Accounting for multimorbidity in pay for performance: a modelling study using UK quality and outcomes framework data

Ruscitto, A., Mercer, S. W., Morales, D. and Guthrie, B. (2016) Accounting for multimorbidity in pay for performance: a modelling study using UK quality and outcomes framework data. British Journal of General Practice, 66(649), e561-e567. (doi:10.3399/bjgp16X686161) (PMID:27381486)

Full text not currently available from Enlighten.

Abstract

BACKGROUND The UK Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) offers financial incentives to deliver high-quality care for individual diseases, but the single-disease focus takes no account of multimorbidity. AIM To examine variation in QOF payments for two indicators incentivised in ≥1 disease domain. DESIGN AND SETTING Modelling study using cross-sectional data from 314 general practices in Scotland. METHOD Maximum payments that practices could receive under existing financial incentives were calculated for blood pressure (BP) control and influenza immunisation according to the number of coexisting clinical conditions. Payments were recalculated assuming a single new indicator. RESULTS Payment varied by condition (£4.71–£11.08 for one BP control and £2.09–£5.78 for one influenza immunisation). Practices earned more for delivering the same action in patients with multimorbidity: in patients with 2, 3, and ≥4 conditions mean payments were £13.95, £21.92, and £29.72 for BP control, and £7.48, £11.21, and £15.14 for influenza immunisation, respectively. Practices in deprived areas had more multiple incentivised patients. When recalculated so that each incentivised action was only paid for once, all practices received less for BP control: affluent practices received more and deprived practices received less for influenza immunisation. CONCLUSION For patients with single conditions, existing QOF payment methods have more than twofold variation in payment for delivering the same process. Multiple payments were common in patients with multimorbidity. A payment method is required that ensures fairness of rewards while maintaining adequate funding for practices based on actual workload.

Item Type:Articles
Additional Information:This analysis was carried out as a vacation studentship for Andrea Ruscitto, internally funded by the University of Dundee. The dataset used was created as part of a programme of work funded by the Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government Health Directorates (Applied Research Programme Grant ARPG/07/1), and was provided by the Primary Care Clinical Informatics Unit at the University of Aberdeen.
Status:Published
Refereed:Yes
Glasgow Author(s) Enlighten ID:Mercer, Professor Stewart
Authors: Ruscitto, A., Mercer, S. W., Morales, D., and Guthrie, B.
College/School:College of Medical Veterinary and Life Sciences > Institute of Health and Wellbeing > General Practice and Primary Care
Journal Name:British Journal of General Practice
Publisher:Royal College of General Practitioners
ISSN:0960-1643
ISSN (Online):1478-5242
Published Online:06 July 2016

University Staff: Request a correction | Enlighten Editors: Update this record