Risks and Benefits of the Use of Capitation Formulae in Primary Care
Tóm tắt
Increasingly, primary care physicians are being given budgets based on capitation formulae in the belief that such budgets will be fairer than budgets based on the historical utilization of funds. A second reason for giving primary care physicians budgets based on capitation formulae is that governments hope this will lead to beneficial changes in the behavior of physicians, for example, leading to healthcare resources being used more efficiently and appropriately. Ultimately capitation formulae are expected to produce financial benefits that can be reinvested in better clinical services for patients. In this paper these three key objectives are discussed using examples where capitation formulae have been used. There is limited evidence of the benefits of using capitation formulae but this evidence mainly comes from observational studies that are prone to bias and confounding. A major deficiency with the current capitation formulae used to allocate budgets to primary care physicians in England is that they generally only contain weightings for age, sex, and one or more ecological measures of need. Risk adjustment models have been used in the US but these models can explain only a small proportion of the variation in healthcare costs. At present in the UK it is uncertain whether capitation-based budgets and the enforced collaborative working arrangements for general practitioners will lead to a more efficient and equitable National Health Service. Continued evaluation of how capitation formulae are developed, the methods to adequately adjust for clinical risk, and how capitation formulae change clinical practice are required.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Majeed A, Head S. Setting and monitoring prescribing budgets in general practice. BMJ 1998; 316: 748–50.
Baines DL, Parry DJ. Analysis of the ability of the new needs adjustment formula to improve the setting of weighted capitation prescribing budgets in English general practice. BMJ 2000; 320: 288–90.
Greenhalgh T. Effective prescribing at practice level should be identified and rewarded. BMJ 1997; 316: 750–3.
Majeed FA, Cook DG, Evans N. Variations in general practice prescribing costs: implications for setting and monitoring prescribing budgets. Health Trends 1996; 28: 52–5.
Hippisley-Cox J, Hardy C, Pringle M, et al. The effect of deprivation on variations in general practitioners’ referral rates: a cross sectional study of computerised data on new medical and surgical outpatient referrals in Nottinghamshire. BMJ 1997; 314: 1458–61.
Reid F, Cook DG, Majeed FA. Explaining the variation in general practice admission rates: cross-sectional study. BMJ 1999; 319: 98–103.
Bloor K, Freemantle N. Lessons from international experience in controlling pharmaceutical expenditure II: influencing doctors. BMJ 1996; 312: 1525–7.
Sutton M, Lock P. Regional differences in health care delivery: implications for a national resource allocation formula. Health Econ 2000; 9: 547–59.
Sheldon TA, Smith PC. Equity in the allocation of health care resources. Health Econ 2000; 9: 571–4.
Rice N, Carr-Hill R, Roberts D, et al. Informing prescribing allocations at district level in England. J Health Serv Res Policy 1997; 2: 154–9.
Rice N, Dixon P, Lloyd DCEF, et al. Derivation of a needs based capitation formula for allocating prescribing budgets to health authorities and primary care groups in England: regression analysis. BMJ 2000; 320: 284–8.
Majeed A. Hospital admissions data: why are they collected? Clinician Manage 1998; 7: 160–6.
Carr-Hill R, Hardman G, Martin S, et al. A formula for distributing NHS revenues based on small area use of hospital beds. York: University of York, 1994.
Sheldon TA. Formula fever: allocating resources in the NHS. BMJ 1997; 315: 964.
Cole TJ. The emphasis on transparency weakens the formula. BMJ 2000; 320: 287–8.
Crump BJ, Cubbon JE, Drummond MF, et al. Fundholding in general practice and financial risk. BMJ 1991; 302: 1582–4.
Mays N, Goodwin N, Bevan G, et al., On behalf of the Total Purchasing National Evaluation Team. Total purchasing: a profile of national pilot projects. London: King’s Fund, 1997.
Sheldon TA, Smith P, Borowitz M, et al. Attempt at deriving a formula for setting general practitioner fundholding budgets. BMJ 1994; 309: 1059–64.
Dixon J. Can there be fair funding for fundholding practices? BMJ 1994; 308: 772–5.
Fowles JB, Weiner JP, Knutson D, et al. Taking health status into account when setting capitation rates. JAMA 1996; 276: 1316–21.
US Department of Health and Human Services. Medicare and Medicaid statistical supplement, 1996. Baltimore (MD): Health Care Financing Review, 1996.
Weiner JP, Starfield BH, Steinwachs DM, et al. Development and application of a population-oriented measure of ambulatory care case mix. Med Care 1991; 29: 453–72.
Iezzoni LI, Ayanian JZ, Bates DW, et al. Paying more fairly for Medicare capitated care. N Engl J Med 1998; 339: 1933–8.
Averill RF, Goldfield NI, Eisenhandler J, et al. Development and evaluation of clinical risk groups (CRGs). Wallingford: 3M Health Information Systems, 1999.
Information for health. Leeds: NHS Executive, 1998.
Scheffler R. Adverse selection: the Achilles heel of the NHS reforms. Lancet 1989; I: 950–2.
Matsaganis M, Glennerster H. The threat of ‘cream-skimming’ in the post-reform NHS. J Health Econ 1994; 13: 31–64.
Harris CM, Scrivener G. Fundholders’ prescribing costs: the first five years. BMJ 1996; 313: 1531–4.
Coulter A, Bradlow J. Effect of NHS reforms on general practitioners’ referral patterns. BMJ 1993; 306: 433–7.
Howie JGR, Heaney DJ, Maxwell M. General practice fundholding: shadow project -an evaluation. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh, 1995.
Majeed A, Malcolm L. Unified budgets for primary care groups. BMJ 1999; 318: 772–6.