Abstract
Pay-for-performance (P4P) is the provision of financial incentives to healthcare providers based on pre-specified performance targets. P4P has been used as a policy tool to improve healthcare provision globally. However, researchers tend to cluster into those working on high or low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), with still limited knowledge exchange, potentially constraining opportunities for learning from across income settings. We reflect here on some commonalities and differences in the design of P4P schemes, research questions, methods and data across income settings. We highlight how a global perspective on knowledge synthesis could lead to innovations and further knowledge advancement.
Highlights
Pay-for-performance (P4P), or the provision of financial incentives to healthcare providers based on pre-specified performance targets, first emerged as a strategy to improve quality of care in the United States, Europe, and other high-income countries (HICs), and was subsequently adopted in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) with the further aim of increasing service coverage.[1,2]
While this approach to provider payment is a global phenomenon, the community of health economists and health service researchers working on P4P tends to divide into those concentrating on HICs, and those concentrating on LMICs
Little effort has been made to look at the global evidence on P4P, including the research questions, methods and types of data used to study P4P, the research findings, and how and why these vary across income settings
Summary
Pay-for-performance (P4P), or the provision of financial incentives to healthcare providers based on pre-specified performance targets, first emerged as a strategy to improve quality of care in the United States, Europe, and other high-income countries (HICs), and was subsequently adopted in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) with the further aim of increasing service coverage.[1,2] While this approach to provider payment is a global phenomenon, the community of health economists and health service researchers working on P4P tends to divide into those concentrating on HICs, and those concentrating on LMICs. P4P schemes implemented in low- and middle-income settings are often set up as part of a bundle of interventions to reform the health system, through strengthening health information systems, enhancing provider autonomy, and promoting greater financial decentralisation.[9,38] As a result some of the LMIC research has sought to examine the interactions between P4P and the broader health system building blocks involved in the achievement of these targets.[15,16,17,39] in HIC P4P does not typically require broader reforms to the health system, and system level effects of P4P are less commonly studied.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: International Journal of Health Policy and Management
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
