通过护理捆绑激励医院质量。

IF 2.4 3区 医学 Q2 ECONOMICS
Health economics Pub Date : 2025-08-17 DOI:10.1002/hec.70024
Katja Grašič, Adrián Villaseñor, James Gaughan, Nils Gutacker, Luigi Siciliani
{"title":"通过护理捆绑激励医院质量。","authors":"Katja Grašič,&nbsp;Adrián Villaseñor,&nbsp;James Gaughan,&nbsp;Nils Gutacker,&nbsp;Luigi Siciliani","doi":"10.1002/hec.70024","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Policymakers increasingly implement pay-for-performance schemes to incentivize quality of care. A key design issue when incentivizing several process measures of quality relates to whether the payment should be linked to the performance on each measure or whether the payment should be conditional on all of the process measures of quality being provided, which we refer to as “care bundling”. After developing a theoretical framework of provider incentives under care bundling, we employ a difference-in-difference analysis to evaluate the Best Practice Tariff for fragility hip fracture, introduced in England in 2010, which rewards providers based on a care bundle of nine process measures that need to be jointly achieved. The design of the processes was evidence-based and the size of the bonus was significant, up to 20% of the baseline tariff. The results suggest that the policy was successful in increasing the proportion of patients for whom all of the criteria are met by 52.5 percentage points in the first 5 years after its introduction. Temporal ordering of processes might matter under care bundling, but we do not find evidence that English providers exerted less effort to meet process measures if they already failed to meet an earlier one. Overall, we find that a scheme based on care bundle, which is evidence based and uses a sizable bonus, can be effective in improving hospital performance.</p>","PeriodicalId":12847,"journal":{"name":"Health economics","volume":"34 11","pages":"2140-2160"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/hec.70024","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Incentivizing Hospital Quality Through Care Bundling\",\"authors\":\"Katja Grašič,&nbsp;Adrián Villaseñor,&nbsp;James Gaughan,&nbsp;Nils Gutacker,&nbsp;Luigi Siciliani\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/hec.70024\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Policymakers increasingly implement pay-for-performance schemes to incentivize quality of care. A key design issue when incentivizing several process measures of quality relates to whether the payment should be linked to the performance on each measure or whether the payment should be conditional on all of the process measures of quality being provided, which we refer to as “care bundling”. After developing a theoretical framework of provider incentives under care bundling, we employ a difference-in-difference analysis to evaluate the Best Practice Tariff for fragility hip fracture, introduced in England in 2010, which rewards providers based on a care bundle of nine process measures that need to be jointly achieved. The design of the processes was evidence-based and the size of the bonus was significant, up to 20% of the baseline tariff. The results suggest that the policy was successful in increasing the proportion of patients for whom all of the criteria are met by 52.5 percentage points in the first 5 years after its introduction. Temporal ordering of processes might matter under care bundling, but we do not find evidence that English providers exerted less effort to meet process measures if they already failed to meet an earlier one. Overall, we find that a scheme based on care bundle, which is evidence based and uses a sizable bonus, can be effective in improving hospital performance.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12847,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Health economics\",\"volume\":\"34 11\",\"pages\":\"2140-2160\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/hec.70024\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Health economics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/hec.70024\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ECONOMICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health economics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/hec.70024","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

决策者越来越多地实施绩效薪酬计划,以激励医疗质量。在激励若干质量过程衡量标准时,一个关键的设计问题是,支付是否应该与每项衡量标准的表现挂钩,或者支付是否应该以所提供的所有质量过程衡量标准为条件,我们称之为“关怀捆绑”。在开发了护理捆绑下提供者激励的理论框架后,我们采用差异中差异分析来评估2010年在英格兰引入的脆性髋部骨折最佳实践关税,该关税基于需要共同实现的九个过程措施的护理捆绑来奖励提供者。该流程的设计是基于证据的,奖金的数额也很可观,高达基准关税的20%。结果表明,该政策在实施后的前5年内成功地将满足所有标准的患者比例提高了52.5个百分点。在护理捆绑下,流程的时间顺序可能很重要,但我们没有发现证据表明,如果英国提供者已经未能满足较早的流程措施,他们就会付出较少的努力来满足流程措施。总的来说,我们发现基于护理包的方案,这是基于证据和使用相当大的奖金,可以有效地提高医院绩效。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Incentivizing Hospital Quality Through Care Bundling

Incentivizing Hospital Quality Through Care Bundling

Policymakers increasingly implement pay-for-performance schemes to incentivize quality of care. A key design issue when incentivizing several process measures of quality relates to whether the payment should be linked to the performance on each measure or whether the payment should be conditional on all of the process measures of quality being provided, which we refer to as “care bundling”. After developing a theoretical framework of provider incentives under care bundling, we employ a difference-in-difference analysis to evaluate the Best Practice Tariff for fragility hip fracture, introduced in England in 2010, which rewards providers based on a care bundle of nine process measures that need to be jointly achieved. The design of the processes was evidence-based and the size of the bonus was significant, up to 20% of the baseline tariff. The results suggest that the policy was successful in increasing the proportion of patients for whom all of the criteria are met by 52.5 percentage points in the first 5 years after its introduction. Temporal ordering of processes might matter under care bundling, but we do not find evidence that English providers exerted less effort to meet process measures if they already failed to meet an earlier one. Overall, we find that a scheme based on care bundle, which is evidence based and uses a sizable bonus, can be effective in improving hospital performance.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Health economics
Health economics 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
4.80%
发文量
177
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: This Journal publishes articles on all aspects of health economics: theoretical contributions, empirical studies and analyses of health policy from the economic perspective. Its scope includes the determinants of health and its definition and valuation, as well as the demand for and supply of health care; planning and market mechanisms; micro-economic evaluation of individual procedures and treatments; and evaluation of the performance of health care systems. Contributions should typically be original and innovative. As a rule, the Journal does not include routine applications of cost-effectiveness analysis, discrete choice experiments and costing analyses. Editorials are regular features, these should be concise and topical. Occasionally commissioned reviews are published and special issues bring together contributions on a single topic. Health Economics Letters facilitate rapid exchange of views on topical issues. Contributions related to problems in both developed and developing countries are welcome.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信