimate the impact of physician dispensing rights on prescribing behavior at the extensive margin (comparing practices that dispense and those that do not) and the intensive margin (comparing practices with different proportions of patients to whom they dispense). We control for practices selecting into dispensing based on observable (OLS, entropy balancing) and unobservable practice characteristics (2SLS). We find that physician dispensing increases drug costs per patient by 3.1%, due to more, and more expensive, drugs being prescribed. Reimbursement is partly based on a fixed fee per package dispensed and we find that dispensing practices prescribe smaller packages. As the proportion of the practice population for whom they can dispense increases, dispensing practices behave more like non-dispensing practices.

The impact of COVID-19 on mental health service utilisation in England.

The COVID-19 pandemic has had a significant impact on population mental health and the need for mental health services in many countries, while also disrupting critical mental health services and capacity, as a response to the pandemic. Mental health providers were asked to reconfigure wards to accommodate patients with COVID-19, thereby reducing capacity to provide mental health services. This is likely to have widened the existing mismatch between demand and supply of mental health care in the English NHS. We quantify the impact of these rapid service reconfigurations on activity levels for mental health providers in England during the first thirteen months (March 2020-March 2021) of the COVID-19 pandemic. We use monthly mental health service utilisation data for a large subset of mental health providers in England from January 1, 2015 to March 31, 2021. We use multivariate regression to estimate the difference between observed and expected utilisation from the start of the pandemic in March 2020. Expected utilisation levels (i.e. the counterfactual) are estimated from trends in utilisation observed during the pre-pandemic period January 1, 2015 to February 31, 2020. We measure utilisation as the monthly number of inpatient admissions, discharges, net admissions (admissions less discharges), length of stay, bed days, number of occupied beds, patients with outpatient appointments, and total outpatient appointments. We also calculate the accumulated difference in utilisation from the start of the pandemic period. There was a sharp reduction in total inpatient admissions and net admissions at the beginning of the pandemic, followed by a return to pre-pandemic levels from September 2020. Shorter inpatient stays are observed over the whole period and bed days and occupied bed counts had not recovered to pre-pandemic levels by March 2021. There is also evidence of greater use of outpatient appointments, potentially as a substitute for inpatient care.

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.

How do clinical quality and patient satisfaction vary with provider size in primary care? Evidence from English general practice panel data.

We examine the relationship between general practice list size and measures of clinical quality and patient satisfaction. Using data on all English practices from 2005/6 to 2016/17, we estimate practice level models with rich data on patient demographics, deprivation, and morbidity. We use lagged list size to allow for potential simultaneity bias from the effect of quality on list size. We compare results from three different estimation methods: pooled ordinary least squares, random practice effects, fixed practice effects. With all three estimation methods increased list size is associated with reductions in all four measures of patient satisfaction. Increases in list size are associated with worse performance on three clinical quality indicators and better performance on three, though the precision and size of the associations varies with the estimation method. The absolute values of the elasticities of the ten quality indicators with respect to list size are small: in all cases a 10% change in list size would change quality by less than 1%. The lack of evidence that large practices have markedly better quality suggests that encouraging practices to form larger, but looser, groupings, may not, in itself, improve their performance.

Does provider competition improve health care quality and efficiency? Expectations and evidence from Europe

Provider competition has been a feature of health care markets in the USA, but also some European countries such as Germany, the Netherlands and France. Other European countries, such as the UK, Italy and Norway, did not historically feature provider competition but have introduced it over time. Policy-makers in favour of competition in the health sector typically argue that competition among providers within a market has virtuous properties for both quality and efficiency. In other institutional contexts, policy-makers are sceptical of competition and voice concerns that providers operating in a competitive environment will seek to minimize cost and maximize profit by skimping on service quality and reducing access. Competition can also hamper collaboration opportunities across providers and can be seen as a step towards privatization of the health sector. This policy brief reviews the evidence on the effects of provider competition from seven countries in Europe. While it mainly focuses on hospital care, evidence from the primary care and integrated care markets is also analysed.

Patient Self-Reported Health, Clinical Quality, and Patient Satisfaction in English Primary Care: Practice-Level Longitudinal Observational Study.

