Efficiency of care at the primary-secondary interface: variations with GP fundholding

The aim of the study was to investigate the processes of referral for out-patients care and the interface with general practice, from the perspective of the patient, the patient's general practitioner and hospital specialist. The analyses reported here present variations with fundholding and non-fundholding general practice. The design was a questionnaire survey of out-patients, their hospital specialists and general practitioners, in six, randomly sampled district health authorities in the North Thames Region, with stratification by area. The measures included validated items and scales on process, quality and patient satisfaction with services. Fundholders were more likely to have technical equipment and services available within the practice. There were no differences between fundholders and non-fundholders and the number of out-patient attendances made by their patients, hospital out-patient waiting list times, patients' waiting times in hospital clinics, nor in patients' satisfaction with out-patients and other process indicators. Fundholding is currently being replaced with the proposed wider locality commissioning schemes, with GPs, health authorities and other purchasing bodies acting in partnership. Health authority commissioning will be required to reflect the preferences of GPs. Participants in these schemes will need to pay particular attention to the areas where research indicates that fundholding GPs made little difference to increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of health care both in their own practices and at the primary-secondary care interface.     

Do budget-holding physicians respond to price? the case of fundholding in the UK.

In an effort to improve the efficiency of the healthcare sector, some countries have experimented with various forms of 'internal market' in public healthcare provision. In some models, policymakers have assumed that actors will behave, as in a retail market, by responding to price in the course of seeking the best 'value for money' from healthcare providers. In the study reported here we examined the responsiveness of general practitioners to price during the British experiment in general practice (GP) fundholding. The study analysed routine data on 29 423 referrals for elective care made by 129 practices in one city to two competing providers of secondary care. Indices of price responsiveness were calculated for each practice from their manifest referral behaviour. These were then used to compare fundholding and non-fundholding practices. The results showed no difference between these groups in their propensity to respond to published procedure prices, even when potential savings were very large. Our findings are consistent with the reported views of fundholding GPs that price was a secondary consideration in their referral behaviour, and provides further evidence that healthcare markets cannot be understood in simplistic terms.     

The patient's view of general practice fundholding: results of a cross-sectional survey

We report the results of a survey of patients' awareness, attitudes and satisfaction regarding fundholding and related developments in primary care, and compare the responses of patients in fundholding and non-fundholding practices. (Six total fundholding general practices and two non-fundholding general practices in West Berkshire were included.) An anonymous postal questionnaire was sent to 1150 patients with joint pain aged 17-80, of whom 715 (63%) returned completed questionnaires. Few (17%) fundholding respondents had received information from their practice about fundholding or (36%) were aware of new or different services being offered but the majority had heard of fundholding and were able to describe it accurately. Satisfaction with GP services was high in both types of practice, but fundholding patients reported higher levels of satisfaction with getting a referral to a hospital specialist (FH: 81% vs. NFH: 63%), and with the length of time between referral and treatment (FH: 81% vs. NFH: 59%). A majority of patients in both types of practice wanted to be involved in decisions about the services available to them but only a third of patients thought that fundholding would make this easier. Fundholding patients were more likely to report being given enough choice about treatments available to them (51%) than their non-fundholding counterparts (35%). Fundholding patients had not perceived a reduction in quality of care as a result of budgetary pressures and were more satisfied with the process of referral to secondary care than their counterparts in non-fundholding practices. Patients in both types of practice felt that it was important to be involved in decisions about the services available to them, but few thought that this would be more likely as a result of fundholding. Provision of information to patients is a prerequisite for their involvement, but judging by the number of patients receiving any information about fundholding from their practices this aspect of the reforms does not seem to have been implemented.     

Changing role of the family physician in British National Health Service

Over the last ten years the traditional role of primary care in Great Britain has been undergoing major changes with the major impact being the introduction of what is termed "GP fundholding", a process by which GPs hold budgets to purchase care from hospitals on behalf of their patients. This paper addresses how the system of fundholding operates in practice and points out the difference between the new and the previous system in which the health authority would plan care for the whole of a district and costs by hospitals would be covered by an all-inclusive system. The paper studies the rationale of the introduction of the fundholding and examines the evidence on how successful the approach has been. With reference to a systematic literature review of the evidence on fundholding's outcomes undertaken by the author, the paper examines the evidence for and against fundholding under the following headings: efficiency, equity, quality, choice and responsiveness. The paper then addresses more recent changes to the British health care system and shows how these have changed the role of the family doctor irrevocablly.     

