The use of financial incentives in Australian general practice

Abstract

Administrative support available to GPs appears to be an increasingly important predictor of incentive use, suggesting that the administrative burden of claiming incentives is large and not always worth the effort. It is, therefore, crucial to consider such costs (especially relative to the size of the payment) when designing incentive payments. As market conditions are also likely to influence participation in incentive schemes, the impact of incentives can change over time and these schemes should be reviewed regularly.

The response of health systems to after‐hours primary cares in Iran and the selected countries

“…In the meantime, Australia may have the best financial incentive program. In this program, five different levels of payment are considered in terms of the extent of participation of general practitioners in providing primary care . It should be noted that considering financial incentives alone does not determine success in the implementation of policies pertaining to the delivery of out‐of‐office hours services, and organizational support of the governmental from providers such as providing free space, necessary equipment and facilities in some areas that where private sector faces difficulties can be used as a complementary policy.…”

“…In some health systems, in order to avoid unnecessary referral of patients in out‐of‐office hours, they render service tariffs higher than that of office hours, which may distort access. In New Zealand, patients pay more for out‐of‐office hours than that of office hours . In rural areas of Iran, patients pay more in out‐of‐office hours than office hours.…”

Lessons to be learned: Using National Immunisation strategies to improve adherence to acute rheumatic fever secondary prophylaxis

“…The low overall, yet highly concentrated, incidence of ARF would estimate a low overall cost, yet scaling, benefit to these areas of greater need as indicated in similar initiatives such as the Provider Incentive Program. 42 A SIP for patients achieving >80% BPG adherence rate would drive health services to develop locally tailored strategies.…”

O modelo de remuneração definindo a forma de cuidar: por que premiar a ineficiência no cuidado ao idoso?

“…Desde as reformas da década de 1990, países como Inglaterra, França, Alemanha, Austrália e Estados Unidos têm experimentado a transição do modelo FFS único para modelos mistos de remuneração que envolvem até o pagamento por desempenho de prestadores de serviços de saúde, conhecido como pay for performance (P4P) (Petersen et al, 2006;Benzer et al, 2014;Collier, 2012;Kecmanovic & Hall, 2015;Khullar et al, 2015;Lester et al, 2013). No Brasil, outras formas de remuneração representam apenas 5% do que é praticado pelo mercado de saúde suplementar e algumas experiências, no sistema público, de pagamento por orçamento global e por capitação foram implementadas nos últimos anos.…”