OBJECTIVES: To examine the association of self-reported health of patients in general practices, as measured by the EQ-5D-5L, with practice clinical quality and patient-reported satisfaction with accessibility and consultations. METHODS: We used data from the General Practitioner (GP) Patient Survey to construct a practice-level EQ-5D-5L index as the health outcome. Key explanatories were patient-reported measures of satisfaction with access and consultations (also derived from the GP Patient Survey) and clinical quality measured by the achievement of clinical quality indicators reported in the Quality and Outcomes Framework. We estimated practice-level linear panel data models with random and fixed practice effects and practice and patient covariates using 2012/13 to 2016/17 data on more than 7500 English general practices. RESULTS: Bivariate correlations of the EQ-5D-5L index with quality measures were 0.048 for clinical quality, 0.071 for satisfaction with access, and 0.107 for satisfaction with GP consultations (all with P<.001). In both fixed effects regressions, which allow for unobserved time invariant practice characteristics, and random effects regressions which do not, the EQ-5D-5L index was positively associated with 1-year lags of patient satisfaction with access and GP consultations. Patient-reported health was positively associated with clinical quality in the fixed effects regressions. The implied effects were small in all cases. CONCLUSION: Practice-level EQ-5D-5L is positively associated with clinical quality and with 1-year lags of patient-reported satisfaction with access and GP consultations.

Impact of primary care funding on patient satisfaction: a retrospective longitudinal study of English general practice, 2013-2016.

BACKGROUND: Providing high-quality clinical care and good patient experience are priorities for most healthcare systems. AIM: To understand the relationship between general practice funding and patient-reported experience. DESIGN AND SETTING: Retrospective longitudinal study of English general practice-level data for the financial years 2013-2014 to 2016-2017. METHOD: Data for all general practices in England from the General and Personal Medical Services database were linked to patient experience data from the GP Patient Survey (GPPS). Panel data multivariate regression was used to estimate the impact of general practice funding (current or lagged 1 year) per patient on GPPS-reported patient experience of access, continuity of care, professionalism, and overall satisfaction. Confounding was controlled for by practice, demographic, and GPPS responder characteristics, and for year effects. RESULTS: Inflation-adjusted mean total annual funding per patient was £133.66 (standard deviation [SD] = £39.46). In all models, higher funding was associated with better patient experience. In the model with lagged funding and practice fixed effects (model 6), a 1 SD increase in funding was associated with increases in scores in the domains of access (1.18%; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.89 to 1.47), continuity (0.86%; 95% CI = 0.19 to 1.52), professionalism of GP (0.47%; 95% CI = 0.22 to 0.71), professionalism of nurse (0.51%; 95% CI = 0.24 to 0.77), professionalism of receptionist (0.51%; 95% CI = 0.24 to 0.78), and in overall satisfaction (0.88%; 95% CI = 0.52 to 1.24). CONCLUSION: Better-funded general practices were more likely to have higher reported patient experience ratings across a wide range of domains.

Do small hospitals have lower quality? Evidence from the English NHS.

We investigate the extent to which small hospitals are associated with lower quality. We first take a patient perspective, and test if, controlling for casemix, patients admitted to small hospitals receive lower quality than those admitted to larger hospitals. We then investigate if differences in quality between large and small hospitals can be explained by hospital characteristics such as hospital type and staffing. We use a range of quality measures including hospital mortality rates (overall and for specific conditions), hospital acquired infection rates, waiting times for emergency patients, and patient perceptions of the care they receive. We find that small hospitals, with fewer than 400 beds, are generally not associated with lower quality before or after controlling for hospital characteristics. The only exception is heart attack mortality, which is generally higher in small hospitals.

Patterns of emergency admissions for ambulatory care sensitive conditions: a spatial cross-sectional analysis of observational data.

