Hazra N C, Rudisill C, Gulliford M C. Determinants of health care costs in the senior elderly: age, comorbidity, impairment, or proximity to death? Eur J Health Econ. 2017. [Epub ahead of print].
Ageing on its own does not drive healthcare costs. Instead, this research found that the increasing number of health conditions and age-related impairments along with the proximity to death are more strongly linked to healthcare costs than age alone.
This UK study investigated healthcare costs in people over 80 years old. Costs increased to the mid-90s before declining again. Proximity to death was the strongest predictor of cost, which was higher for people aged 80-84: £10,027 per year versus £7,021 per year for those over 100. Multiple illnesses also had a strong influence, with each additional health complaint progressively increasing costs.
This suggests that to provide person-centred and efficient healthcare services for all, planning should take account of the number and types of conditions rather than age alone.
NHS Employers, October 2017
This case study describes how Royal Surrey County Hospital NHS Foundation Trust has maximised the take up of bank shifts through development of a mobile app allowing clinicians to self-select shifts.
Rishi Mandavia, Nishchay Mehta, Anne Schilder and Elias Mossialos. Effectiveness of UK provider financial incentives on quality of care: a systematic review. Br J Gen Pract 9 October 2017; bjgp17X693149. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp17X693149
Provider financial incentives are being increasingly adopted to help improve standards of care while promoting efficiency.
Aim To review the UK evidence on whether provider financial incentives are an effective way of improving the quality of health care.
Design and setting Systematic review of UK evidence, undertaken in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) recommendations.
Method MEDLINE and Embase databases were searched in August 2016. Original articles that assessed the relationship between UK provider financial incentives and a quantitative measure of quality of health care were included. Studies showing improvement for all measures of quality of care were defined as ‘positive’, those that were ‘intermediate’ showed improvement in some measures, and those classified as ‘negative’ showed a worsening of measures. Studies showing no effect were documented as such. Quality was assessed using the Downs and Black quality checklist.
Results Of the 232 published articles identified by the systematic search, 28 were included. Of these, nine reported positive effects of incentives on quality of care, 16 reported intermediate effects, two reported no effect, and one reported a negative effect. Quality assessment scores for included articles ranged from 15 to 19, out of a maximum of 22 points.
Conclusion The effects of UK provider financial incentives on healthcare quality are unclear. Owing to this uncertainty and their significant costs, use of them may be counterproductive to their goal of improving healthcare quality and efficiency. UK policymakers should be cautious when implementing these incentives — if used, they should be subject to careful long-term monitoring and evaluation. Further research is needed to assess whether provider financial incentives represent a cost-effective intervention to improve the quality of care delivered in the UK.
Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS)
This study examines the impact of the NHS reforms of the 2000s which enabled privately-owned hospitals to enter the NHS market. It finds that post-reform, poor and ethnic minority patients were much less likely to choose private hospitals; and that the key factors in choice related to the geographic distribution of hospitals and health-based criteria for treatment from private providers.
This briefing assesses the financial health of the NHS provider sector by unpicking the headline figures presented in the official accounts to reveal the true underlying state of the NHS’s finances today, and to outline prospects for the next three to four years. The analysis finds that NHS trusts ended last year with an underlying overspend almost £3 billion more than was reported in their official accounts. It warns that even if trusts continue to make savings, underlying deficits will remain until 2020/21.
The King’s Fund has previously highlighted the fact that addressing waste and variability in clinical work can create better value in the NHS. But what does value mean to people working in the NHS – and how it is being applied in practice? | The King’s Fund Blog
‘Value’ sounds like a familiar concept but it can mean different things to different people. One definition of value in the health and care sector is ‘health outcomes per dollar spent’, so attempts to increase value can look at either improving quality or reducing cost.
In early July we held a roundtable discussion with health service providers to better understand their approach to value improvement – initial research for a new project intended to understand the practical barriers and challenges that frontline clinical, operational and managerial leaders have encountered in pursuing better value health care. Experts who attended – including a chairman, chief executive, chief nurse, deputy chief operating officer, change leader, and representatives of national bodies – agreed that the emphasis should be on patient care. Clinicians are more likely to engage in a programme that revolves around the quality of services, and better care is typically less wasteful, so as one participant put it, ‘if you focus on quality, money will fall out’ [spending will reduce]. Consultants will often drive through successful programmes with change management teams, but we also discussed the role of junior doctors, nurses and therapists, who frequently witness low-value care and understand how to fix it. We know that substantial changes in practice can be delivered as we have seen, for example, in generic prescribing, reduced length of stay and the move towards day case surgery.
Read the full blog post here
National Audit Office
National Audit Office has published findings of investigation into NHS continuing healthcare.
NHS continuing healthcare (CHC) is a package of care provided outside of hospital that is arranged and funded solely by the NHS for individuals who have significant ongoing health care needs. Funding for ongoing health care is a complex and highly sensitive area, which can affect some of the most vulnerable people in society and those that care for them. The number of people assessed as eligible for CHC funding has been growing by an average of 6.4% a year over the last four years. In 2015-16, almost 160,000 people received, or were assessed as eligible for, CHC funding in the year, at a cost of £3.1 billion.