Hugh McLeod

Evaluation of total purchasing pilots in England and Scotland and implications for primary care groups in England: personal interviews and analysis of routine data

Abstract Objectives: To evaluate the reported achievements of the 52 first wave total purchasing pilot schemes in 1996-7 and the factors associated with these; and to consider the implications of these findings for the development of the proposed primary care groups. Design: Face to face interviews with lead general practitioners, project managers, and health authority representatives responsible for each pilot; and analysis of hospital episode statistics. Setting: England and Scotland for evaluation of pilots; England only for consideration of implications for primary care groups. Main outcome measures: The ability of total purchasers to achieve their own objectives and their ability specifically to achieve objectives in the service areas beyond fundholding included in total purchasing. Results: The level of achievement between pilots varied widely. Achievement was more likely to be reported in primary than in secondary care. Reported achievements in reducing length of stay and emergency admissions were corroborated by analysis of hospital episode statistics. Single practice and small multipractice pilots were more likely than large multipractice projects to report achieving their objectives. Achievements were also associated with higher direct management costs per head and the ability to undertake independent contracting. Large multipractice pilots required considerable organisational development before progress could be made. Conclusion: The ability to create effective commissioning organisations the size of the proposed primary care groups should not be underestimated. To be effective commissioners, these care groups will need to invest heavily in their organisational development and in the short term are likely to need an additional development budget rather than the reduction in spending on NHS management that is planned by the government.

Practice based commissioning: applying the research evidence

General practitioners are being asked to retake responsibility for commissioning healthcare services. What can we learn from previous experience? nnThe English NHS is unusual in its continuing faith in primary care based organisations to carry out effective purchasing of healthcare services. The latest incarnation of this approach is to encourage all general practices to be responsible for a budget to purchase community health services and secondary care on behalf of their enrolled populations by the end of 2006.1 2 The logic is that in doing so, they will act more cost effectively, scrutinising the demand for hospital care and redesigning services across the hospital-community interface. Some evidence supports this logic.3 We assess current policy on purchasing in the light of evidence from research concerning purchasing by primary care organisations in the 1990s and more recent evaluations of primary care groups and trusts and draw out some key messages that may be helpful in its further development.nnPurchasing is typically considered to be a process whereby services are specified upfront on the basis of quality and value for money, with only those who can meet such requirements tendering to provide the service.3 Commissioning is used to describe what is arguably a more sophisticated and strategic process of assessing health needs, developing new services or providers to meet those needs if required, contracting for services, and undertaking a range of strategic efforts to improve population health.4 We previously defined primary care led commissioning as “Commissioning led by primary health care clinicians, particularly GPs, using their accumulated knowledge of their patients needs and of the performance of services, together with their experience as agents for their patients and control over resources.”3nnCommissioning by primary care, and particularly practice based commissioning (which involves clinicians directly) is a response to …

Should general practitioners purchase health care for their patients? The total purchasing experiment in Britain

Until relatively recently, general practitioners (GPs) have been allowed to work independently, with no requirement to consider the resource implications of their referral and prescribing decisions. In order to align the interests of GPs with the overall objectives of health systems a number of countries have introduced primary care based capitation, funds pooling and budget holding either as experiments or as an overall policy. Are these experiments and policies likely to work? This paper presents evidence from the UK total purchasing experiment, which was the first major quasi-market development in the NHS to be independently evaluated from the outset. Total purchasing gave volunteer groups of practices freedom to purchase all hospital and community health services for their patients. The evidence suggests that whilst GPs have great potential as purchasers, they also have considerable limitations. The expectation that they will be able to improve the quality of patient experience of care, or to alter the use of resources, may not be generally realised. GP-based purchasing may be more appropriate where the task is to alter the balance or location of care between hospital and extramural settings. However, budgetary incentives are not magic potions which have similar effects on behaviour wherever they are introduced. Holding budgets and having independent contracts, while important pre-requisites for being taken seriously in a quasi-market, were not sufficient for effective total purchasing. The paper concludes that health systems should not only value innovation and experimentation and encourage learning from evaluative research; they should also recognise the importance of supportive circumstances for any innovation to effect real and sustained change.

Moving specialist care into the community: an initial evaluation

Objectives: To assess the likely impact on patients and local health economies of shifting specialist care from hospitals to the community in 30 demonstration sites in England. Methods: The evaluation comprised: interviews with service providers at 30 sites, supplemented by interviews with commissioners, GPs and hospital doctors at 12 sites; economic case studies in six sites; and patient surveys at 30 sites plus at nine conventional outpatient services. Outcomes comprised: staff views of service organization and development, impact on primary and secondary care, and benefits for patients; cost per consultation and cost per patient in new services compared to estimates of the price of services if undertaken by hospitals; patients’ views of waiting time, access, quality (technical and interpersonal), coordination and satisfaction. Results: New services required high initial investment in staff, premises and equipment, and the support of hospital consultants. Most new services were added to existing hospital services so expanded capacity. Patient reported waiting times (6.7 versus 10.1 weeks; p = 0.001); technical quality of care (96.2 versus 94.5; p < 0.001), overall satisfaction (88.2 versus 85.4; p = 0.04); and access (72.2 versus 65.8; p = 0.001) were significantly better for new compared to conventional services but there was no significant difference in coordination or interpersonal quality of care. Some service providers expressed concerns about service quality. New services dealt with less complex conditions and undercut the price tariff applied to hospitals thus providing a cost saving to commissioners. There was some concern that expansion of new services might destabilize hospitals. Conclusions: Moving specialist care into the community can improve patient access, particularly when new services are added to existing hospital services. Wider impacts on health care quality, capacity and cost merit closer scrutiny before rollout.