OBJECTIVES: To examine the spatial and temporal patterns of English general practices' emergency admissions for Ambulatory Care Sensitive Conditions (ACSCs). DESIGN: Observational study of practice level annual hospital emergency admissions data for ACSCs for all English practices from 2004-2017. PARTICIPANTS: All patients with an emergency admission to a National Health Service hospital in England who were registered with an English general practice. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Practice level age and gender indirectly standardised ratios (ISARs) for emergency admissions for ACSC. RESULTS: In 2017, 41.8% of the total variation in ISARs across practices was between the 207 Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) (the administrative unit for general practices) and 58.2% was across practices within CCGs. ACSC ISARs increased by 4.7% between 2004 and 2017, while those for conditions incentivised by the Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) fell by 20%. Practice ISARs are persistent: practices with high rates in 2004 also had high rates in 2017. Standardising by deprivation as well as age and gender reduced the coefficient of variation of practice ISARs in 2017 by 22%. CONCLUSIONS: There is persistent spatial pattern of emergency admissions for ACSC across England both within and across CCGs. We illustrate the reduction in ACSCs emergency admissions across the study period for conditions incentivised by the QOF but find that this was not accompanied by a reduction in variation in these admissions across practices. The observed spatial pattern persists when admission rates are standardised by deprivation. The persistence of spatial clusters of high emergency admissions for ACSCs within and across CCG boundaries suggests that policies to reduce potentially unwarranted variation should be targeted at practice level.

Optimal hospital payment rules under rationing by waiting.

We derive optimal rules for paying hospitals for non-emergency care when providers choose quality and capacity, and patient demand is rationed by waiting time. Waiting for treatment is costly for patients, so that hospital payment rules should take account of their effect on waiting time as well as on quality. Since deterministic waiting time models imply that profit maximising hospitals will never choose to have both positive quality and positive waiting time, we develop a stochastic model of rationing by waiting in which both quality and expected waiting are positive in equilibrium. We use it to show that, although a prospective output price gives hospitals an incentive to attract patients by raising quality and reducing waiting times, it must be supplemented by a price attached to hospital decisions on quality or capacity or to a performance indicator which depends on those decisions (such as average waiting time, or average length of stay). A prospective output price by itself can support the optimal quality and waiting time distribution only if the welfare function respects patient preferences over quality and waiting time, if patients' marginal rates of substitution between quality and waiting time are independent of income, and if waiting for treatment does not reduce the productivity of patients. If these conditions do not hold, supplementing the output price with a reward linked to the hospital's cost can increase welfare, though it is possible that costs should be taxed rather than subsidised.

Relationship between general practice capitation funding and the quality of primary care in England: a cross-sectional, 3-year study.

OBJECTIVE: To explore the relationship between general practice capitation funding and quality ratings based on general practice inspections. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study pooling 3 years of primary care administrative data. SETTING: UK primary care. PARTICIPANTS: 7310 practices (95% of all practices) in England which underwent Care Quality Commission (CQC) inspections between November 2014 and December 2017. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: CQC ratings. Ordered logistic regression methods were used to predict the relationship between practice capitation funding and CQC ratings in each of five domains of quality: caring, effective, responsive, safe and well led, together with an overall practice rating. RESULTS: Higher capitation funding per patient was significantly associated with higher CQC ratings across all five quality domains: caring (OR 1.14, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.23), effective (OR 1.08, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.16), responsive (OR 1.09, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.17), safe (OR 1.11, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.18), well led (OR 1.13, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.20) and overall rating (OR 1.13, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.19). CONCLUSION: Higher capitation funding was consistently associated with higher ratings across all CQC domains and in the overall practice rating. This study suggests that measured dimensions of the quality of care are related to the underlying capitation funding allocated to each general practice, implying that additional capitation funding may be associated with higher levels of primary care quality.

Spatial competition and quality: Evidence from the English family doctor market.

We examine whether family doctor firms in England respond to local competition by increasing their quality. We measure quality in terms of clinical performance and patient-reported satisfaction to capture its multi-dimensional nature. We use a panel covering 8 years for over 8000 English general practices. We measure competition as the number of rival doctors within a small distance and control for a large number of potential confounders. We find that increases in local competition are associated with increases in patient satisfaction and to a lesser extent in clinical quality. However, the magnitude of the effect is small.