The effect of practice budgets on patient waiting times: allowing for selection bias

Under the UK fundholding scheme, general practices could elect to hold a budget to meet the costs of some types of elective surgery (chargeable admissions) for their patients. It was alleged that patients of fundholding practices had shorter waits for elective surgery than the patients of non-fundholders. Comparison of waiting times between fundholding and non-fundholding practices are potentially confounded by selection bias as fundholding was voluntary. We estimate the effect of a practice's fundholding status on the waiting times of its patients using both cross-sectional methods (OLS, propensity score, instrumental variables, Heckman selection correction and Heckman heterogenous effects estimators) and difference in differences methodologies to correct for selection bias. The estimated effect of fundholding status was to significantly reduce the waiting times for chargeable admissions of the patients of fundholders by 4.1-6.6% (or 4-7 days) with the instrumental variables and Heckman selection correction estimators yielding the highest estimates. We also find that patients of fundholding practices had shorter waits (by 3.7% or 2 days) for non-chargeable elective admissions, suggesting that fundholders were able to obtain shorter waits for all types of elective admissions.     

Hospital Competition, GP Fundholders and Waiting Times in the UK Internal Market: The Case of Elective Surgery

In this paper I model the demand for and supply of elective surgery using a modified Hotelling framework in which time, money, and distance are determinants of the demand for hospital care. Hospitals compete with each other in terms of the waiting time and consequently treat a certain number of patients. The basic model of hospital competition is then extended to incorporate the general practitioner (GP) fundholding scheme whereby the GPs are allocated a budget with which to buy care for their patients. Waiting time increases when production of care becomes more expensive, when the benefit obtained from treatment increases, when the unit cost of distance decreases, and when the importance given to time as a performance indicator decreases. The higher the money price the lower the waiting time. Finally, the money price paid by the GP fundholders is greater than that paid by the Health Authorities and greater than the hospitals marginal cost of production. As a consequence, fundholding patients pay a zero time price while non-fundholding patients experiment a positive waiting time.     

Fundholding in Northern Region: practice managers' views

Describes the views of practice managers in 30 fundholding practices in the Northern Region concerning their role in the scheme. A self-completion questionnaire was mailed to practice managers and general practitioners containing questions designed to elicit their views about changes in relationships inside and outside the practice; their level of involvement in various aspects of fundholding; and the costs and benefits of the scheme. A total of 30 first-, second-, and third-wave fundholding practices in the Northern Region, June 1993 were involved. Replies were received from 22 practice managers (73 per cent) and 83 general practitioners (49 per cent). Concludes that although fundholding has increased the nature and volume of the workload of practice managers, these changes do not appear to be causing any tensions between managers and clinicians. At the moment fundholding extends the support role of practice managers and does not alter existing authority relations in practices.     

The geography of fundholding in southwest England: implications for the evolution of primary care groups

Using postcode-ED linkage to calculate patient-weighted deprivation indices for 330 general practices in southwest England, this study examines whether the populations served by fundholding and non-fundholding practices varied with respect to socio-economic status. Little evidence is found of systematic socio-economic bias in the uptake of fundholding. However, a distinct spatial pattern to the distribution of fundholding is revealed in this article, urban practices having adopted the scheme more readily than their rural and mixed rural/urban counterparts. As practice-level fundholding is replaced by commissioning at the locality level, such geographical variation is likely to be expressed in the way in which primary care groups evolve.     

Treatment and referral decisions under different physician payment mechanisms

This paper analyzes and compares the incentive properties of some common payment mechanisms for GPs, namely fee for service (FFS), capitation and fundholding. It focuses on gatekeeping GPs and it specifically recognizes GPs heterogeneity in both ability and altruism. It also allows inappropriate care by GPs to lead to more serious illnesses. The results are as follows. Capitation is the payment mechanism that induces the most referrals to expensive specialty care. Fundholding may induce almost as much referrals as capitation when the expected costs of GPs care are high relative to those of specialty care. Although driven by financial incentives of different nature, the strategic behaviors associated with fundholding and FFS are very much alike. Finally, whether a regulator should use one or another payment mechanism for GPs will depend on (i) his priorities (either cost-containment or quality enhancement) which, in turn, depend on the expected cost difference between GPs care and specialty care, and (ii) the distribution of profiles (diagnostic ability and altruism levels) among GPs.     

