Department of Health Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester.
Br J Gen Pract. 2019 Aug;69(685):e546-e554. doi: 10.3399/bjgp19X704549. Epub 2019 Jun 17.
A previous study found that variables related to population health needs were poor predictors of cross-sectional variations in practice payments.
To investigate whether deprivation scores predicted variations in the increase over time of total payments to general practices per patient, after adjustment for potential confounders.
Longitudinal multilevel model for 2013-2017; 6900 practices (84.4% of English practices).
Practices were excluded if total adjusted payments per patient were <£10 or >£500 per patient or if deprivation scores were missing. Main outcome measures were adjusted total NHS payments; calculated by dividing total NHS payments, after deductions and premises payments, by the number of registered patients in each practice. A total of 17 independent variables relating to practice population and organisational factors were included in the model after checking for collinearity.
After adjustment for confounders and the logarithmic transformation of the dependent and main independent variables (due to extremely skewed [positive] distribution of payments), practice deprivation scores predicted very weakly longitudinal variations in total payments' slopes. For each 10% increase in the Index of Multiple Deprivation score, practice payments increased by only 0.06%. The large sample size probably explains why eight of the 17 confounders were significant predictors, but with very small coefficients. Most of the variability was at practice level (intraclass correlation = 0.81).
The existing NHS practice payment formula has demonstrated very little redistributive potential and is unlikely to substantially narrow funding gaps between practices with differing workloads caused by the impact of deprivation.
先前的研究发现,与人口健康需求相关的变量并不能很好地预测实践支付的横断面变化。
调查在调整潜在混杂因素后,剥夺评分是否可以预测每位患者向普通实践支付的总金额随时间增加的变化。
2013-2017 年的纵向多水平模型;6900 家诊所(84.4%的英国诊所)。
如果每位患者的总调整后支付额<£10 或>£500 或剥夺评分缺失,则排除诊所。主要观察指标为调整后的国民保健制度总支付额;通过将扣除和房产支付后的国民保健制度总支付额除以每个实践中的注册患者数量计算得出。在检查了共线性之后,模型中包含了与实践人群和组织因素相关的 17 个独立变量。
在调整混杂因素和因支付的对数转换(由于支付的分布呈极偏态[正])后,实践剥夺评分仅能微弱预测总支付斜率的纵向变化。指数的每增加 10%,实践支付仅增加 0.06%。大样本量可能解释了为什么 17 个混杂因素中有 8 个是显著的预测因素,但系数非常小。大部分变异性是在实践层面(组内相关系数=0.81)。
现有的国民保健制度实践支付公式显示出很小的再分配潜力,不太可能显著缩小因贫困影响而导致工作量不同的实践之间的资金差距。