Impact of family practice continuity of care on unplanned hospital use for people with serious mental illness.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether continuity of care in family practice reduces unplanned hospital use for people with serious mental illness (SMI). DATA SOURCES: Linked administrative data on family practice and hospital utilization by people with SMI in England, 2007-2014. STUDY DESIGN: This observational cohort study used discrete-time survival analysis to investigate the relationship between continuity of care in family practice and unplanned hospital use: emergency department (ED) presentations, and unplanned admissions for SMI and ambulatory care-sensitive conditions (ACSC). The analysis distinguishes between relational continuity and management/ informational continuity (as captured by care plans) and accounts for unobserved confounding by examining deviation from long-term averages. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: Individual-level family practice administrative data linked to hospital administrative data. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Higher relational continuity was associated with 8-11 percent lower risk of ED presentation and 23-27 percent lower risk of ACSC admissions. Care plans were associated with 29 percent lower risk of ED presentation, 39 percent lower risk of SMI admissions, and 32 percent lower risk of ACSC admissions. CONCLUSIONS: Family practice continuity of care can reduce unplanned hospital use for physical and mental health of people with SMI.

Details matter: Physician responses to multiple payments for the same activity.

The UK Quality and Outcomes Framework rewards general practices for achieving quality indicators for chronic disease management. Some indicators are multi-rewarded. For example, there are indicators for controlling blood pressure for patients with diabetes and for patients with chronic heart disease. Thus if a patient has diabetes and heart disease the practice is rewarded twice for controlling her blood pressure. Other indicators are singly rewarded: the incentivised activity is only for patients with single specific condition. We compare general practice performance on single and multi-reward indicators. We use a 2005/6-2012/13 panel of over 800 Scottish general practices, control for practice characteristics, practice fixed effects, indicator characteristics (whether the indicator was for measurement, treatment, or intermediate outcome, maximum payment, upper thresholds), condition, and year and cluster on indicators. We find that the proportion of patients with a given condition for whom a quality indicator was achieved was higher, and the proportion who were exception reported was lower, for multi-reward indicators than for single reward indicators. We also exploit the replacement of multi-reward smoking indicators by single reward indicators in 2006/7. Compared to indicators which were always single or always multi-reward, the proportion of the relevant patients for whom the smoking indicators were achieved fell when the smoking indicators were no longer multi-reward. Fine details of pay for performance schemes matter: they affect physician behaviour and patient outcomes.

Association Between Antipsychotic Polypharmacy and Outcomes for People With Serious Mental Illness in England.

OBJECTIVE: Although U.K. and international guidelines recommend monotherapy, antipsychotic polypharmacy among patients with serious mental illness is common in clinical practice. However, empirical evidence on its effectiveness is scarce. Therefore, the authors estimated the effectiveness of antipsychotic polypharmacy relative to monotherapy in terms of health care utilization and mortality. METHODS: Primary care data from Clinical Practice Research Datalink, hospital data from Hospital Episode Statistics, and mortality data from the Office of National Statistics were linked to compile a cohort of patients with serious mental illness in England from 2000 to 2014. The antipsychotic prescribing profile of 17,255 adults who had at least one antipsychotic drug record during the period of observation was constructed from primary care medication records. Survival analysis models were estimated to identify the effect of antipsychotic polypharmacy on the time to first occurrence of each of three outcomes: unplanned hospital admissions (all cause), emergency department (ED) visits, and mortality. RESULTS: Relative to monotherapy, antipsychotic polypharmacy was not associated with increased risk of unplanned hospital admission (hazard ratio [HR]=1.14; 95% confidence interval [CI]=0.98-1.32), ED visit (HR=0.95; 95% CI=0.80-1.14), or death (HR=1.02; 95% CI=0.76-1.37). Relative to not receiving antipsychotic medication, monotherapy was associated with a reduced hazard of unplanned admissions to the hospital and ED visits, but it had no effect on mortality. CONCLUSIONS: The study results support current guidelines for antipsychotic monotherapy in routine clinical practice. However, they also suggest that when clinicians have deemed antipsychotic polypharmacy necessary, health care utilization and mortality are not affected.

Does hospital competition improve efficiency? The effect of the patient choice reform in England.

