A recent systematic review by Riyadh Alshamsan and colleagues assessed the impact of pay for performance programmes, in particular the Quality & Outcomes Framework in the UK, on inequalities in the quality of health care. There was some evidence that the use of financial incentives reduced inequalities in chronic disease management between socio-economic groups. However, inequalities in chronic disease management between age, sex and ethnic groups persisted after the use of pay for performance incentives. They concluded that inequalities in chronic disease management have often persisted after the introduction of pay for performance programmes such as the Quality and Outcome Framework in the UK. The findings of the paper reinforce the need for pay for performance programmes to be designed to reduce inequalities as well as improve the overall quality of care.
As part of a session on primary care data in the Health Informatics module on the Imperial Master of Public Health Programme, I asked students to work in two groups to present arguments for and against the NHS Care.Data programme. Care.Data is an NHS programme that will extract data from the medical records held by general practitioners (GPs) in England. The Care.Data programme takes advantage of the very high level of use of electronic medical records by GPs in England. After extraction, data will be uploaded to the NHS Health and Social Care Information Centre (HSCIC). The data will then be used for functions such as health care planning, monitoring disease patterns and research. The programme has been controversial with proponents arguing that the programme will bring many benefits for the NHS and the population of England; and opponents arguing it is a major breach of privacy. You can view the two presentations to help inform you further about these arguments: Arguments for th
Comments