Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38467989›Full record

ArticleApplied health economics and health policy2024

Is Economic Evaluation and Care Commissioning Focused on Achieving the Same Outcomes? Resource-Allocation Considerations and Challenges Using England as a Case Study.

Matthew Franklin, Sebastian Hinde, Rachael Maree Hunter, Gerry Richardson, William Whittaker

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Applied health economics and health policy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Depicting patient-reported outcome measures within directed acyclic graphs: practice and implications for causal reasoning.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2025
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Matthew FranklinSheffield Centre for Health and Related Research (SCHARR), Division of Population Health, School of Medicine and Population Health, The University of Sheffield, Regent Court, 30 Regent Street, Sheffield, S1 4DA, UK. matt.franklin@sheffield.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-2774-9439
Sebastian HindeCentre for Health Economics (CHE), University of York, Heslington, York, YO10 5DD, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-7117-4142
Rachael Maree HunterResearch Department of Primary Care and Population Health, Royal Free Medical School, University College London, Royal Free Campus, Rowland Hill Street, London, NW3 2PF, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-7447-8934
Gerry RichardsonCentre for Health Economics (CHE), University of York, Heslington, York, YO10 5DD, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-2360-4566
William WhittakerDivision of Population Health, Health Services Research & Primary Care, Alliance Manchester Business School, Institute for Health Policy and Organisation, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-2530-0360

Funding

National Institute for Health and Care Research NIHR200166National Institute for Health and Care Research NIHR200174Public Health Research Programme NIHR133634
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Commissioning describes the process of contracting appropriate care services to address pre-identified needs through pre-agreed payment structures. Outcomes-based commissioning (i.e., paying services for pre-agreed outcomes) shares a common goal with economic evaluation: achieving value for money for relevant outcomes (e.g., health) achieved from a finite budget. We describe considerations and challenges as to the practical role of relevant outcomes for evaluation and commissioning, seeking to bridge a gap between economic evaluation evidence and care commissioning. We describe conceptual (e.g., what are 'relevant' outcomes) alongside practical considerations (e.g., quantifying and using relevant endpoint or surrogate outcomes) and pertinent issues when linking outcomes to commissioning-based payment mechanisms, using England as a case study. Economic evaluation often focuses on a single endpoint health-focused maximand, e.g., quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), whereas commissioning often focuses on activity-based surrogate outcomes (e.g., health monitoring), as easier-to-measure key performance indicators that are more acceptable (e.g., by clinicians) and amenable to being linked with payment structures. However, payments linked to endpoint and/or surrogate outcomes can lead to market inefficiencies; for example, when surrogates do not have the intended causal effect on endpoint outcomes or when service activity focuses on only people who can achieve prespecified payment-linked outcomes. Accounting for and explaining direct links from commissioners' payment structures to surrogate and then endpoint economic outcomes is a vital step to bridging a gap between economic evaluation approaches and commissioning. Decision-analytic models could aid this but they must be designed to account for relevant surrogate and endpoint outcomes, the payments assigned to such outcomes, and their interaction with the system commissioners purport to influence.

Indexed as

State MedicineCost-Benefit AnalysisEnglandHumansOrganizational Case StudiesOutcome Assessment, Health CareQuality-Adjusted Life YearsResource Allocation

Identifiers

PMID38467989
PMCPMC11178631

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.