Literature DB >> 26058447

The impact of paying treatment providers for outcomes: difference-in-differences analysis of the 'payment by results for drugs recovery' pilot.

Thomas Mason1, Matthew Sutton1, William Whittaker1, Tim McSweeney2, Tim Millar3, Michael Donmall3, Andrew Jones3, Matthias Pierce3.   

Abstract

AIMS: To estimate the effect on drug misuse treatment completion of a pilot scheme to pay service providers according to rates of recovery.
DESIGN: A controlled, quasi-experimental (difference-in-differences) observational study using multi-level random effects logistic regression.
SETTING: Drug misuse treatment providers in all 149 commissioning areas in England in the financial years 2011-12 and 2012-13. PARTICIPANTS: Service users treated in England in 2011-12 and 2012-13. INTERVENTION AND COMPARATORS: Linkage of provider payments to performance indicators in eight pilot commissioning areas in England compared with all 141 non-pilot commissioning areas in England. MEASUREMENTS: Recovery was measured by successful completion of treatment (free from drugs of dependence) and engagement with services was measured by rates of declining to continue with treatment.
FINDINGS: Following the introduction of the pilot scheme, service users treated in pilot areas were 1.3 percentage points [odds ratio (OR) = 0.859; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.788, 0.937] less likely to complete treatment compared with those treated in comparison areas. Service users treated in pilot areas were 0.9 percentage points (OR = 2.934; 95% CI = 2.094, 4.113) more likely to decline to continue with treatment compared with those treated in comparison areas.
CONCLUSIONS: In the first year of the pilot 'Payment by Results for Drugs Recovery' scheme in England, linking payments to outcomes reduced the probability of completing drug misuse treatment and increased the proportion service users declining to continue with treatment.
© 2015 Society for the Study of Addiction.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Difference-in-differences; drugs policy; multi-level modelling; pay-for-performance; payment-by-results; performance measurement; policy analysis; random effects; unintended consequences

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26058447     DOI: 10.1111/add.12920

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Addiction        ISSN: 0965-2140            Impact factor:   6.526


  7 in total

Review 1.  Incentivizing performance in health care: a rapid review, typology and qualitative study of unintended consequences.

Authors:  Xinyu Li; Jenna M Evans
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2022-05-23       Impact factor: 2.908

2.  Incentives in a public addiction treatment system: Effects on waiting time and selection.

Authors:  Maureen T Stewart; Sharon Reif; Beth Dana; AnMarie Nguyen; Maria Torres; Margot T Davis; Grant Ritter; Dominic Hodgkin; Constance M Horgan
Journal:  J Subst Abuse Treat       Date:  2018-09-07

Review 3.  Is it feasible to pay specialty substance use disorder treatment programs based on patient outcomes?

Authors:  Dominic Hodgkin; Deborah W Garnick; Constance M Horgan; Alisa B Busch; Maureen T Stewart; Sharon Reif
Journal:  Drug Alcohol Depend       Date:  2019-11-14       Impact factor: 4.492

4.  Effects of accountable care and payment reform on substance use disorder treatment: evidence from the initial 3 years of the alternative quality contract.

Authors:  Elizabeth A Stuart; Colleen L Barry; Julie M Donohue; Shelly F Greenfield; Kenneth Duckworth; Zirui Song; Robert Mechanic; Elena M Kouri; Cyrus Ebnesajjad; Michael E Chernew; Haiden A Huskamp
Journal:  Addiction       Date:  2016-09-24       Impact factor: 6.526

5.  Monitoring quality and coverage of harm reduction services for people who use drugs: a consensus study.

Authors:  Lucas Wiessing; Marica Ferri; Vendula Běláčková; Patrizia Carrieri; Samuel R Friedman; Cinta Folch; Kate Dolan; Brian Galvin; Peter Vickerman; Jeffrey V Lazarus; Viktor Mravčík; Mirjam Kretzschmar; Vana Sypsa; Ana Sarasa-Renedo; Anneli Uusküla; Dimitrios Paraskevis; Luis Mendão; Diana Rossi; Nadine van Gelder; Luke Mitcheson; Letizia Paoli; Cristina Diaz Gomez; Maitena Milhet; Nicoleta Dascalu; Jonathan Knight; Gordon Hay; Eleni Kalamara; Roland Simon; Catherine Comiskey; Carla Rossi; Paul Griffiths
Journal:  Harm Reduct J       Date:  2017-04-22

6.  Balancing welfare and market logics: Procurement regulations for social and health services in four Nordic welfare states.

Authors:  Kerstin Stenius; Jessica Storbjork
Journal:  Nordisk Alkohol Nark       Date:  2019-12-26

7.  Economic evaluation of a complex intervention (Engager) for prisoners with common mental health problems, near to and after release: a cost-utility and cost-consequences analysis.

Authors:  Rachael Maree Hunter; Rob Anderson; Tim Kirkpatrick; Charlotte Lennox; Fiona Warren; Rod S Taylor; Jenny Shaw; Mark Haddad; Alex Stirzaker; Mike Maguire; Richard Byng
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2021-08-05
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.