Felix Greaves 1 , Anthony A Laverty 1 , Utz Pape 1 , Anenta Ratneswaren 1 , Azeem Majeed 1 , Christopher Millett 2 Show Affiliations »
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Health system reforms in England are opening broad areas of clinical practice to new providers of care. As part of these reforms, new entrants--including private companies--have been allowed into the primary care market under 'alternative provider of medical services' contracting mechanisms since 2004. The characteristics and performance of general practices working under new alternative provider contracts are not well described. We sought to compare the quality of care provided by new entrant providers to that provided by the traditional model of general practice. DESIGN: Open cohort study of English general practices. We used linear regression in cross-sectional and time series analyses, adjusting for practice and population characteristics, to compare quality in practices using alternative provider contracts to traditional practices. We created regression models using practice fixed effects to estimate the impact of practices changing to the new contract type. SETTING: The English National Health Service. PARTICIPANTS: All general practices open from 2008/2009 to 2012/2013. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Seventeen established quality indicators--covering clinical effectiveness, efficiency, access and patient experience. RESULTS: In total, 4.1% (347 of 8300) of general practices in England were run by alternative contract providers. These practices tended to be smaller, and serve younger, more diverse and more deprived populations than traditional providers. Practices run by alternative providers performed worse than traditional providers on 15 of 17 indicators after adjusting for practice and population characteristics (p < 0.01 for all). Switching to a new alternative provider contract did not result in improved performance. CONCLUSIONS: The introduction of new alternative providers to deliver primary care services in England has not led to improvements in quality and may have resulted in worse care. Regulators should ensure that new entrants to clinical provider markets are performing to adequate standards and at least as well as traditional providers. © The Royal Society of Medicine.
OBJECTIVES: Health system reforms in England are opening broad areas of clinical practice to new providers of care. As part of these reforms, new entrants--including private companies--have been allowed into the primary care market under 'alternative provider of medical services' contracting mechanisms since 2004. The characteristics and performance of general practices working under new alternative provider contracts are not well described. We sought to compare the quality of care provided by new entrant providers to that provided by the traditional model of general practice. DESIGN: Open cohort study of English general practices. We used linear regression in cross-sectional and time series analyses, adjusting for practice and population characteristics, to compare quality in practices using alternative provider contracts to traditional practices. We created regression models using practice fixed effects to estimate the impact of practices changing to the new contract type. SETTING: The English National Health Service. PARTICIPANTS: All general practices open from 2008/2009 to 2012/2013. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Seventeen established quality indicators--covering clinical effectiveness, efficiency, access and patient experience. RESULTS: In total, 4.1% (347 of 8300) of general practices in England were run by alternative contract providers. These practices tended to be smaller, and serve younger, more diverse and more deprived populations than traditional providers. Practices run by alternative providers performed worse than traditional providers on 15 of 17 indicators after adjusting for practice and population characteristics (p < 0.01 for all). Switching to a new alternative provider contract did not result in improved performance. CONCLUSIONS: The introduction of new alternative providers to deliver primary care services in England has not led to improvements in quality and may have resulted in worse care. Regulators should ensure that new entrants to clinical provider markets are performing to adequate standards and at least as well as traditional providers. © The Royal Society of Medicine.
Entities: Chemical
Keywords:
clinical quality; health policy; primary care
Mesh： See more »
Year: 2015
PMID： 25908312 PMCID： PMC4484211 DOI： 10.1177/0141076815583303
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J R Soc Med ISSN： 0141-0768 Impact factor: 5.344