Published 27 August 2009, doi:10.1136/bmj.b3081
Cite this as: BMJ 2009;339:b3081

Editorials

The effects of payment by results

Cannot necessarily be predicted by theory and past experience

The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below.

In the linked study (doi:10.1136/bmj.b3047), Farrar and colleagues assess the effect of payment by results—a fixed tariff payment system based on case mix that reimburses acute care hospitals for the type and number of patients treated—on volume, cost, and quality of care in acute care hospitals in England for 2003-4 and 2005-6.¹ By linking provider income to activity, the tariff is expected to provide incentives for higher output and lower costs per patient. The study found that in hospitals where payment by results was implemented the length of stay decreased and the proportion of day cases increased, but indicators of quality of care changed little.

Perhaps the most exciting part of forming health policies is that you do not know what will happen once a change in policy occurs. The Medicare prospective payment system in the United States in 1982-3 shares many similarities with the payment by results . . . [Full text of this article]

¹ Johns Hopkins University, Hampton House, 624 N Broadway, Baltimore, MD 20815, USA

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    StumbleUpon    Technorati    What's this?

Relevant Articles

Expect the unexpected

Fiona Godlee
BMJ 2009 339: b3571. [Extract] [Full Text]

Has payment by results affected the way that English hospitals provide care? Difference-in-differences analysis

Shelley Farrar, Deokhee Yi, Matt Sutton, Martin Chalkley, Jon Sussex, and Anthony Scott
BMJ 2009 339: b3047. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Online poll

Find out more here>> and here>>