Market failureBMJ 2009; 339 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.b3859 (Published 22 September 2009) Cite this as: BMJ 2009;339:b3859
- Rudiger Pittrof, consultant in integrated sexual health and HIV1
Payment by results was intended to enable commissioners and providers to focus and compete on quality rather than costs. Farrar and colleagues showed that quality (as measured) did not change.1 Perhaps the healthcare market cannot be used to improve quality, payment by results is the wrong tool to improve quality, or the assessment of quality was inadequate, or all three.
Farrar and colleagues showed a small improvement in productivity. This may be more than offset by the additional administrative costs for both commissioners and providers.
They found no change in case mix. Indeed, the increased number of day case procedures may reflect, overall, that healthier patients receive treatment. In sexual health, for example, payment by results rewards providing minimal services for the worried well while penalising targeting those who have most to gain from using the services—the most expensive patients.
Cite this as: BMJ 2009;339:b3859
Competing interests: None declared.
Log in using your username and password
Log in through your institution
Register for a free trial to thebmj.com to receive unlimited access to all content on thebmj.com for 14 days.
Sign up for a free trial