Did the introduction of general practice fundholding change patterns of emergency admission to hospital?

OBJECTIVES: To test the hypothesis that the introduction of general practice fundholding was associated with a change in the proportion of emergency admissions to hospital. METHODS: Before and after natural experiment with control group. The experimental group was first-wave fundholding general practices in the South Western Regional Health Authority, the control group was all practices that remained non-fundholding as of April 1993. Data were collected on episodes of care in hospitals in the South Western region involving cholecystectomy, hernia repair, intervertebral disc operation and prostatectomy. The additional impact of fundholding status on any underlying changes in proportions of emergency admissions was examined using multiple logistic regression. RESULTS: There was no evidence of an interaction between fundholding status and before/after time period. Odds ratios and confidence intervals for the interaction of general practice fundholding status and time were: prostatectomy 1.02 (0.77 to 1.34); hernia repair 0.94 (0.7 to 1.24); intervertebral disk operations 1.67 (0.8 to 3.47); prostatectomy 0.94 (0.69 to 1.27). CONCLUSIONS: The results provide no evidence that, in the first 2 years of the scheme, fundholding had an impact on the proportion of emergency admissions to hospital.     

General practice fundholders' prescribing savings in one region of the United Kingdom, 1991-1994

Since 1991, fundholding general practitioners in the UK have had a financial incentive to contain prescribing costs. Research has confirmed that fundholding practices have contained their prescribing costs more effectively than non-fundholding practices, but how much fundholders have actually saved by changing their prescribing is difficult to quantify. Fundholders are allocated a prescribing budget, and the underspend on this budget has been taken to represent savings produced by changing prescribing behaviour. However, this assumes accuracy of budget setting, which has been questioned. The objective of this study was to estimate the true savings in prescribing made by fundholders during the first 3 years of fundholding, without making assumptions about the accuracy of budget setting. We compare this to underspends on prescribing budgets. The results suggest that budget setting did not give fundholders over-generous budgets and that budget underspends are justified by the true savings in prescribing.     

Selection bias in GP fundholding

This paper uses a logistic regression model based on 1993 data for general practices in a single Family Health Services Authority (Lincolnshire) to analyse the differences in characteristics between existing fundholding (up to and including wave three) and non-fundholding practices. A high degree of classification accuracy is obtained. Fundholders are revealed to be more likely than non-fundholders to meet a number of the various quality criteria laid down by central government following the 1990 National Health Services Act, for example, with respect to prescribing cost control, minor surgery and cervical screening uptake. The model is employed to forecast the fourth wave of fundholding and poor predictions suggest the existence of a structural break in the characteristics of fundholders between those in the first three waves and those of wave four. The evidence presented also supports the existence of selection bias in the first three waves of fundholding, although further logistic regression analysis reveals a form of such bias in the fourth wave also.     

Consultants' views of a district's services.

A postal questionnaire survey of consultants in the Bath Health District was conducted to establish a means for individual consultants to express their views about the provision of health services in the district, so that by working together a new relationship between the District Health Authority (DHA) as purchaser and the clinicians as providers of services could commence. A response rate of 84 per cent was achieved. The survey sought views on clinical and management issues to be used in the development of service agreements (contracts) and views on topics identified by general practitioners (GPs) as areas in need of improvement. Detail is given of results relating to out-patient services, issues of communication and the continuing role of community hospitals. Most consultants sanctioned the appropriateness of referrals by GPs to out-patient services but they identified some out-patient referrals as inappropriate. This justifies a further review of the out-patient services to be purchased by the DHA. Consultants were in agreement that there was scope for review of out-patient follow-ups. They agreed with GPs that discharge summaries could be provided within 24 hours of patient discharge to improve communication with GPs and that consultants should be available by pager to be contacted by GPs, but disagreed with GPs about the feasibility of giving patients on waiting lists a firm admission date at the time of going on the waiting lists. The majority of consultants were in favour of continuing support for community hospitals. They identified overall social value of community hospitals and greater clinical value of out-patient services than in-patient services in community hospitals.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)     

Can primary care be both patient-centred and community-led?

