Possibilities and limitations of results-based management, pay-for-performance and the redesign of incentives. 2008 SESPAS Report

The concept of pay-for-performance (P4P) encompasses different strategies that aim to stimulate health care quality improvement by remunerating healthcare providers according to their performance in specific measures of efficiency or quality. Although the effectiveness of P4P in improving quality of care is largely unknown, these systems are being widely adopted in the United Kingdom, the United States and other countries, including Spain. The elements of P4P design that are most decisive for the effectiveness of these schemes are as follows: 1) who should receive the incentives, how they should be paid, what should be rewarded, the need to incorporate risk adjustments (mainly if surrogate outcomes are used as indicators) and the need to bear organizational climate and the optimal combination of financial and non-financial incentives in mind. The most important limitations to consider are the following: 1) the exclusive focus on reducing subutilization; 2) the effect on equity; 3) the "magnifying glass" effect; 4) the validity of indicators; 5) the confusion between the recommendations of clinical guidelines and quality indicators; 6) "document engineering"; 7) paternalism; 8) the negative impact on professionalism and clinicians' internal motivation, and 9) the assumption that quality problems result from imperfect individual decisions rather than from an imperfect system.     

Assessing health system performance in developing countries: a review of the literature

With the setting of ambitious international health goals and an influx of additional development assistance for health, there is growing interest in assessing the performance of health systems in developing countries. This paper proposes a framework for the assessment of health system performance and reviews the literature on indicators currently in use to measure performance using online medical and public health databases. This was complemented by a review of relevant books and reports in the grey literature. The indicators were organized into three categories: effectiveness, equity, and efficiency. Measures of health system effectiveness were improvement in health status, access to and quality of care and, increasingly, patient satisfaction. Measures of equity included access and quality of care for disadvantaged groups together with fair financing, risk protection and accountability. Measures of efficiency were appropriate levels of funding, the cost-effectiveness of interventions, and effective administration. This framework and review of indicators may be helpful to health policy makers interested in assessing the effects of different policies, expenditures, and organizational structures on health outputs and outcomes in developing countries.     

Better Measurement for Performance Improvement in Low‐ and Middle‐Income Countries: The Primary Health Care Performance Initiative (PHCPI) Experience of Conceptual Framework Development and Indicator Selection

Policy Points:

• Strengthening accountability through better measurement and reporting is vital to ensure progress in improving quality primary health care (PHC) systems and achieving universal health coverage (UHC).
• The Primary Health Care Performance Initiative (PHCPI) provides national decision makers and global stakeholders with opportunities to benchmark and accelerate performance improvement through better performance measurement.
• Results from the initial PHC performance assessments in low‐ and middle‐income countries (LMICs) are helping guide PHC reforms and investments and improve the PHCPI's instruments and indicators. Findings from future assessment activities will further amplify cross‐country comparisons and peer learning to improve PHC.
• New indicators and sources of data are needed to better understand PHC system performance in LMICs.

Context

The Primary Health Care Performance Initiative (PHCPI), a collaboration between the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, The World Bank, and the World Health Organization, in partnership with Ariadne Labs and Results for Development, was launched in 2015 with the aim of catalyzing improvements in primary health care (PHC) systems in 135 low‐ and middle‐income countries (LMICs), in order to accelerate progress toward universal health coverage. Through more comprehensive and actionable measurement of quality PHC, the PHCPI stimulates peer learning among LMICs and informs decision makers to guide PHC investments and reforms. Instruments for performance assessment and improvement are in development; to date, a conceptual framework and 2 sets of performance indicators have been released.

Methods

The PHCPI team developed the conceptual framework through literature reviews and consultations with an advisory committee of international experts. We generated 2 sets of performance indicators selected from a literature review of relevant indicators, cross‐referenced against indicators available from international sources, and evaluated through 2 separate modified Delphi processes, consisting of online surveys and in‐person facilitated discussions with experts.

Findings

The PHCPI conceptual framework builds on the current understanding of PHC system performance through an expanded emphasis on the role of service delivery. The first set of performance indicators, 36 Vital Signs, facilitates comparisons across countries and over time. The second set, 56 Diagnostic Indicators, elucidates underlying drivers of performance. Key challenges include a lack of available data for several indicators and a lack of validated indicators for important dimensions of quality PHC.

Conclusions

The availability of data is critical to assessing PHC performance, particularly patient experience and quality of care. The PHCPI will continue to develop and test additional performance assessment instruments, including composite indices and national performance dashboards. Through country engagement, the PHCPI will further refine its instruments and engage with governments to better design and finance primary health care reforms.     

对基本医疗服务和特需医疗服务界定的探讨

健康是人类生存和发展的基本要素,享有卫生保健是每一个公民的权利。为了保证医疗服务的公平性,在推行“特需医疗服务”政策时,必须首先对基本医疗服务和特需医疗服务加以界定。指出,基本医疗服务和特需医疗服务的界定,不能背离医学宗旨,应正确理解卫生事业的性质。在运作中要加强管理,根据当地卫生资源配置情况,使特需医疗服务限定在一定时间和空间中进行。     

Defining quality of care

This paper defines quality of health care. We suggest that there are two principal dimensions of quality of care for individual patients; access and effectiveness. In essence, do users get the care they need, and is the care effective when they get it? Within effectiveness, we define two key components--effectiveness of clinical care and effectiveness of inter-personal care. These elements are discussed in terms of the structure of the health care system, processes of care, and outcomes resulting from care. The framework relates quality of care to individual patients and we suggest that quality of care is a concept that is at its most meaningful when applied to the individual user of health care. However, care for individuals must placed in the context of providing health care for populations which introduces additional notions of equity and efficiency. We show how this framework can be of practical value by applying the concepts to a set of quality indicators contained within the UK National Performance Assessment Framework and to a set of widely used indicators in the US (HEDIS). In so doing we emphasise the differences between US and UK measures of quality. Using a conceptual framework to describe the totality of quality of care shows which aspects of care any set of quality indicators actually includes and measures and, and which are not included.     

