Value for money and the Quality and Outcomes Framework in primary care in the UK NHS

Abstract

The Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) is a pioneering attempt to improve the quality of primary care in the UK through the use of financial rewards. Despite its achievements, there are concerns that the QOF may offer poor value for money. AimTo assess the cost-effectiveness of QOF payments. Design of studyEconomic analysis. SettingEngland, UK. MethodCost-effectiveness evidence was identified for a subset of nine QOF indicators with a direct therapeutic impact. These data were then applied to an analytic framework to determine the conditions under which QOF payments would be cost-effective. This framework was constructed to assess the costeffectiveness of QOF payments by modelling the incentive structure using cost-effectiveness thresholds of £20 000 and £30 000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained, to represent good value to the NHS. It used 2004/2005 data on the QOF performance of all English primary care practices. ResultsAverage indicator payments ranged from £0.63 to £40.61 per patient, and the percentage of eligible patients treated ranged from 63% to 90%. The proportional changes required for QOF payments to be cost-effective varied widely between the indicators. Although most indicators required only a fraction of a 1% change to be cost-effective, for some indicators improvements in performance of around 20% were needed. ConclusionFor most indicators that can be assessed, QOF incentive payments are likely to be a cost-effective use of resources for a high proportion of primary care practices, even if the QOF achieves only modest improvements in care. However, only a small subset of the indicators has been considered, and no account has been taken of the costs of administering the QOF scheme. Keywordscost-effectiveness; family practice; health care; physician incentive plans; quality indicators.

Implementation Processes and Pay for Performance in Healthcare: A Systematic Review

“…We identified one prospective cohort, 9 two retrospective cohort, 10,11 and one pre-post study, 12 six cross-sectional surveys, [13][14][15][16][17] one economic analysis, 18 and two simulation studies. 19,20 Related to measure development, studies found that an emphasis on clinical quality and patient experience criteria was related to increased coordination of care, improved office staff interaction, and provider confidence in providing highquality care.…”

“…Thirteen studies [9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20]50 examined program design features and found:…”

Challenges Facing Clinical Research: An Example From a Middle Eastern Country

“…The Quality and Outcomes Framework incentive payments were found to be a cost-effective use of resources in the UK NHS primary care practices (Walker et al, 2010).…”

James Mackenzie Lecture 2010: Beyond the numbers game—the call of leadership

“…Preliminary findings on cost-effectiveness for the QOF are also encouraging. 30 However, qualitative research has shown that the patient's agenda may be under threat due to the requirements to meet QOF targets and that there may be a divergence of opinion in relation to the worth of some aspects of care between general practice health professionals and patients. 31 We must strike a balance between the present chronic disease-focused elements of the QOF and the quality of patient-centred, humanitarian care that are more difficult to assess, but no less important.…”