We use the 2006 relaxation of constraints on patient choice of hospital in the English NHS to investigate the effect of hospital competition on dimensions of efficiency including indicators of resource management (admissions per bed, bed occupancy rate, proportion of day cases, and cancelled elective operations) and costs (reference cost index for overall and elective activity, cleaning services costs, laundry and linen costs). We employ a quasi differences-in-differences approach and estimate seemingly unrelated regressions and unconditional quantile regressions with data on hospital trusts from 2002/2003 to 2010/2011. Our findings suggest that increased competition had mixed effects on efficiency. An additional equivalent rival increased admissions per bed by 1.1%, admissions per doctor by 0.9% and the proportion of day cases by 0.38 percentage points, but it also increased the number of cancelled elective operations by 2.5%.

Do care plans and annual reviews of physical health influence unplanned hospital utilisation for people with serious mental illness? Analysis of linked longitudinal primary and secondary healthcare records in England.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether two primary care activities that are framed as indicators of primary care quality (comprehensive care plans and annual reviews of physical health) influence unplanned utilisation of hospital services for people with serious mental illness (SMI). DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS: Retrospective observational cohort study using linked primary care and hospital records (Hospital Episode Statistics) for 5158 patients diagnosed with SMI between April 2006 and March 2014, who attended 213 primary care practices in England that contribute to the Clinical Practice Research Datalink GOLD database. OUTCOMES AND ANALYSIS: Cox survival models were used to estimate the associations between two primary care quality indicators (care plans and annual reviews of physical health) and the hazards of three types of unplanned hospital utilisation: presentation to accident and emergency departments (A&E), admission for SMI and admission for ambulatory care sensitive conditions (ACSC). RESULTS: Risk of A&E presentation was 13% lower (HR 0.87, 95% CI 0.77 to 0.98) and risk of admission to hospital for ACSC was 23% lower (HR 0.77, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.99) for patients with a care plan documented in the previous year compared with those without a care plan. Risk of A&E presentation was 19% lower for those who had a care plan documented earlier but not updated in the previous year (HR: 0.81, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.97) compared with those without a care plan. Risks of hospital admission for SMI were not associated with care plans, and none of the outcomes were associated with annual reviews. CONCLUSIONS: Care plans documented in primary care for people with SMI are associated with reduced risk of A&E attendance and reduced risk of unplanned admission to hospital for physical health problems, but not with risk of admission for mental health problems. Annual reviews of physical health are not associated with risk of unplanned hospital utilisation.

Heterogeneous effects of patient choice and hospital competition on mortality.

We examine whether the relaxation of constraints on patient choice of hospital in the English National Health Service in 2006 led to greater changes in mortality for hospitals which faced more rivals before the choice reform. We use patient level data from 2002 to 2010 for three high volume emergency conditions with high mortality risk: acute myocardial infarction (AMI) (288,279 patients), hip fracture (91,005 patients), stroke (214,103 patients). Since mortality risk varies by sub-diagnoses of AMI and stroke we include indicators for sub-diagnoses in the covariates. We also allow for the effect of covariates on mortality to differ before and after the 2006 choice reform. We find that the choice reform reduced mortality risk for hip fracture patients by 0.62% (95% CI: 1.22%, 0.01%), compared with the 2002/3-2010/11 mean of 3.5%, but had statistically insignificant negative effects for AMI and stroke. The reform also had heterogeneous effects across AMI and stroke sub-diagnoses, reducing mortality for 3% of AMI patients and 21% of stroke patients. The reduction in hip fracture mortality was greater for more deprived patients. Policies to increase competition and give patients greater choice are likely to have heterogeneous effects depending on details of patient case mix and market conditions.

Do rural incentives payments affect entries and exits of general practitioners?

Many countries use financial incentive programs to attract physicians to work in rural areas. This paper examines the effectiveness of a policy reform in Australia that made some locations newly eligible for financial incentives and increased incentives for locations already eligible. The analysis uses panel data (2008-2014) on all Australian general practitioners (GPs) aggregated to small areas. We use a difference-in-differences approach to examine if the policy change affected GP entry or exit to the 755 newly eligible locations and the 787 always eligible locations relative to 2249 locations which were never eligible. The policy change increased the entry of newly-qualified GPs to newly eligible locations but had no effect on the entry and exit of other GPs. Our results suggest that location incentives should be targeted at newly qualified GPs.