Paying hospitals for quality: can we buy better care?

Economic theory predicts that changing financial rewards will change behaviour. This is valid in terms of service use; higher costs reduce health care use. It should follow that paying more for quality should improve quality; however, the research evidence thus far is equivocal, particularly in terms of better health outcomes. One reason is that "financial incentives" encompass a range of payment types and sizes of reward. The design of financial incentives should take into account the desired change and the context of existing payment structures, as well as other strategies for improving quality; further, financial incentives should be fair in rewarding effort. Financial incentives may have unintended consequences, including rewarding hospitals for selecting patients with lower risks, diverting attention from the overall patient population to specific conditions, gaming, and "crowding out" or displacing intrinsic motivation. Managers and clinicians can only respond to financial incentives if they have the data, tools and skills to effect changes. Australia should not adopt widespread use of financial incentives for improving quality in health care without careful consideration of their design and context, the potential for unintended effects (particularly beyond their immediate targets), and evaluation of outcomes. The relative cost-effectiveness of financial incentives compared with, or in concert with, other strategies should also be considered.

The use of financial incentives in Australian general practice.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the uptake of financial incentive payments in general practice, and identify what types of practitioners are more likely to participate in these schemes. DESIGN AND SETTING: Analysis of data on general practitioners and GP registrars from the Medicine in Australia - Balancing Employment and Life (MABEL) longitudinal panel survey of medical practitioners in Australia, from 2008 to 2011. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Income received by GPs from government incentive schemes and grants and factors associated with the likelihood of claiming such incentives. RESULTS: Around half of GPs reported receiving income from financial incentives in 2008, and there was a small fall in this proportion by 2011. There was considerable movement into and out of the incentives schemes, with more GPs exiting than taking up grants and payments. GPs working in larger practices with greater administrative support, GPs practising in rural areas and those who were principals or partners in practices were more likely to use grants and incentive payments. CONCLUSIONS: Administrative support available to GPs appears to be an increasingly important predictor of incentive use, suggesting that the administrative burden of claiming incentives is large and not always worth the effort. It is, therefore, crucial to consider such costs (especially relative to the size of the payment) when designing incentive payments. As market conditions are also likely to influence participation in incentive schemes, the impact of incentives can change over time and these schemes should be reviewed regularly.

Factors affecting general practitioner charges and Medicare bulk-billing: results of a survey of Australians.

OBJECTIVE: To identify factors affecting bulk-billing by general practitioners in Australia. DESIGN, PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING: A community-based survey was administered to Australians aged 16 years or older in July 2013 via an online panel. Survey questions focused on patient characteristics, visit characteristics, practice characteristics. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Factors associated with GP bulk-billing. RESULTS: 2477 respondents completed the survey, of whom 2064 (83.33%) reported that the practice that they went to for their most recent GP visit bulk billed some or all patients. Overall, 1763 respondents (71.17%) reported that their most recent GP visit was bulk billed. Taking into account the duration of visits and the corresponding Medicare Benefits Schedule rebate, the mean out-of-pocket cost for those who were not bulk billed was $34.09. RESULTS of a multivariate logistic regression analysis suggest that the odds of being bulk billed was negatively associated with larger practice size, respondents having had an appointment for their visit, higher household income and inner or outer regional area of residence. It was positively associated with the presence of a chronic disease, being a concession card holder and having private health insurance. There was no association between bulk-billing and duration of GP visit, age or sex. CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate that there are associations between patient characteristics and bulk-billing, and between general practice characteristics and bulk-billing. This suggests that caution is needed when considering changes to GP fees and Medicare rebates because of the many possible paths by which patients' access to services could be affected. Our results do not support the view that bulk-billing is associated with shorter consultation times.

The desire and capability of Australian general practitioners to change their working hours.

OBJECTIVE: To explore factors associated with general practitioners' desire to work less and their success in making that change. DESIGN, PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING: Waves 3 and 4 (conducted in 2010 and 2011) of a national longitudinal survey of Australian doctors in clinical practice (Medicine in Australia: Balancing Employment and Life). Of the broader group of medical practitioners in the survey, there were 3664 and 3436 GP completers in Waves 3 and 4, respectively. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The association between the desire to reduce hours and doctor, job and geographic characteristics; the association between predictors of the capability to reduce hours and these same doctor, job and geographic characteristics. RESULTS: Over 40% of GPs stated a preference to reduce their working hours. Characteristics that predicted this preference were being middle-aged, being female, working ≥ 40 hours per week (all P < 0.01), and being on call (P = 0.03). Factors associated with not wanting to reduce working hours were being in excellent health, being satisfied or very satisfied with work (both P < 0.01), and not being a partner in a practice (P < 0.01 for a number of alternative options [ie, associates, contractors and locums]). Of those who wanted to reduce working hours, 26.8% successfully managed to do so in the subsequent year (where reduction was defined as reducing hours by at least 5 per week). Predictors of successfully reducing hours were being younger, female and working ≥ 40 hours per week (all P < 0.01). CONCLUSION: A number of factors appear to determine both the desire of GPs to reduce hours and their subsequent success in doing so. Declining working hours have contributed to the perceived shortage in GPs. Therefore, designing policies that address not just the absolute number of medical graduates but also their subsequent level of work may alleviate some of the pressures on the Australian primary health care system.

