Jamie Robinson, the Berkeley health economist, famously remarked in 2001 that ‘the three worst ways to pay doctors are salary, capitation and fee-for-service.’ Different financial incentives produce different clinical and service outcomes, sometimes perversely.1 In 2004, the UK government introduced pay for performance (P4P) for general practitioners, the Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF). Its introduction was associated with the general trend in the National Health Service away from placing implicit trust in doctors and more active monitoring of their performance. One-quarter of GP pay can be earned from achieving scores on 147 indicators.2 These indicators were acceptable to doctors because the majority are evidence-based clinical outcome measures for 10 chronic diseases. Others relate to patient access and satisfaction, and practice organisation.
Field of Research
111717 Primary Health Care
Socio Economic Objective
920499 Public Health (excl. Specific Population Health) not elsewhere classified
Every reasonable effort has been made to ensure that permission has been obtained for items included in DRO. If you believe that your rights have been infringed by this repository, please contact email@example.com.