Examines the relationships between the macro-, meso-, and micro-levels in the NHS at the end of the fundholding period and considers their contemporary implications for primary care groups (PCGs) and local health care co-operatives (LHCCs). Fundholding achieved some success in challenging the way in which services were provided at the micro-level (the practice), but had a less marked effect in terms of changing service provision at the health authority (meso-) level or in developing collaborative working with trusts and health authorities in strategic decision making. The health authorities prioritized alternative models of devolved commissioning. Trusts regarded fundholders as a distraction who exerted influence and commanded trust management time disproportionate to their "market share". PCGs and LHCCs represent a shift back to the meso-level in service planning and purchasing. As such there is a risk that the micro-level benefits of fundholding and other forms of devolved commissioning will be lost, while uncertainties remain regarding the capacity of PCGs and LHCCs to incorporate GPs into a collaborative approach to strategic decision making.     

The effect of fundholding on prescribing and referral costs: a review of the evidence

In 1990 the UK Government announced the introduction of general practitioner (GP) fundholding whereby GPs were given a budget from which to purchase some health care services. The UK Government is at present piloting total fundholding which extends the partial model by allowing GPs in some practices to purchase all their health care services. If other countries intend to adopt schemes similar to the fundholding model then it is important that the success or otherwise of the UK experience informs their health care policy. The objective of this paper, therefore, is to review all the available quantitative evaluative evidence of the effect of (partial) fundholding on general practice. A total of 17 published quantitative studies evaluating fundholding were found, however, 8 of these were papers relating to 2 studies, therefore only 13 studies were reviewed. These studies examined the impact of fundholding only with regard to prescribing and referral behaviour. The results of these studies indicate that fundholders appeared to: (i) constrain their prescribing and referral costs; (ii) increase their generic prescribing rate; and (iii) not inflate their costs prior to joining the scheme. This review showed that there is a dearth of high quality research evidence evaluating fundholding referral behaviour whereas data on differences in prescribing costs is relatively abundant. The studies reviewed did not evaluate the effect of fundholding on patient health status, quality, patient choice or equity criteria. The difficulties involved in evaluating fundholding model presents a considerable challenge to the evaluation of total fundholding.     

Catching waves: the historical geography of the general practice fundholding initiative in England and Wales

General practitioner fundholding is often represented as one of the more successful elements of the 1989/90 Conservative reforms of the UK National Health Service (NHS). Successive annual 'waves' of fundholding practices were approved from 1990 through to 1997 and, over time, the initiative came to involve some 50% of UK general practitioners. Fundholding is known to have had a strong regional geography that changed with evolving fundholding eligibility criteria. Further, there have been persistent allegations that fundholding tended to occur disproportionately in areas of higher social status. Past studies of fundholding have tended to consider single waves or the overall impact of the initiative rather than its development over time. They have also tended to work at a single geographic scale or through single-region case studies when exploring the statistical regularities underlying the uptake of fundholding. Using multilevel analysis, this paper seeks to enhance understanding of fundholding through an examination of the interaction of district health authority and practice characteristics across all implemented waves for all general medical practices in England and Wales. We conclude that wave mattered on a national scale, that deprivation was relatively unimportant and that there were certain types of area that exhibited persistent but unexpected high uptake.     

Changes in primary health care policy: the implications for joint commissioning with social services

Both the primary health care team (PHCT) and social services departments in the UK have undergone substantial changes to their organization and function since 1990. This paper looks at developments in primary health care policy that have affected the relationships between them regarding the commissioning of health and social care services. It focuses on evidence from seven initiatives designed to involve members of the PHCT in commissioning social care services. It examines some of the benefits and challenges of working together to commission services for health authority managers, GPs, district nurses, care managers and social work team managers in the light of impending changes to the PHCT, particularly the abolition of fundholding and the introduction of Primary Care Groups.     

Factors of Patient Satisfaction with Medical Services

Abstract

This paper investigates whether factors previously identified in the literature are also important in the U.K. primary healthcare system. In a survey based on the SERVQUAL scale, 182 patients were personally interviewed. The analysis shows that the demographic variables age and gender are of little importance in determining satisfaction with G.P. services but the fundholding-non-fundholding divide is. For nearly every aspect of G.P. services the results clearly show that patients from fundholding surgeries are happier than patients from non-fundholding surgeries.     

Prescribing. Saving graces

If fundholding is to be dismantled, consideration must be given to fundholders' prescribing budgets. One possibility would be budgeting by consent--involving GPs in setting budgets. More research is needed on prescribing budgets before they are abandoned.