Will these reforms raise administrative costs?
The NHS in England is following the USA, Australia and many countries in Europe in introducing a system of paying hospitals and other providers on the basis of the work they do. Providers receive a fixed payment – the national tariff – for each type of patient treated. Termed “Payment by Results” (PbR), the policy rewards providers for volumes of work adjusted for differences in patient characteristics.
But there have been concerns about the ability of Primary Care Trusts (PCTs) to manage demand and control expenditure under PbR and about the overall administrative costs of the arrangements. The latest edition of Health Policy Matters summarises two studies studies commissioned by the Department of Health, in which staff in hospital trusts and PCTs were interviewed about these concerns.
There are a range of local strategies to deal with managing demand and expenditure, including initiatives to influence GP referral behaviour, improve patient management, and prevent hospital admissions. However, there is little evidence on the effectiveness of these initiatives and there is a need to identify and share best practice across the NHS. To ensure expenditure control, it is likely to be equally important to refine the incentive structure underpinning PbR, including consideration of how tariffs are calculated and whether activity thresholds should be introduced.
PCTs and hospital trusts have seen their administrative costs increase by £90k-£190k because of PbR. Most of the additional expenditure is due to recruitment of additional staff. Although the move to PbR has entailed a reduction in some types of administrative costs, notably price negotiation, this is more than offset by increased expenditure on other things. The main cost driver has been the increased information demands of moving to a patient-based payment system.
The main changes in administrative costs are:
- higher costs of negotiation. While there are lower costs in negotiating prices and volumes, this is offset by difficulties PCTs have in managing activity levels, because Trusts no longer have to get approval to expand their activity, thus making it more difficult for PCTs to live within their budgets.
- higher costs of data collection, due to PbR’s requirement for accurate patient-level data. Some of these costs are down to IT investment, but many are driven by organisations taking on staff to ensure better extraction of data directly from case notes rather than summary forms.
- higher monitoring costs, because the financial consequences of changes in activity are more significant and because PCTs need to verify that the type of activity – particularly the HRG allocation – is accurate.
- higher enforcement costs, with the sharper relationship between activity and income/expenditure increasing the potential for more disputes between Trusts and PCTs
But PbR has brought benefits, and there was consensus among all those interviewed that the PbR system was preferable to previous contracting arrangements, partly because PbR had sharpened incentives and introduced greater clarity into the contracting process. In addition, interviewees indicated that PbR had led to improvements in the process of care delivery, by enabling resources to be shifted across settings, because of the improved specificity of information, and by highlighting where service improvements might be made.
Andrew Street | alfa
Preferential trade agreements enhance global trade at the expense of its resilience
17.02.2017 | International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA)
How Strong Brands Translate into Money
15.11.2016 | Kühne Logistics University - Wissenschaftliche Hochschule für Logistik und Unternehmensführung
In the field of nanoscience, an international team of physicists with participants from Konstanz has achieved a breakthrough in understanding heat transport
Cells need to repair damaged DNA in our genes to prevent the development of cancer and other diseases. Our cells therefore activate and send “repair-proteins”...
The Fraunhofer IWS Dresden and Technische Universität Dresden inaugurated their jointly operated Center for Additive Manufacturing Dresden (AMCD) with a festive ceremony on February 7, 2017. Scientists from various disciplines perform research on materials, additive manufacturing processes and innovative technologies, which build up components in a layer by layer process. This technology opens up new horizons for component design and combinations of functions. For example during fabrication, electrical conductors and sensors are already able to be additively manufactured into components. They provide information about stress conditions of a product during operation.
The 3D-printing technology, or additive manufacturing as it is often called, has long made the step out of scientific research laboratories into industrial...
Nature does amazing things with limited design materials. Grass, for example, can support its own weight, resist strong wind loads, and recover after being...
Nanometer-scale magnetic perforated grids could create new possibilities for computing. Together with international colleagues, scientists from the Helmholtz Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf (HZDR) have shown how a cobalt grid can be reliably programmed at room temperature. In addition they discovered that for every hole ("antidot") three magnetic states can be configured. The results have been published in the journal "Scientific Reports".
Physicist Dr. Rantej Bali from the HZDR, together with scientists from Singapore and Australia, designed a special grid structure in a thin layer of cobalt in...
13.02.2017 | Event News
10.02.2017 | Event News
09.02.2017 | Event News
17.02.2017 | Medical Engineering
17.02.2017 | Medical Engineering
17.02.2017 | Health and Medicine