Will financial incentives and penalties improve hospital care?

BMJ ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 340 (jan21 1) ◽  
pp. c88-c88 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. Maynard ◽  
K. Bloor
Author(s):  
Jonas Schreyögg

Since the 1980s policymakers have identified a wide range of policy interventions to improve hospital performance. Some of these have been initiated at the level of government, whereas others have taken the form of decisions made by individual hospitals but have been guided by regulatory or financial incentives. Studies investigating the impact that some of the most important of these interventions have had on hospital performance can be grouped into four different research streams. Among the research streams, the strongest evidence exists for the effects of privatization. Studies on this topic use longitudinal designs with control groups and have found robust increases in efficiency and financial performance. Evidence on the entry of hospitals into health systems and the effects of this on efficiency is similarly strong. Although the other three streams of research also contain well-conducted studies with valuable findings, they are predominantly cross-sectional in design and therefore cannot establish causation. While the effects of introducing DRG-based hospital payments and of specialization are largely unclear, vertical and horizontal cooperation probably have a positive effect on efficiency and financial performance. Lastly, the drivers of improved efficiency or financial performance are very different depending on the reform or intervention being investigated; however, reductions in the number of staff and improved bargaining power in purchasing stand out as being of particular importance. Several promising avenues for future investigation are identified. One of these is situated within a new area of research examining the link between changes in the prices of treatments and hospitals’ responses. As there is evidence of unintended effects, future studies should attempt to distinguish between changes in hospitals’ responses at the intensive margin (e.g., upcoding) versus the extensive margin (e.g., increase in admissions). When looking at the effects of entering into a health system and of privatizations, there is still considerable need for research. With privatizations, in particular, the underlying processes are not yet fully understood, and the potential trade-offs between increases in performance and changes in the quality of care have not been sufficiently examined. Lastly, there is substantial need for further papers in the areas of multi-institutional arrangements and cooperation, as well as specialization. In both research streams, natural experiments carried out using program evaluation design are lacking. One of the main challenges here, however, is that cooperation and specialization cannot be directly observed but rather must be constructed based on survey or administrative data.


BMJ Open ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 7 (6) ◽  
pp. e015121 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lisanne Hut-Mossel ◽  
Gera Welker ◽  
Kees Ahaus ◽  
Rijk Gans

IntroductionMany types of audits are commonly used in hospital care to promote quality improvements. However, the evidence on the effectiveness of audits is mixed. The objectives of this proposed realist review are (1) to understand how and why audits might, or might not, work in terms of delivering the intended outcome of improved quality of hospital care and (2) to examine under what circumstances audits could potentially be effective. This protocol will provide the rationale for using a realist review approach and outline the method.Methods and analysisThis review will be conducted using an iterative four-stage approach. The first and second steps have already been executed. The first step was to develop an initial programme theory based on the literature that explains how audits are supposed to work. Second, a systematic literature search was conducted using relevant databases. Third, data will be extracted and coded for concepts relating to context, outcomes and their interrelatedness. Finally, the data will be synthesised in a five-step process: (1) organising the extracted data into evidence tables, (2) theming, (3) formulating chains of inference from the identified themes, (4) linking the chains of inference and formulating CMO configurations and (5) refining the initial programme theory. The reporting of the review will follow the ‘Realist and Meta-Review Evidence Synthesis: Evolving Standards’ (RAMESES) publication standards.Ethics and disseminationThis review does not require formal ethical approval. A better understanding of how and why these audits work, and how context impacts their effectiveness, will inform stakeholders in deciding how to tailor and implement audits within their local context. We will use a range of dissemination strategies to ensure that findings from this realist review are broadly disseminated to academic and non-academic audiences.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42016039882.


2004 ◽  
Vol 30 (3) ◽  
pp. 143-151 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charles P. Schade ◽  
Beckey Fain Cochran ◽  
Mark K. Stephens

2010 ◽  
Vol 92 (10) ◽  
pp. 336-337
Author(s):  
Matthew Worrall

September marked the launch of the third edition of the College's popular three-day course, Care of the Critically Ill Surgical Patient (CCrISP®). Established in the early nineties with funding from the Hillsborough Trust, who wanted to support efforts to improve hospital care for seriously ill patients, the course has been a huge success with over 20,000 trainee surgeons completing it to date.


2002 ◽  
Vol 23 (3) ◽  
pp. 116
Author(s):  
Priscilla Ebersole

1995 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 135-142 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ching Wen Chien ◽  
James E. Rohrer ◽  
Robert Ludke ◽  
Gary Levitz

Rural hospitals have been threatened by declining revenues. Control over costs will be necessary to help these hospitals survive. Investigation of the determinants of hospital costs in Iowa reveals that costs are primarily caused by environmental factors, rather than variables over which managers have control. Furthermore, efforts by policy makers to improve hospital efficiency by stimulating competition among hospitals may have been ineffective, since the level of competition was not found to be associated with hospital production costs.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document