Human rights in health systems frameworks: What is there,what is missing and why does it matter?

Abstract

Global initiatives and recent G8 commitments to health systems strengthening have brought increased attention to factors affecting health system performance. While equity concerns and human rights language appear often in the global health discourse, their inclusion in health systems efforts beyond rhetorical pronouncements is limited. Building on recent work assessing the extent to which features compatible with the right to health are incorporated into national health systems, we examine how health systems frameworks have thus far integrated human rights concepts and human rights-based approaches to health in their conceptualisation. Findings point to the potential value of the inclusion of human rights in these articulations to increase the participation or involvement of clients in health systems, to broaden the concept of equity, to bring attention to laws and policies beyond regulation and to strengthen accountability mechanisms.     

A conceptual overview of recent health care reforms

Health systems in many developed countries are undergoing majorstructural reform. While some changes remain regulatory in character,a new feature is the large number of reforms that rely uponmarket-derived instruments to improve the performance of healthcare institutions. The shift toward incentive-oriented reformsis particularly pronounced in publicly operated health systems.Current reforms can be analysed in terms of 2 conceptual frameworks:the policy objectives governments seek to attain, and the changesintroduced within each of 3 basic building block componentsof a health system. Viewed through these lenses, the currentreform process has emphasized market-derived approaches in thepursuit of micro-economic efficiency on the production sideof health systems and in the allocative mechanism that linksfinance to production. Conversely, market-style instrumentsappear to have little to offer on the finance side of systems.Adequate evaluation has yet to be conducted to determine theimpact of specific market-derived reforms on equity or on health-relatedeffectiveness.     

A practical, robust implementation and sustainability model (PRISM) for integrating research findings into practice

BACKGROUND: Although numerous studies address the efficacy and effectiveness of health interventions, less research addresses successfully implementing and sustaining interventions. As long as efficacy and effectiveness trials are considered complete without considering implementation in nonresearch settings, the public health potential of the original investments will not be realized. A barrier to progress is the absence of a practical, robust model to help identify the factors that need to be considered and addressed and how to measure success. A conceptual framework for improving practice is needed to integrate the key features for successful program design, predictors of implementation and diffusion, and appropriate outcome measures. DEVELOPING PRISM: A comprehensive model for translating research into practice was developed using concepts from the areas of quality improvement, chronic care, the diffusion of innovations, and measures of the population-based effectiveness of translation. PRISM--the Practical, Robust Implementation and Sustainability Model--evaluates how the health care program or intervention interacts with the recipients to influence program adoption, implementation, maintenance, reach, and effectiveness. DISCUSSION: The PRISM model provides a new tool for researchers and health care decision makers that integrates existing concepts relevant to translating research into practice.     

Human rights in health systems frameworks: what is there, what is missing and why does it matter?

Global initiatives and recent G8 commitments to health systems strengthening have brought increased attention to factors affecting health system performance. While equity concerns and human rights language appear often in the global health discourse, their inclusion in health systems efforts beyond rhetorical pronouncements is limited. Building on recent work assessing the extent to which features compatible with the right to health are incorporated into national health systems, we examine how health systems frameworks have thus far integrated human rights concepts and human rights-based approaches to health in their conceptualisation. Findings point to the potential value of the inclusion of human rights in these articulations to increase the participation or involvement of clients in health systems, to broaden the concept of equity, to bring attention to laws and policies beyond regulation and to strengthen accountability mechanisms.     

SUPPORT Tools for evidence-informed health Policymaking (STP) 5: Using research evidence to frame options to address a problem

Despite multiple efforts to strengthen health systems in low and middle income countries, intended sustainable improvements in health outcomes have not been shown. To date most priority setting initiatives in health systems have mainly focused on technical approaches involving information derived from burden of disease statistics, cost effectiveness analysis, and published clinical trials. However, priority setting involves value-laden choices and these technical approaches do not equip decision-makers to address a broader range of relevant values - such as trust, equity, accountability and fairness - that are of concern to other partners and, not least, the populations concerned. A new focus for priority setting is needed. Accountability for Reasonableness (AFR) is an explicit ethical framework for legitimate and fair priority setting that provides guidance for decision-makers who must identify and consider the full range of relevant values. AFR consists of four conditions: i) relevance to the local setting, decided by agreed criteria; ii) publicizing priority-setting decisions and the reasons behind them; iii) the establishment of revisions/appeal mechanisms for challenging and revising decisions; iv) the provision of leadership to ensure that the first three conditions are met. REACT - "REsponse to ACcountable priority setting for Trust in health systems" is an EU-funded five-year intervention study started in 2006, which is testing the application and effects of the AFR approach in one district each in Kenya, Tanzania and Zambia. The objectives of REACT are to describe and evaluate district-level priority setting, to develop and implement improvement strategies guided by AFR and to measure their effect on quality, equity and trust indicators. Effects are monitored within selected disease and programme interventions and services and within human resources and health systems management. Qualitative and quantitative methods are being applied in an action research framework to examine the potential of AFR to support sustainable improvements to health systems performance. This paper reports on the project design and progress and argues that there is a high need for research into legitimate and fair priority setting to improve the knowledge base for achieving sustainable improvements in health outcomes.