EconPapers    
Economics at your fingertips  
 

Analytical methods to assess the impacts of activity-based funding (ABF): a scoping review

Gintare Valentelyte (), Conor Keegan () and Jan Sorensen ()
Additional contact information
Gintare Valentelyte: Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland
Conor Keegan: Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI)
Jan Sorensen: Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland

Health Economics Review, 2021, vol. 11, issue 1, 1-15

Abstract: Abstract Background Activity-Based Funding (ABF) has been implemented across many countries as a means to incentivise efficient hospital care delivery and resource use. Previous reviews have assessed the impact of ABF implementation on a range of outcomes across health systems. However, no comprehensive review of the methods used to generate this evidence has been undertaken. The aim of this review is to identify and assess the analytical methods employed in research on ABF hospital performance outcomes. Methods We conducted a scoping review in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for scoping reviews. Five academic databases and reference lists of included studies were used to identify studies assessing the impact of ABF on hospital performance outcomes. Peer-reviewed quantitative studies published between 2000 and 2019 considering ABF implementation outside the U.S. were included. Qualitative studies, policy discussions and commentaries were excluded. Abstracts and full text studies were double screened to ensure consistency. All analytical approaches and their relative strengths and weaknesses were charted and summarised. Results We identified 19 studies that assessed hospital performance outcomes from introduction of ABF in England, Korea, Norway, Portugal, Israel, the Netherlands, Canada, Italy, Japan, Belgium, China, and Austria. Quasi-experimental methods were used across most reviewed studies. The most commonly used assessment methods were different forms of interrupted time series analyses. Few studies used difference-in-differences or similar methods to compare outcome changes over time relative to comparator groups. The main hospital performance outcome measures examined were case numbers, length of stay, mortality and readmission. Conclusions Non-experimental study designs continue to be the most widely used method in the assessment of ABF impacts. Quasi-experimental approaches examining the impact of ABF implementation on outcomes relative to comparator groups not subject to the reform should be applied where possible to facilitate identification of effects. These approaches provide a more robust evidence-base for informing future financing reform and policy.

Keywords: Activity-based funding; Hospital funding; Hospital performance; Outcomes; Analytical methodology (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2021
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: Track citations by RSS feed

Downloads: (external link)
http://link.springer.com/10.1186/s13561-021-00315-1 Abstract (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:spr:hecrev:v:11:y:2021:i:1:d:10.1186_s13561-021-00315-1

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.springer.com/journal/13561

DOI: 10.1186/s13561-021-00315-1

Access Statistics for this article

Health Economics Review is currently edited by J. Matthias Graf von der Schulenburg

More articles in Health Economics Review from Springer
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().

 
Page updated 2022-05-12
Handle: RePEc:spr:hecrev:v:11:y:2021:i:1:d:10.1186_s13561-021-00315-1