Effect of Pay-For-Outcomes and Encouraging New Providers on National Health Service Smoking Cessation Services in England: A Cluster Controlled Study

Background Payment incentives are known to influence healthcare but little is known about the impact of paying directly for achieved outcomes. In England, novel purchasing (commissioning) of National Health Service (NHS) stop smoking services, which paid providers for quits achieved whilst encouraging new market entrants, was implemented in eight localities (primary care trusts (PCTs)) in April 2010. This study examines the impact of the novel commissioning on these services. Methods Accredited providers were paid standard tariffs for each smoker who was supported to quit for four and 12 weeks. A cluster-controlled study design was used with the eight intervention PCTs (representing 2,138,947 adult population) matched with a control group of all other (n=64) PCTs with similar demographics which did not implement the novel commissioning arrangements. The primary outcome measure was changes in quits at four weeks between April 2009 and March 2013. A secondary outcome measure was the number of new market entrants within the group of the largest two providers at PCT-level. Results The number of four-week quits per 1,000 adult population increased per year on average by 9.6% in the intervention PCTs compared to a decrease of 1.1% in the control PCTs (incident rate ratio 1∙108, p<0∙001, 95% CI 1∙059 to 1∙160). Eighty-five providers held ‘any qualified provider’ contracts for stop smoking services across the eight intervention PCTs in 2011/12, and 84% of the four-week quits were accounted for by the largest two providers at PCT-level. Three of these 10 providers were new market entrants. To the extent that the intervention incentivized providers to overstate quits in order to increase income, caution is appropriate when considering the findings. Conclusions Novel commissioning to incentivize achievement of specific clinical outcomes and attract new service providers can increase the effectiveness and supply of NHS stop smoking services.

Introducing consultant outpatient clinics to community settings to improve access to paediatrics: an observational impact study

Objectives In line with a national policy to move care ‘closer to home’, a specialist childrens hospital in the National Health Service in England introduced consultant-led ‘satellite’ clinics to two community settings for general paediatric outpatient services. Objectives were to reduce non-attendance at appointments by providing care in more accessible locations and to create new physical clinic capacity. This study evaluated these satellite clinics to inform further development and identify lessons for stakeholders. Methods Impact of the satellite clinics was assessed by comparing community versus hospital-based clinics across the following measures: (1) non-attendance rates and associated factors (including patient characteristics and travel distance) using a logistic regression model; (2) percentage of appointments booked within local catchment area; (3) contribution to total clinic capacity; (4) time allocated to clinics and appointments; and (5) clinic efficiency, defined as the ratio of income to staff-related costs. Results Satellite clinics did not increase attendance beyond their contribution to shorter travel distance, which was associated with higher attendance. Children living in the most-deprived areas were 1.8 times more likely to miss appointments compared with those from least-deprived areas. The satellite clinics’ contribution to activity in catchment areas and to total capacity was small. However, one of the two satellite clinics was efficient compared with most hospital-based clinics. Conclusions Outpatient clinics were relocated in pragmatically chosen community settings using a ‘drag and drop’ service model. Such clinics have potential to improve access to specialist paediatric healthcare, but do not provide a panacea. Work is required to improve attendance as part of wider efforts to support vulnerable families. Satellite clinics highlight how improved management could contribute to better use of existing capacity.

Perspectives on the policy ‘black box’: a comparative case study of orthopaedics services in England

There has been much recent debate on the impact of competition on the English National Health Service (NHS). However, studies have tended to view competition in isolation and are controversial. This study examines the impact of programme theories associated with the health system reforms, which sought to move from a dominant target-led central control programme theory, to one based on market forces, on orthopaedics across six case-study local health economies. It draws on a realistic evaluation approach to open up the policy black box across different contexts using a mixed methods approach: analysis of 152 interviews with key informants and analysis of waiting times and admissions. We find that the urban health economies were more successful in reaching the access targets than the rural health economies, although the gap in performance closed over time. Most interviewees were aware of the policies to increase choice and competition, but their role appeared comparatively weak. Local commissioners ability to influence demand appeared limited with providers incentives dominating service delivery. Looking forward, it is clear that the role of competition in the NHS has to be considered alongside, rather than in isolation from, other policy mechanisms.