PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Richard Cookson

Publications and source records attributed to Richard Cookson.

7 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2006

Do the incentive payments in the new NHS contract for primary care reflect likely population health gains?

OBJECTIVE: The new contract for primary care in the UK offers fee-for-service (FFS) payments for a wide range of activities in a quality outcomes framework (QOF), with payments designed to reflect likely workload. This study aims to explore the link between these financial incentives and the likely population health gains. METHODS: The study examines a subset of eight preventive interventions covering 38 of the 81 clinical indicators in the quality framework. The maximum payment for each service was calculated and compared with the likely population health gain in terms of lives saved per 100,000 population based on evidence from McColl et al. (1998). RESULTS: Maximum payments for the eight interventions examined make up 57% of the total maximum payment for all clinical interventions in the (QOF). There appears to be no relationship between pay and health gain across these eight interventions. Two of the eight interventions (warfarin in atrial fibrillation and statins in primary prevention) receive no incentive. CONCLUSIONS: Payments in the new contract do not reflect likely population health gain. There is a danger that clinical activity may be skewed towards high-workload activities that are only marginally effective, to the detriment of more cost-effective activities. If improving population health is the primary goal of the NHS, then FFS incentives should be designed to reflect likely health gain rather than likely workload.

Fee-for-Service Plans↗
PubMed2006

The relationship between prescribing expenditure and quality in primary care: an observational study.

BACKGROUND: If all GPs target their prescribing appropriately, then a positive relationship may be expected between targeting quality indicators and associated prescribing expenditure. Little is known about this relationship. AIM: To explore the relationship between prescribing quality indicators and associated prescribing expenditures. DESIGN: Observational study of prescribing expenditure and quality indicators. SETTING: Seventy-one of the 121 practices in the Norfolk and Waveney area of East Anglia in England. METHOD: Data were collected on quality indicators for 2002-2003 in seven areas likely to produce the greatest number of lives saved over a period of 1 year. This was linked to routine data on associated pharmaceutical expenditure. RESULTS: There was considerable variation in quality in all areas apart from influenza immunisation. Significant correlations between prescribing quality and expenditure were found in only two of the seven areas. When quality scores were combined into a composite quality index weighted by health gain, a small positive association was found, but this association is lost if all indicators are weighted equally. CONCLUSIONS: There appeared to be no relationship between quality indicators and prescribing expenditure at the practice level for most of the therapeutic areas studied. This suggests the possibility that there may be scope for some GPs to target prescribing more appropriately towards high risk patients -- and thus save more lives -- without increasing prescribing expenditure.

Data Collection↗
PubMed2005

QALYs and the capability approach.

This explores the applicability of Sen's capability approach to the economic evaluation of health care programmes. An individual's 'capability set' describes his freedom to choose valuable activities and states of being ('functionings'). Direct estimation and valuation of capability sets is not feasible at present. Standard preference-based methods such as willingness to pay are feasible, but problematic due to the adaptive and constructed nature of individual preferences over time and under uncertainty. An alternative is to re-interpret the QALY as a cardinal and interpersonally comparable index of the value of the individual's capability set. This approach has limitations, since the link between QALYs and capabilities is not straightforward. Nevertheless, the QALY approach is recognisable as an application of the capability approach since it pays close attention to functionings, through the use of survey-based multi-attribute health state valuation instruments, and permits conceptions of value other than the traditional utilitarian ones of choice, desire-fulfilment and happiness. Furthermore, suitably re-interpreted, it can account for (i) non-separability between health and non-health components of value; and suitably modified it can also account for (ii) process attributes of care, which may have a direct effect on non-health functionings such as comfort and dignity, and (iii) sub-group diversity in the value of the same health functionings.

Activities of Daily Living↗
PubMed2005

Evidence-based policy making in health care: what it is and what it isn't.

In this paper, I aim to re-establish the meaning and importance of the concept of 'evidence-based policy making' (EBP) in health care. The term EBP is often misunderstood as being either vacuous (who thinks that public policy should not be based on evidence?), unrealistic (the naive product of ivory tower thinking) or conservative (an excuse permanently to delay reform). It need be none of these things. EBP should be thought of as a set of rules and institutional arrangements designed to encourage transparent and balanced use of evidence in public policy making. As well as controlled trials and observational studies, a broad range of theoretical and empirical evidence about human behaviour may be relevant to predicting policy outcomes - including stakeholder opinions and other sources of intelligence that might not qualify as scientific research. Gradual progress towards EBP, properly understood, has the potential to facilitate open democracy and to improve policy outcomes. The argument is illustrated using examples based on large-scale policies of health care reform in England, where progress towards EBP over the last decade has been real but modest.

Evidence-Based Medicine↗
PubMed2003

Evaluating health care interventions in the European Union.

This paper examines the current state of evaluations of health care interventions in the European Union, from the identification and commissioning of research through to its impact on policy and practice. Material is drawn from a survey conducted for the ASTEC project as well as a review of literature. Although the use of evaluative research has increased substantially in the last decade, both the pace of change and preferred research methodologies employed differ markedly. Much research still concentrates on issues of safety, efficacy and effectiveness, although there is evidence of an increasing emphasis on cost-effectiveness. Many countries are beginning to introduce systems linking economic evaluation to the decision-making process, while networks for the exchange of information continue to evolve. Research capacity in the public sector, although improving, is uneven, in part due to the uncertainty over long term career prospects and competition from industry. Capacity building measures should in particular ensure that dissemination expertise is strengthened, and that more emphasis is placed on developing receptor capacity within different stakeholder groups. Linking knowledge production to changes in practice remains a key challenge. Further research on implementation and impact assessment is required, to help demonstrate the value of evaluations on both policy and practice.

Delivery of Health Care↗
PubMed2003

Regulating the economic evaluation of pharmaceuticals and medical devices: a European perspective.

Throughout the developed world, economic evaluation of costly new pharmaceuticals and medical devices became increasingly widespread and systematic during the 1990s. However, serious concerns remain about the validity and relevance of this economic evidence, and about the transparency and accountability of its use in public sector reimbursement decisions. In this article, we summarise current concerns in Europe, based on interviews with European health economists from industry, universities, research institutes and consulting firms. We identify five challenges for European policy-makers, and conclude that there is considerable scope for improving decision-making without damaging incentives to innovate. The challenges are: (1). full publication of the economic evidence used in reimbursement decisions; (2). the redesign of licensing laws to improve the relevance of economic data available at product launch; (3). harmonisation of economic evaluation methodologies; (4). development of methodologies for evaluation of health inequality impacts; and (5). negotiation of price-performance deals to facilitate the use of economic evidence in post-launch pricing review decisions, as information is gathered from studies of product performance in routine use.

Clinical Trials as Topic↗