Informal care and home-based palliative care: the health-related quality of life of carers.

Health is an important factor in the capacity of family and friends (informal carers) to continue providing care for palliative care patients at home. This study investigates associations between the health-related quality of life (HRQOL) of current informal carers and characteristics of the carers and their caregiving situation, in a sample of Australian carers of palliative care patients. The cross-sectional study used the Short Form-36 Health Survey to measure HRQOL. It found carers to have better physical health and worse mental health than the general population. Of 178 carers, 35% reported their health to be worse than it was one year ago. Multiple regression analyses found that the HRQOL of carers whose health had deteriorated in the previous year was associated with the patient's care needs but not the carer's time input, unlike the carers reporting stable health. Clinicians caring for palliative care patients should be alert to the potential health impairments of informal carers and ensure that they are adequately supported in their caregiving role and have access to appropriate treatment and preventive health care.

National health reform needs strategic investment in health services research.

With new funding for the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) to provide an evidence base for policy and practice reform, it is timely to revisit Australia's recent experiences with health services research and policy development. We provide a broad review of the contribution of Australian health services research to the development of health policy over the past 20 years. We conclude that three preconditions are necessary to influence policy: political will; sustained funding to encourage methodological rigour and build decision makers' confidence; and the development of sufficient capacity and skills.

Using discrete choice experiments to investigate subject preferences for preventive asthma medication.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Long-term adherence to inhaled corticosteroids is poor despite the crucial role of preventer medications in achieving good asthma outcomes. This study was undertaken to explore patient preferences in relation to their current inhaled corticosteroid medication, a hypothetical preventer or no medication. METHODS: A discrete choice experiment was conducted in 57 adults with mild-moderate asthma and airway hyper-responsiveness, who were using inhaled corticosteroid

Economic evaluation of a randomised trial of early return to normal activities versus cardiac rehabilitation after acute myocardial infarction.

BACKGROUND: Although there have been a number of economic evaluations of cardiac rehabilitation after acute myocardial infarction (AMI), none has considered only low-risk patients or control groups with no rehabilitation at all. METHODS: An economic evaluation was included in a randomised controlled trial of patients following uncomplicated AMI. Eligible patients were randomised to return to normal activities after 6 weeks of standard rehabilitation (REHAB, n = 70) or to early return to normal activities 2 weeks after AMI with no formal rehabilitation (ERNA, n = 72). Outcomes were assessed weekly for 6 weeks, then 3, 6 and 12 months post-AMI. Outcomes included four quality of life (QOL) measures (physical abilities, distress, usual/social activities, self-care) and four measures of return to normal activities (paid and unpaid return to any work and to pre-AMI level of work). Statistical analysis included repeated-measures regression (QOL outcomes) and survival analysis (work outcomes). RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in any of the outcomes measured or in the use of other health services. The net cost that could be saved by the health service by targeting rehabilitation to high-risk patients was approximately $300 (Australian, 1999) per low-risk patient. CONCLUSIONS: Early return to normal activities without formal rehabilitation is cost-effective for low-risk patients.

Cholesterol-lowering therapy with pravastatin in patients with average cholesterol levels and established ischaemic heart disease: is it cost-effective?

OBJECTIVE: To measure the cost-effectiveness of cholesterol-lowering therapy with pravastatin in patients with established ischaemic heart disease and average baseline cholesterol levels. DESIGN: Prospective economic evaluation within a double-blind randomised trial (Long-Term Intervention with Pravastatin in Ischaemic Disease [LIPID]), in which patients with a history of unstable angina or previous myocardial infarction were randomised to receive 40 mg of pravastatin daily or matching placebo. PATIENTS AND SETTING: 9014 patients aged 35-75 years from 85 centres in Australia and New Zealand, recruited from June 1990 to December 1992. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Cost per death averted, cost per life-year gained, and cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained, calculated from measures of hospitalisations, medication use, outpatient visits, and quality of life. RESULTS: The LIPID trial showed a 22% relative reduction in all-cause mortality (P < 0.001). Over a mean follow-up of 6 years, hospital admissions for coronary heart disease and coronary revascularisation were reduced by about 20%. Over this period, pravastatin cost $A4913 per patient, but reduced total hospitalisation costs by $A1385 per patient and other long-term medication costs by $A360 per patient. In a subsample of patients, average quality of life was 0.98 (where 0 = dead and 1 = normal good health); the treatment groups were not significantly different. The absolute reduction in all-cause mortality was 3.0% (95% CI, 1.6%-4.4%), and the incremental cost was $3246 per patient, resulting in a cost per life saved of $107 730 (95% CI, $68 626-$209 881) within the study period. Extrapolating long-term survival from the placebo group, the undiscounted cost per life-year saved was $7695 (and $10 938 with costs and life-years discounted at an annual rate of 5%). CONCLUSIONS: Pravastatin therapy for patients with a history of myocardial infarction or unstable angina and average cholesterol levels reduces all-cause mortality and appears cost effective compared with accepted treatments in high-income countries.