Valerie Moran

Comparing the performance of English mental health providers in achieving patient outcomes

Evidence on provider payment systems that incorporate patient outcomes is limited for mental health care. In England, funding for mental health care services is changing to a prospective payment system with a future objective of linking some part of provider payment to outcomes. This research examines performance of mental health providers offering hospital and community services, in order to investigate if some are delivering better outcomes. Outcomes are measured using the Health of the Nation Outcome Scales (HoNOS) - a clinician-rated routine outcome measure (CROM) mandated for national use. We use data from the Mental Health Minimum Data Set (MHMDS) - a dataset on specialist mental health care with national coverage - for the years 2011/12 and 2012/13 with a final estimation sample of 305,960 observations with follow-up HoNOS scores. A hierarchical ordered probit model is used and outcomes are risk adjusted with independent variables reflecting demographic, need, severity and social indicators. A hierarchical linear model is also estimated with the follow-up total HoNOS score as the dependent variable and the baseline total HoNOS score included as a risk-adjuster. Provider performance is captured by a random effect that is quantified using Empirical Bayes methods. We find that worse outcomes are associated with severity and better outcomes with older age and social support. After adjusting outcomes for various risk factors, variations in performance are still evident across providers. This suggests that if the intention to link some element of provider payment to outcomes becomes a reality, some providers may gain financially whilst others may lose. The paper contributes to the limited literature on risk adjustment of outcomes and performance assessment of providers in mental health in the context of prospective activity-based payment systems.

Variations in Performance of Mental Health Providers in the English NHS: An Analysis of the Relationship Between Readmission Rates and Length-of-Stay

Abstract Length-of-stay (LOS) for inpatient mental health care is a major driver of variation in resource use internationally. We explore determinants of LOS in England, focusing on the impact of emergency readmission rates which can serve as a measure of the quality of care. Data for 2009/2010 and 2010/2011 are analysed using hierarchical and non-hierarchical models. Unexplained residual variation among providers is quantified using Empirical Bayes techniques. Diagnostic, treatment and patient-level demographic variables are key drivers of LOS. Higher emergency readmission rates are associated with shorter LOS. Ranking providers by residual variation reveals significant differences, suggesting some providers can improve performance.

General practitioners' views of clinically led commissioning: cross-sectional survey in England.

Objectives Involving general practitioners (GPs) in the commissioning/purchasing of services has been an important element in English health policy for many years. The Health and Social Care Act 2012 handed responsibility for commissioning of the majority of care for local populations to GP-led Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs). In this paper, we explore GP attitudes to involvement in commissioning and future intentions for engagement. Design and setting Survey of a random sample of GPs across England in 2015. Method The Eighth National GP Worklife Survey was distributed to GPs in spring 2015. Responses were received from 2611 respondents (response rate = 46%). We compared responses across different GP characteristics and conducted two sample tests of proportions to identify statistically significant differences in responses across groups. We also used multivariate logistic regression to identify the characteristics associated with wanting a formal CCG role in the future. Results While GPs generally agree that they can add value to aspects of commissioning, only a minority feel that this is an important part of their role. Many current leaders intend to quit in the next 5 years, and there is limited appetite among those not currently in a formal role to take up such a role in the future. CCGs were set up as ‘membership organisations’ but only a minority of respondents reported feeling that they had ‘ownership’ of their local CCG and these were often GPs with formal CCG roles. However, respondents generally agree that the CCG has a legitimate role in influencing the work that they do. Conclusion CCGs need to engage in active succession planning to find the next generation of GP leaders. GPs believe that CCGs have a legitimate role in influencing their work, suggesting that there may be scope for CCGs to involve GPs more fully in roles short of formal leadership.

Investigating the relationship between costs and outcomes for English mental health providers : A bi-variate multi-level regression analysis

Provider payment systems for mental health care that incentivize cost control and quality improvement have been a policy focus in a number of countries. In England, a new prospective provider payment system is being introduced to mental health that should encourage providers to control costs and improve outcomes. The aim of this research is to investigate the relationship between costs and outcomes to ascertain whether there is a trade-off between controlling costs and improving outcomes. The main data source is the Mental Health Minimum Data Set (MHMDS) for the years 2011/12 and 2012/13. Costs are calculated using NHS reference cost data while outcomes are measured using the Health of the Nation Outcome Scales (HoNOS). We estimate a bivariate multi-level model with costs and outcomes simultaneously. We calculate the correlation and plot the pairwise relationship between residual costs and outcomes at the provider level. After controlling for a range of demographic, need, social, and treatment variables, residual variation in costs and outcomes remains at the provider level. The correlation between residual costs and outcomes is negative, but very small, suggesting that cost-containment efforts by providers should not undermine outcome-improving efforts under the new payment system.

Funding approaches for mental health services: is there still a role for clustering?

Funding for mental health services in England faces many challenges including operating under financial constraints where it is not easy to demonstrate the link between activity and funding. Mental health services need to operate alongside and collaborate with acute hospital services where there is a well-established system for paying for activity. The funding landscape is shifting at a rapid pace and we outline the distinctions between the three main options - block contracts, episodic payment and capitation. Classification of treatment episodes via clustering presents an opportunity to demonstrate activity and reward it within these payment approaches. We have been engaged in research to assess how well the clustering system is performing against a number of fundamental criteria. Clusters need to be reliably recorded, to correspond to health needs, and to treatments that require roughly similar resources. We find that according to these criteria, clusters are falling short of providing a sound basis for measuring and financing services. Yet, we argue, it is the best available option and is essential for a more transparent funding approach for mental health to demonstrate its claim on resources, and that, as such, clusters should be a starting point for evolving a better funding system.

How are clinical commissioning groups managing conflicts of interest under primary care co-commissioning in England? A qualitative analysis.

Objectives From April 2015, NHS England (NHSE) started to devolve responsibility for commissioning primary care services to clinical commissioning groups (CCGs). The aim of this paper is to explore how CCGs are managing potential conflicts of interest associated with groups of GPs commissioning themselves or their practices to provide services. Design We carried out two telephone surveys using a sample of CCGs. We also used a qualitative case study approach and collected data using interviews and meeting observations in four sites (CCGs). Setting/participants We conducted 57 telephone interviews and 42 face-to-face interviews with general practitioners (GPs) and CCG staff involved in primary care co-commissioning and observed 74 meetings of CCG committees responsible for primary care co-commissioning. Results Conflicts of interest were seen as an inevitable consequence of CCGs commissioning primary care. Particular problems arose with obtaining unbiased clinical input for new incentive schemes and providing support to GP provider federations. Participants in meetings concerning primary care co-commissioning declared conflicts of interest at the outset of meetings. Different approaches were pursued regarding GPs involvement in subsequent discussions and decisions with inconsistency in the exclusion of GPs from meetings. CCG senior management felt confident that the new governance structures and policies dealt adequately with conflicts of interest, but we found these arrangements face limitations. While the revised NHSE statutory guidance on managing conflicts of interest (2016) was seen as an improvement on the original (2014), there still remained some confusion over various terms and concepts contained therein. Conclusions Devolving responsibility for primary care co-commissioning to CCGs created a structural conflict of interest. The NHSE statutory guidance should be refined and clarified so that CCGs can properly manage conflicts of interest. Non-clinician members of committees involved in commissioning primary care require training in order to make decisions requiring clinical input in the absence of GPs.